CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Patrick Gannon, Chair Members Present: Eileen Normile, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Member Gannon called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.m. and General Manager Chapdelain [as Acting Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TOTHE 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 of the Pledge ofConduct General Manager Chapdelain [as Acting Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. PB Chair Gannon read a statement into the record regarding this evening's proceedings. Attorney Connolly presented the procedures for quasi-judicial public hearings. Discussion ensued regarding the recommended time limits for presentations. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those wishing to speak at this evenings meeting. Attorney Connolly called the following individuals, who had applied for affected person status: Kim McDaniel, Scott Ashby, Lydia and Pasquale Scotti, Felicia LaReau, Rita Sakal, Fred Cerf, Kevin Hennessy (representing Carl & Cindy Shoffstall), John Patterson (representing Lido Beach Resort), Charles Rightler, David Hamilton and Shelby Hamilton, Cheryl Riedlinger, David Riedlinger, and Adam Sailor. Attorney Connolly recommended the following not be given Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 38 affected person status as they were not present at the meeting: Lydia and Pasquale Scotti, Felicia LaReau, Fred Cerf, Charles Rightler, David Hamilton, Shelby Hamilton, and Adam Sailor. Discussion ensued. It was confirmed the following would be granted Affected Person Status: Kim McDaniel, Scott Ashby, Rita Anne Sakal, Kevin Hennessy representing the Shoffstalls, John Patterson representing Logan Acquisitions, Cheryl Riedlinger through her representative, and David Riedlinger. Attorney Connolly discussed the focus of the meeting stating it is a quasi-judicial public hearing regarding applications for Major Conditional Use and Site Plan approval; stated the Major Conditional Use is required for leasehold uses in the G-zone and is required to be accompanied by a Site Plan; stated the Planning Board is only making a recommendation to the City Commission, noting the City Commission has to approve a Site Plan in a G-zone; stated the City Commission has already acted in its proprietary capacity and awarded a lease; reiterated that the lease is not part of the public hearing, only the Major Conditional Use and Site Plan are; stated he had handed out copies of the applicable Standards of Review from the Zoning Code to the Planning Board members this evening; and stressed those Standards of Review were to be the focus of the conversation this evening. B. Quasi-ludicial Public Hearings 1. Lido Beach Redevelopment (400 Benjamin Franklin Drive): Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-11 and Major Conditional Use Application No. 18-CU-02 are a request for Site Plan and Major Conditional Use approval to operate a restaurant with an outdoor dining area that! has 200 seats and fora' "Tiki Bar" that] has 33 seats within the Lido Beach Pavilion area located in the Government (G) Zone District with a street address of 400 Benjamin Franklin Drive. Applicant also requests approval for additional site improvements that include the renovation of existing structures and facilities, the construction of new structures and facilities, the renovation of the existing pool area and inclusion of a new splash pad, the construction of two playgrounds and the addition of 21 new parking spaces and one loading zone. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Javier Suarez, Architect, appeared and stated he represented the developers, Gavin Meshad and Troy Syprett, who were present as well; stated the developers had completed the DRC process; stated the developer's intended to maintain the character of the existing Pavilion, maintain public access to the beach and public restroom facilities, enhance the existing uses, provide shade structures, provide additional storage, and enhance the pool area; stated all of the criteria for Site Plan and Major Conditional Use approval had been met; stated all building codes, including FEMA, will be met; noted two meetings with the community had been held, a preliminary meeting was held at the Pavilion and a mandatory Community Workshop was held; stated five areas of major concern have been addressed (traffic, parking, handicap accessibility, environmental issues and noise abatement); noted the applicants had agreed to make improvements to an existing bus stop adjacent to the development, are adding 20 parking spaces and that, combined with restriping of the parking lot by the City, approximately 50 new parking spaces will be added; discussed how the design Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page3 of 38 provided accessibility for physically impaired individuals; noted the proposed Tiki Bar was relocated from the original proposed area further from the dunes and protected vegetation; stated the deck was designed around a large sea grape tree; noted the lighting will be designed to protect sea turtles; discussed noise abatement strategies that had been incorporated into the design; discussed improvements to the pool area including the addition of shade structures and cabanas; stated the size of the proposed event lawn area had been significantly reduced, noting the developers have a contractual obligation in the lease to continue conducting a series of currently occurring community events; stated any events would have to go through a Special Event Permit process that addresses, among other things, hours of operation and noise levels; noted the applicants would not be using the event area; stated the benefits to City residents include maintaining the character of the existing Pavilion, maintaining public access to the beach and restroom facilities, and creation of a direct access point to the beach for the neighbors;noted the result would be much needed improvements to the facility, on- going proper maintenance, shaded dining facility, public picnic area, public playgrounds for children and adults, improved handicap accessible restrooms, improvements to the refuse pick-up areas, improvements to the pool area including resurfacing the deck, installing additional landscaping and adding a splash pool and cabanas; noted the fee for the use of the pool area is not changing and includes access to everything except the cabanas; and discussed the cabanas stating those would be rented and the fee would be market based. PB Member Morriss questioned how the FEMA 50% rule would be met. Mr. Suarez stated that is addressed as part of the building permit process; noted the areas around the pool and the horizontal improvements do not count towards the 50% rule; and stated the 50% rule does not apply to the Tiki Bar because it is open on four sides and there are no walls higher than 42". PB Member Morriss stated the applicants may have to raise the elevation of the existing buildings if the FEMA 50% rule can't be met. Discussion ensued regarding the practicality of raising the existing structures, the phasing of the project, the potential of having to floodproof the existing structures, meeting FEMA requirements for constructing below the flood elevation, and the need to improve the restrooms and replace the roof immediately. Mr. Suarez noted the concession would continue to operate while improvements are being made. PB Member Blumetti questioned how the façade would be reconstructed. Mr. Suarez stated impact resistant glass would be required for any glass that is replaced; noted the intent was to maintain the character of the facility by only doing the repairs that have to be done; and stated the roof is the only part of the structure they intend to change, and they have to still decide if the roof will be kept as is or if they will go back to the original design. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the applicants had agreed to the recommendations in the traffic study regarding signage, lighting, improvements to the bus drop-off/pick- up area, and the option of having the SCAT bus go into the driveway area to minimize traffic congestion. Mr. Suarez stated the applicants had agreed to those Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 38 recommendations, and noted SCAT had not responded regarding the bus drop- off/pick-up area improvements. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if it was customary for a 200-seat restaurant to have trash pick-up two times per week. Mr. Syprett stated the schedule varies based on location and time of year and noted the trash would likely be picked up four times per week during season. Mr. Suarez stated the applicants were required to submit a refuse collection plan that would be the minimum requirements, and additional pick-ups can be arranged as needed. PB Member Ohlrich questioned the methods the applicants would use to abate the sound from music being played, the hours music would be played, if there would be live music, and if special events would have live music. Mr. Suarez stated existing walls, a landscape buffer they are creating and the thatch palm roof of the Tiki Bar would work together to abate the noise. Mr. Syprett stated music would be played mostly in the afternoon or early evening; noted they would have to obtain a special event permit for special events; and stated music would not be played past 9:00 pm. Discussion ensued regarding the types of special events that would be held, the fact all special events would have to comply with the noise ordinance, sea turtle lighting requirements, etc., the capacity of the special event area, the lease requirement that certain City sponsored special events must be continued by the applicants, and that the City must approve special events, including the capacity. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the cabanas would be rented out for $100. Mr. Meshad stated the cabanas were included in the Neighborhood Ad Hoc Committee recommendations that were used to develop the ITN; stated the fees for renting the cabanas had not been established yet; and noted chairs and umbrellas were already being rented out. Discussion ensued regarding if the cabanas would be rented hourly or daily, the other shade structures that would be available for use under the fee for the use of the pool, and not allowing users to bring their own umbrellas into the pool area due to safety concerns. PB Member Ohlrich stated her concerns regarding handicap access to the beach via the main entrance, noting she feared she would not be able to get through all of the tables and chairs while pushing a wheelchair and would have to turn around and leave. Discussion ensued regarding the number of additional tables and chairs being added and the final seating layout. PB Vice Chair Normile questioned the size of the kitchen, how many people could be served, the phasing, and how much the City was contributing to the improvements. Mr. Syprett stated the kitchen is approximately 1,800 square feet, the number of people that could be served depends on the type of event, and noted it would be approximately 250-300 people. Mr. Meshad stated the City is not contributing any funds towards the improvements. PB Vice Chair Normile questioned if the fence around the main pool area went across sO that toddlers in the splash pad could not enter the deep pool area, if children's parties or other events that would bring in groups of people would be held in the pool area, if there were other places where food service would be expanded to, referring specifically to the cabanas; noted the entire pool area could have food service; and questioned if drinks would be served in the pool area, if the shade areas around the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 38 splash pad were the only shade areas that come with the admission price, and if the cabanas were a separate fee. Mr. Suarez stated there would not be a fence between the splash pad and pool, noting toddlers are accompanied by family; stated it was a good point; and stated the applicants would evaluate putting a fence in. Mr. Syprett stated the applicants wished to expand food service to the pool area if the necessary permits can be obtained. Mr. Suarez noted the area by the pool where parties could be held is 15' X 15' and would only hold about twenty people. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the cabanas on the deck, the location of shade areas, efforts the applicants have made to provide some relief from the large paved areas, and the improvements in the overall condition around the pool. PB Vice Chair Normile questioned if events would be held at the same time the restaurant is open to the public and, if SO, where the food would be served. Mr. Syprett noted the limited space that is available for events and stated if the applicants held an event they would use a portion of the covered area and some space around the Tiki Bar; and stated no events would be held if the area is full. PB Vice Chair Normile questioned if the applicants anticipated putting tables in the public area. Mr. Syprett stated the area was: not big enough and noted there are trees in that area, and no cover. PB Vice Chair Normile questioned how many vehicles would service the restaurant per day. Mr. Syprett stated approximately 8 per day. PB Chair Gannon questioned the location of the picnic tables being added, if those picnic tables would be available for public use, and if the applicants had agreed to maintain the picnic tables on the west side of the property outside of the leasehold area. Mr. Suarez stated the additional picnic tables were added to the east side to be near the children's playground. Mr. Syprett stated the applicants would continue to maintain the picnic tables on the west side if the County agrees to that, and noted since those picnic tables are outside of the leasehold those would not be available for food service. PB Member Ohlrich stated she only saw three picnic tables, which were falling apart, and stated three was not enough for a picnic area. Mr. Syprett stated there are actually six or seven picnic tables. PB Chair Gannon questioned if the existing tables in the dining portion of the leasehold area would remain or be replaced. Mr.Syprett stated those would be replaced. PB Chair Gannon questioned what type of tables would be used for replacement, and if the replacement tables would be moveable. Mr.Syprett stated the specific type of table had not yet been determined but they would be removable. PB Chair Gannon questioned what would happen in the event of a hurricane. Mr. Syprett stated the tables would be moved off of the property. PB Chair Gannon questioned what the fee for use of the pool area would be and if a senior discount would be available. Mr. Syprett stated the fees had not yet been determined, and stated a senior discount, children under a certain age free, and annual passes were likely to be offered. PB Chair Gannon questioned what areas would be closed to the public during construction. Mr. Syprett stated the lease requires providing portable bathrooms while the restrooms are being renovated, and a food truck or some other type of food and beverage service would be available while the concession area was being improved. PB Chair Gannon asked about the pool area. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 38 Mr. Suarez stated that area would take a few months to complete and will have to be shut down temporarily while the construction is going on. PB Chair Gannon noted there were two options for the pool area; questioned if the existing pool would stay the same with the splash pad added to the east, if parents could sit under the shade structure for no additional fee, how the splash pad would be separated from the deep pool sO children would not be splashing around and impacting the serious swimmers, and the reason for the optional second pool. Mr. Meshad stated after an assessment of the work that had to be done was completed, it was determined that for not too much more money an area encompassing a lap pool and a kid friendly pool all in one could be constructed; noted there was not much community support for that option sO the applicants will probably stay with the original plan of resurfacing the exiting pool area; and stated other options were looked at because the pool is very old and doesn't meet today's standards for functionality. PB Chair Gannon stated concerns had been raised regarding the hours of operation, noting one suggestion was to close at dusk, and the applicants were proposing closing at 10:30 pm. Mr. Syprett stated for four months out of the year dusk occurs at 5:30 - 6:00 pm, which is before dinner hour; noted in the summer months dusk occurs as late as 9:00 pm; and stated that as part of the negotiations with the City a fixed closing time in the evening was worked out to accommodate being able to serve people in both ranges. PB Member Morriss questioned if the kitchen had fryers and grills and how pollution control units would be dealt with. The applicants stated the existing grease traps would be replaced as they are old and antiquated; stated the existing hood systems were not functional and will be replaced with hood systems using the newest technology which includes smell abatement; and noted City Code requirements would be met. Discussion ensued regarding tanks for frying grease and how the grease is recycled, and new grease is pumped in. PB Member Blumetti requested the applicants speak about the canopy over the dining area, questioning if the canopy relied on the building structure for support. Mr. Suarez stated the canopy was completely independent. PB Member Morriss questioned what the business name would be. Mr. Syprett stated the applicants were considering Castaways at Lido Beach, which harkens back to the days of the Lido Casino. PB Vice Chair Normile questioned what the price point of the restaurant would be, and if people would come from the beach at night and sit there in their bathing suits, or if they would be dressed in clothes, hopefully. Mr. Meshad stated the applicants were not creating a destination restaurant, their customer base is people that would be coming to the beach already, they were catering to the beach crowd just like O'Leary's; and stated the traffic analysis did not consider internal capture. Mr. Syprett stated the price points have not been determined yet and will be market driven. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 38 PB Member Ohlrich questioned if alcohol would be served. Mr. Syprett stated the applicants were pursuing a 4COPSFS license that would allow them to sell beer, wine and liquor; noted a 4COPSFS license requires that at least 51 % of revenues be from the sale of food, and the remaining 49% can be from alcohol; and noted beer and wine is already sold there. Staff Presentation: Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, and Dan Greenberg, Planner, appeared and introduced themselves for the record. Planner Greenberg stated staff appreciated the community input, the turnout for the meeting, and the applicant's thorough explanation of the project; stated a few of the Planning Board members had requested a brief history of the project; stated an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) was issued in 2014, the Evaluation Committee recommended moving forward with negotiations with the applicants that are before the Planning Board tonight, and a lease agreement between the City and the applicants was signed on January 5, 2018; stated a Community Workshop was held on March 30, 2018; stated the applicants were requesting Site Plan and Major Conditional Use approval for a restaurant and accessory bar; and discussed the standards of review. PB Chair Gannon stated reference had been made to a plan from a citizens group prior to the creation of the ITN, and questioned if that was correct. General Manager Schneider stated there was a citizens committee of Lido Beach residents in the Neighborhood Association that got together and requested the City explore options to makei improvements to the Pavilion; and stated there was considerable outreach by that group to the Public Works Department, who regulated parks at that time in conjunction with Sarasota County Government. Planner Greenberg summarized the project stating the proposal includes interior renovations, including expansion of the kitchen area and renovation of the restrooms, addition of numerous structures, revitalization and expansion of the outdoor dining area, reroofing the main Pavilion, addition of an accessory Tiki Bar and a surrounding deck, addition of rental cabanas, a lifeguard office, a splash pad, two playgrounds, a dedicated screened refuse collection area, interior parking lot and site perimeter landscaping, 21 parking spaces, and enhancements to the walkways; stated the standards for the RMF-3zone district apply; stated the applicants are proposing to keep the existing footprint of the main Pavilion, increasing the number of outdoor seats for use by the restaurant patrons for the outdoor dining area and accessory Tiki Bar from 164 to 233; stated picnic areas and picnic tables for use by the public will surround the area; stated 10 additional parking spaces were required by the Zoning Code for the kitchen expansion; stated the applicant is proposing 21 new parking spaces in addition to keeping the existing three ADA parking spaces; stated the front entrance area would be revitalized to widen the sidewalk, and the pool entrance has been shifted to the front away from the Tiki Bar; stated there are 66 existing trees on-site, 24 of which would be relocated, 7 would be removed, 35 would remain, and 14 new trees would be planted; stated the building coverage, proposed setbacks, and proposed heights all meet the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 38 development standards for RMF-3 zone district; and stated staff has found the petitions to be in compliance with all standards for review. Planner Greenberg noted the applicants have modified their proposal numerous times in an attempt to alleviate some concerns raised by the community and some DRC members; and stated staff recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Planner Greenberg discussed input that has been provided by the community and the Planning Board members; stated regardless of the outcome of this hearing, the project will go to the City Commission for a final vote; noted if the City Commission approves the project the applicants will still have to submit detailed construction plans; stated Florida Building Code and FEMA requirements will have to be met and other permits would be required; and stated staff was available to answer any questions. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if ex-parte communications should be revealed, stating she had several. PB Chair Gannon requested the PB members disclose any ex-parte communications. PB Member Ohlrich stated she had gone on a site visit with General Manager Schneider and Planner Greenberg; and had spoke with Vice Mayor Ahearn- Koch, Carl Shoffstall and Cathy Antunes. PB Member Blumetti stated he spoke with staff; did a site visit on his own; and spoke with Kelly Fearon of Kimley-Horn, and Rich Wilson, Wilson Structural. PB Member Morriss stated he spoke with staff and attended the CCNA meeting where the issue was discussed, noting he did not participate. PB Vice Chair Normile stated she spoke with Assistant City Engineer Dan Ohrenstein; did a site visit with General Manager Schneider and Planner Greenberg; spoke with Cathy Antunes; and attended the CCNA meeting as well. PB Chair Gannon stated he had attended the CCNA meeting where the issue was discussed, noting he did not participate; stated he attended the July Board Meeting of the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Association (DSCA) where Cathy Antunes was the speaker, noting he left during that presentation; stated he attended the August Board meeting of the DSCA where Mayor Alpert and General Manager Schneider were the speakers, and he left during that presentation as well; stated he spoke with Carl Shoffstall; and stated he did a site visit with General Manager Schneider and Planner Greenberg. PBI Member Ohlrich stated there were several differences in square footage calculations, she understood changes occur over time, and questioned if the changes made a difference in the calculations that were required for the traffic analysis and other traffic calculations. Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer, and Christopher Hatton, Kimley-Horn, appeared. Mr. Ohrenstein stated there were a number of submittals from the applicant and as a result the figures changed over time; stated the report contained the final numbers, which is 233 seats for the restaurant; and noted there was a decrease in the total amount of office space. PB Member Ohlrich stated her question was if the changes in the square footage calculations have any impact on the calculations for the traffic Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 38 impact study; and asked Mr. Ohrenstein understood her question. Discussion ensued regarding how traffic impacts are calculated for outdoor restaurants; and the use of square footage, number of seats, or number of employees in calculating traffic impacts. PB Member Blumetti noted the report indicated the project put the level of service at about one fourth of the acceptable level, and questioned what type of project it would take to make the level of service for the area unacceptable. Discussion ensued regarding the current level of service of the area; the types of uses that would maintain an acceptable level of service; capturing pass-by traffic; and calculating net new traffic. PB Member Blumetti questioned if there is a limitation on the number of permits in the City for regular permits and/or those that fall under the FEMA 50% rule. General Manager Schneider stated phasing of a project is not acceptable; noted in this case the roof needed to be replaced right away in order to avoid further damage, SO that permit could be issued and supported once an application with the proper documentation is submitted; stated the applicants could haveas second permit for the interior renovations; stated typically more than one permit at a time is not allowed even for home construction; and stated one can submit permits one after another, however you can only have one permit at any one time. PB Member Morriss questioned if there were gaps in information that caused the outpouring from the public given there were community meetings, noting he thought staff had done a great job. General Manager Schneider stated the citizens would speak to that, and stated the initial impetus for the improvements was generated from the Neighborhood Association and the citizens of Lido Key. PB Member Morriss questioned if the Neighborhood Association was involved in the creation of the ITN. General Manager Schneider confirmed the Neighborhood Association was involved; stated her comments were based on having attended meetings and going to peoples homes on the Island; noted there was a Committee of residents formed that actually came to the City Commission and requested the City engage in a process for the ITN; stated the City Commission gave staff permission to pursue the ITN, staff did not pursue it on their own; and stated a citizen from the Neighborhood Association sat on the Committee that participated in what went into the ITN, and participated in the selection of the applicant that is before the Planning Board this evening. PB Vice Chair Normile stated she had questions regarding the traffic study, she wished to direct her questions to Mr. Hatton, and stated the study that was performed was a concurrency study which is not the same as a traffic study. Discussion ensued regarding the parameters and methodology for traffic studies. PB Vice Chair Normile stated a concurrency study is not a reflection of reality, and questioned why an entry and exit count from the site was not done in June when the intersection counts were done. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated intersection counts were done at Garfield, Coolidge and Grant Streets, on the opposite side of the street. Mr. Hatton stated the parking facilities on the right are available for parking non-related to this development and wouldn't provide an accurate assessment. PB Vice Chair Normile stated the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 38 assessment was not accurate now and if it were to be done during season it would be the same inaccurate count; and stated she was trying to find out what the normal traffic count is without the change in development. Mr. Hatton stated what would be inaccurate is to count traffic not associated with the proposed development, noting it isn't possible to ask every vehicle where they were planning to go. Discussion ensued regarding how traffic counts are performed, the seasonal factor that is used, and the number of trip credits the proposed development received. PB Vice Chair Normile stated her concerns were the service vehicles, square footage of the picnic tables, facilities for the children, maximum capacity for special events, and employee parking was not counted; and stated the study does not provide a realistic picture of what is happening now, or will happen when the facility opens. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the traffic study that is in the backup materials has the final initial review; stated in that review it notes factoring in additional information from the applicant does not give as much credit as would normally be given for the previous use because it closes early; and stated the net increase in trips is 70, SO those 70 trips are what was used for the traffic study. Mr. Hatton stated the ITE Manual includes employees and service vehicles, among other things, for a traditional restaurant use. PB Vice Chair Normile stated she had a concern regarding the hour during peak hours the traffic study was based upon, and the traffic study not taking into consideration the fact the prior facility closes at 5 and the new one closes at 10:30; this higher level of traffic is sustained for an extra 5 12 hours. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the methodology of the traffic study in the Zoning Code is focused more on the point of greatest constraint on the transportation network, which is peak hour; noted of course there would be additional traffic later in day, however, it has been judged that that is not the most critical point of the day; and stated the road network in those areas that will be most appropriate for what additional improvements may be incumbent upon the applicant for mitigation is what is looked at. PB Chair Gannon stated he understood that traffic studies focus on formulas, however one of the biggest fears that has been expressed is the impact on people that do not live on Lido Key that have to Cross the Ringling Bridge to get to and from the Island; and requested Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discuss the transportation planning initiatives that might help to mitigate the impacts. General Manager Schneider stated staff would defer to Ryan Chapdelain to address that. Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department, appeared and stated there had been a request at the last Planning Board meeting that staff identify other transportation planning initiatives in and around the subject area that might help relieve congestion; presented a bullet- point list of those items; stated a number of the items are taken from the Barrier Island Traffic Study FDOT is performing to look at St. Armands as well as Longboat Key up to the Bradenton Beach area; and questioned if the Planning Board wished to discuss each item. PB Chair Gannon requested General Manager Chapdelain discuss those items he thought would be most applicable to traffic coming off the Island, and if in peak season they could still come to the beach even if the parking lot was full. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 38 General Manager Chapdelain stated there: is a new parking garage going in and metered parking is being installed at St. Armands, both of which should reduce congestion going through St. Armands and into Lido Key; the feasibility of a Water Taxi is being studied; bike sharing, including St. Armands and Lido Key, is being explored; SCAT is looking at increasing the frequency on St. Armands; additional bike parking is being explored; additional sidewalks on Ben Franklin Drive and South Polk Drive to improve connectivity for the residents is being considered; and discussions regarding a park and ride option have taken place. General Manager Chapdelain noted those items are from the Barrier Island Traffic Study that includes the area from the Van Wezel and City parking garages out to the barrier islands, and stated a beach-based shuttle along Lido Key is also being considered. PB Member Morriss questioned if there had been any noise complaints related to the current user. General Manager Schneider stated there had not been any. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A TEN-MINUTE BREAK Affected Persons: Mr. John Patterson appeared, stated he is a partner with the Law Firm of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, and is representing Logan Acquisitions Corporation, the owner of the Lido Beach Resort, a family-oriented hotel immediately to the south of this property. Mr. Patterson stated the resort owner, as well as Mark Walsh, one of the principals in the ownership, was in attendance along with his son. Mr. Patterson stated the resort ownership opposed the applications stating the proposal was contrary to the lease; is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; is contrary to provisions of the Code; is contrary to the criteria in the Code for approval of both the Major Conditional Use and Site Plan applications; and will have a long-standing negative impact on the City and its citizens for decades to come. Mr. Patterson provided a handout stating there are very detailed, thought-through reasons for why the applications should be a recommendation of denial; discussed the reasons stating the applications are based on the lease and the lease has a provision that the initial improvements should be constructed in strict accordance with Exhibits B and C, and with the site plan if approved by the City Commission; stated a number of changes had been made to the exhibits; stated the Tiki Bar has been relocated and is now in one of the main pedestrian paths; stated there are two paths, one to the north and one that goes right past the bar; stated the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate the project meets all code requirements, including FEMA; stated if the development is approved it is locked in for thirty year; introduced Ken Metcalf, head of Planning for the statewide firm of Stearns and Weaver; and stated Mr. Metcalf has a Master's degree in Urban and Reginal Planning and was a DCA Administrator in areas of critical concern for a number of years. Mr. Metcalf stated he is a Director at Stearns Weaver; previewed the topics he intended to cover; stated he has reviewed the Major Conditional Use and Site Plan applications and has found those are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for a number of Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 38 reasons, including the development is not a permitted use; is incompatible with the surrounding uses; does not comply with the Major Conditional Use or Site Plan review criteria; compliance with parking and FEMA requirements have not been demonstrated; and the proposal does not comply with sea turtle protection requirements. Mr. Metcalf discussed the applicable Florida Statutes stating all development orders and activity must comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and if there are any conflicts between the Code and the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan controls; discussed the Open Space-Recreation-Conservation land use category that applies to all parks stating it is not a commercial land use category and the development is not supportive of park activities; stated the Comprehensive Plan specifically states Marina Jack is the only site that is given an exception; discussed existing and primary uses stating parks, publicly owned sandy beaches and recreation are the three main land uses you would expect in a park category; stated the Comprehensive Plan allows for certain secondary uses such as food, beverage and entertainment; stated the beverage allowance does not authorize a bar; noted the existing beer and wine service is a non-conforming use that was authorized prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; stated the proposal expands the non-conforming use which is not allowed; reiterated the beer/wine aspect of the small scale ancillary concession stand is non-conforming: stated secondary uses shall not predominate the character of the land use classification; stated the entire development, with the exception of the existing pool and proposed splash pad, is the secondary use; and stated the proposal is completely inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Metcalf discussed the relationship between a restaurant/bar use and a public park, stating a the proposed use is not compatible with neighboring uses; stated greatest care should be exercised when determining the effect of a proposed development; stated the burden of proof is on the applicants; stated the function of a park has to be looked at in terms of compatibility; discussed the characteristics of a beach bar stating it's a party place, it's for drinking, and holding wet t-shirt contests; noted beachgoers will have to walk through the bar area to use the restrooms; stated the late hours oft the development versus a park closing at sunset requires bright lights that will impact sea turtles; stated loud amplified music will replace the existing quiet atmosphere; stated there will be late hour traffic with the bar versus no night traffic for the park; stated the proposal is a commercial use versus a park and recreation use; stated other concerns include operating hours, noise, late night drinking, traffic and safety; questioned if the City would be providing more police coverage. for the area; discussed the Government zone district stating bars, restaurants or any other commercial uses are not allowed, however a leasehold use is allowed; stated leasehold uses have to comply with the Government zone district requirements that the use be governmental or recreational; discussed the Major Conditional Use standards stating the development does not comply; stated he thought there is a serious safety issue in terms of traffic; reiterated compliance with parking, lighting, sea turtle and FEMA requirements have not been demonstrated; stated the Code requires all land uses be brought up to current regulations which has not been done; stated outdoor restaurants can't play amplified music in a commercial area and questioned why it would be allowed in a park; noted stricter hours of Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 38 operation could be imposed; discussed FEMA requirements including flood zones, floodproofing, and what constitutes substantial improvements; stated if the FEMA regulations are violated the entire community would suffer increased insurance rates; stated adequate information had not been provided that would allow the Planning Board to properly review the proposal; discussed the relationship between the proposed development and the lease stating those were very different; and urged the Planning Board to deny the applications. Mr. Kevin Hennessy appeared and stated he is with the Law Firm of Lewis, Longman & Walker and is representing Carl and Cindy Shoffstall who reside at 129 Tyler Drive; stated Mr. Shoffstall was one of the individuals that approached the City regarding improving the park and concession areas; stated the residents didn'twant a destination restaurant and any inference or implications that the proposal that is in front of the Planning Board tonight came from a citizens group is wholly mistaken; stated the Shoffstall's unit faces towards the park and they object to the conversion of their public park into a private beach bar and restaurant; stated Mr. Shoffstall is the President of his Condominium Association and the Lido Key Residents Association and all members of both Associations overwhelmingly oppose the development; stated Mr. Shoffstall has been involved in the City's Park, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board, spoke to Jerry Fogle, the City's Parks Director, and learned if the development is approved the Pavilion will be removed from the City's park system; stated the Shoffstalls oppose the change of the park by turning iti into a beach bar with all the noise, lighting, trash, traffic, odors, drinking, and behavior that accompanies such a use; produced a photograph taken from Google Earth that shows in 2013, 2014 and 2018 every parking spot in the parking lot and along the street have been taken up by the current beachgoers and questioned where all the people would park; discussed the applicant's advertising budget; stated special event permits that would be required would not apply to special events held in the Tiki Bar or where the pool area is closed off for special events; stated 200 - 300 hundred people will be coming to the location just for the destination restaurant, not for the beach; stated the Shoffstalls, through the Lido Key Residents Association have been big supporters of the City's efforts to renourish Lido Beach; stated public access to the beach has to be maintained, part of that is parking, and there is not adequate parking being provided; stated the main access to the beach is through the Tiki Bar; stated beachgoers will have to stumble through the landscaping to get to the beach which will damage the beach dune system; stated the objections to the development is based on not maintaining the current character of a neighborhood or public park, but rather making a conscious decision to commercialize the beach for private purposes; stated after sunset people will be consuming appetizers while consuming large amounts of alcohol; stated the City's Comprehensive Plan prohibits the expenditure of public funds in a coastal high-hazard area which the City is doing by providing credits for some of the improvements; stated if a storm hits, FEMA will not reimburse the City for the damages; stated the Planning Board was being asked to trust the applicants will get all the proper FEMA and DEP permits; stated the plans have not even been finalized; stated the Comprehensive Plan prohibits this application as an incompatible use to the residential neighborhoods Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 38 nearby, including the Shoffstalls; noted the area residents enjoy the park on a daily basis, walking through it, walking their dogs, enjoying the quiet; stated if this development is approved it will be party central instead; and stated the development is non-conforming to the character of the neighborhood, is non-conforming to the character of the Pavilion and is a substantial change that is inconsistent with the Code; and stated the development should be prohibited because the bar will be the predominate use of the City-owned property and will change a park to a commercial setting. PB Member Morriss requested Counsel weigh in, stating the Planning Board is being asked to consider the testimony under competent, substantial evidence. Attorney Connolly stated while the Planning Board members do not have to agree. with the testimony, the comments are factors and opinions that have been put forth by somebody that has provided his background for expertise to be able to offer an opinion; noted that as he states at every meeting, affected persons are parties and they have the ability to present expert testimony, which they have done; and stated they have presented their facts, and it is competent, substantial evidence in the record that can be considered. PB Member Morriss stated the argument cuts the whole thing off at the knees because they were talking about the project not even being admissible. Attorney Connolly stated the whole purpose of al hearing is the Planning Board hears lots of facts and opinions that the Planning Board members, as thej judge, then have to weigh. Ms. Kim McDaniel appeared, stated she is a Lido Key resident and Board Member of the Lido Key Residents Association; stated tonight she was the designated representative speaking on behalf of the Lido Key Residents Association; stated the Lido Key Residents Association consists of 888 residents; stated a recent survey revealed 88% of the residents do not support the proposal; noted that some of the Planning Board members and staff have stated that this project is what the Lido Key Residents Association requested, and it is not; stated the presentation that was done at the August 15, 2011 City Commission meeting was a result of the City's proposal to close the pool six months of the year due to $100,000 a year loss; stated the Lido Key Residents Association presented options to generate revenue in order to keep the pool open and maximize the key aspects of the City park; stated the Lido Key Residents Association supports updates, upgrades and enhancements to the Pavilion that are consistent with the City of Sarasota's Strategic Plan and appropriate zoning; stated there are two key items from the City's Strategic Plan, Goal 2 "Support residents desire for quality neighborhoods that are safe, attractive, and unique", and Goal 5, Parks and Recreation. Preserve and expand public access to the waterfront, create recreational opportunities that are inclusive for all citizens, create pocket parks in residential and urban neighborhoods where opportunities exist for safe and attractive public spaces that will be harmonious with the immediate environments"; stated residents do not support the development due to concerns regarding a 233-seat restaurant with music and alcohol every day and night until 10:30 pm in the middle of a residential neighborhood; stated that is not consistent with beautifying the neighborhood and supporting a family-triendly park atmosphere; stated a proposal where residents will Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 38 be subjected to live music and DJs every night until 10:30 pm is not supported or welcomed; stated the residents have the right of quiet enjoyment in their homes; stated traffic and safety were concerns noting the current traffic on Lido Key during season, busy weekends, holidays and sunset is already challenging for residents; stated the development will dramatically increase traffic and strain parking in the area; stated the proposed payroll indicates a lot of employees or big payments to investors, and if its employees they will take up spaces for public beach parking; stated bar patrons will drive down the residential streets affecting safety; stated the Lido Beach Pavilion is designated as Open PasekerataComeratine stated the proposed food, beverage and entertainment by the applicant changes the Lido Beach Pavilion from a recreational facility to a destination bar/restaurant with food, beverage and entertainment becoming the primary service; stated that doesn't fit with Sarasota's Future Land Use Goal of protecting the natural environment; discussed sea turtles stating residents minimize lighting on the beach and in their homes during turtle season and if the restaurant is open until 10:30 pm it would violate the turtle lighting ordinance; questioned if it was true the Lido Beach Pavilion would no longer be a City park; stated charging $100 per day for cabanas is not inclusive to the general public; stated she moved to Lido Key because of the neighborhood and access to the public beach and water; stated the proposal clearly failed to meet the City ofSarasota's Strategic Plan and zoning requirements and will have a negative impact on the neighborhood, public access to the beach and the park; and stated on behalf of the Lido Key Residents Association and the 888 resident members, she implored the Planning Board not to approve the proposed development. Mr. Scott Ashby appeared and stated he livesjust down the street, south of the Pavilion; stated he was against privatizing the Lido Beach Pavilion; noted his wife participated on the Citizens Committee that the residents formed; stated the City participated in that process and a wonderful plan was put together that was tabled; stated the applicants are a successful business group, are good guys that grew up in Sarasota, and proposed to rehab the Pavilion which is sorely needed; stated the City inherited the parks from the County which put a tremendous amount of pressure on the City's finances; stated the applicants have stressed that their approach is to serve beachgoers; stated the Lido Beach Pavilion is supposed to supplement and add to the beach experience; questioned if the Lido Beach Pavilion was also meant to be an eating and drinking establishment for non-beachgoers and/or a facility for a downtown hotel; stated he felt strongly that the use is inappropriate for the public beach; discussed the applicants marketing stating they were trying to promote it, directing people to come to the restaurant; stated a Tiki Bar that is open until 10:00 pm does not serve beachgoers; stated the use in not appropriate; stated he goes down to the Pavilion, has a beer and sits on the deck overlooking the beach and questioned if the applicants would allow that; noted the current activity is typical Pavilion activity with a wet floor, sand, and kids coming through to use the restroom dragging their towels on the floor; questioned how that type of activity could occur at a destination restaurant thatisi intent on building a dinner and drink clientele or a beach facility for a downtown hotel; stated the applicants have insisted there will still be full access however it will be more like Marina Jack or Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 38 O'Leary's; noted the restrooms at the Pavilion are the only restrooms on the beach; stated the City is big on public/ private collaborations SO the scenario of it becoming more like Marina Jack is possible; questioned what family with two or three is going to pay $100 to sit in the Pavilion stating the tenant has the right to control everything; stated these issues are: not consistent with an appropriate use of the Lido Beach Pavilion and do not serve its main purpose; stated the applicants will be investing $3 million to upgrade the Pavilion and in order to turn a profit it will have to be a giant restaurant operation rather than a casual daytime only snack bar; stated he served as a bird steward for the Audubon Society and educated the beachgoers about the black skimmers that were nested on Lido just north of the Holiday Inn and as a result he interacted with a number of beachgoers that were just regular folks, local and from all over the world, many with families, that were drawn to the laid back ambience and ease of access to Lido Beach; stated these are the folks that should be the primary focus; stated a robust destination restaurant will only detract from the City's capabilities to provide beach benefits to everyone; and requested the Planning Board not allow the City to privatize the Lido Beach Pavilion. Ms. Rita Sakal appeared and stated she has only lived here for two weeks however does have an opinion; stated she wholeheartedly agreed with Mr. Metcalf's S testimony; stated she recommended the Planning Board deny the proposal due to incompatibility with the residential neighborhood; stated she purchased on Lido Key specifically because of the laid-back feel, safe environment, it is family friendly, and has a designated natural conservation area, and is not a huge spring break party town; stated the last thing she wants is a party in her back yard with all the noise from the loud, rowdy crowds day and night; stated she walks her dog past the Pavilion twice a day and crosses Ben Franklin Drive four times a day and does not want to walk past a spring break beach bar; stated her safety, especially at night, will be at a increased risk; questioned if the City would be providing increased police presence and make adequate provisions for pedestrian safety; and stated she would have never bought a home on Lido if she know a huge outdoor restaurant and Tiki Bar was going to be build SO close to her home. Mr. Bruce Whittinghill appeared as spokesperson for Ms. Cheryl Riedlinger; distributed copies of a written report prepared by Ms. Riedlinger; stated he has been a part of Lido Key for forty years and raised his kids on the beach for years; stated he had planned to just sit in the audience and listen however was asked to speak for Ms. Riedlinger; stated Ms. Riedlinger is an affected party that lives at 333 Ben Franklin Drive and has appointed him as her agent for tonight's public hearing; stated under Florida law the applicants have the burden of proving they meet all requirements prior to receiving Major Conditional Use approval; stated based on the submitted plans that burden has not been met and the development must be denied because it does not provide a complete financial statement of costs or specific detailed plans in accordance with the Zoning Code and the Sarasota City Plan 2030, which requires compatible land uses and protection of the natural environment; stated Lido Beach is the City's only public beach, and the proposed construction of three to four million dollars in improvements in the form of a large restaurant to replace a small limited hour operation concession will have significant adverse impacts on the neighborhood; stated the proposed 200-seat Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 38 restaurant, Tiki Bar, cabanas and liquor license is too intense for a small residential neighborhood with limited parking and egress options; stated the plans submitted indicate the proposal increases the hours of operation until 10:30 pm and almost quadruples the kitchen size is detrimental; stated the proposal creates issues related to lighting, electricity, sewer usage, water, paper and plastic products, fumes, noise and trash removal trucks 24/7;noted the staff: report indicates the partners have stated there is an optional possible future expansion for the adjacent area to renovate a lifeguard station; stated the plans refer to a phase two being envisioned but no details are provided; stated the applicants have failed to meet their burden and cannot be approved under the Statute; stated as a taxpayer and homeowner directly across the street from the site and longtime resident of Sarasota the development is not in the best interest of the public; and stated the applicants intend to change the character from a free, accessible to all residents and visitors public beach concession to a 233-seat plus Tiki Bar/Restaurant with the accompanying effects resulting from a liquor license, noise, trash removal trucks 24/7, entertainment, cable TV and music until 10:30 pm; and stated the traffic and environmental concerns, such as lighting that is detrimental to wildlife, only benefits the developers. Mr. David Riedlinger appeared and distributed a FEMA fact sheet he had prepared as well as pertinent sections of a Desk Reference Manual for FEMA substantial improvements, substantial damage; stated he lives at 333 Ben Franklin Drive and has been a commercial contractor for most of his adult working life; stated in May of 2015 the Mayor and Commissioners signed Ordinance 15-502 regarding floodplain management which is really important because it specifically addresses the substantial improvement rule, which addresses the 50% rule, which states if you improve your property greater that 50% of the previous tax year value you must bring the property into compliance with the code; stated the costs that are included in calculating the 50% are not limited to structural improvements; read a list of other items that are to be included noting built-in appliances are included and that is important; stated there are some exclusions; stated the applicants have said there were going to do the improvements in phases and the cost to fully restore the site is required to be provided; noted the estimated cost of $3.2 million was] provided by the Lido Beach Redevelopment Partnership and was quoted by Parks Department Director Jerry Fogle, and City Manager Tom Barwin has stated the cost would be between three and four million dollars; stated the applicants said the City was not paying for anything however Mr. Barwin specifically stated he had $1.25 million in reserves that the City would be investing in the project, if necessary, to do certain improvements such as the roof; stated all of the costs must be pooled together; stated general estimates like that are not normal for commercial projects; stated he checked the tax valuation of the property and based upon the 50% rule the total building value in 2018 is $437,300 which would allow for $218,650 in improvements; stated the burden of proof of compliance is incumbent upon the applicant; stated in reviewing the blueprints it was obvious the 50% rule could not be met; stated Mr. Fogle said at the November 20th meeting that the structure would not be elevated and would be maintained to be in compliance with FEMA which was incorrect; stated the plans did not include the appropriate level of detail and were just Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 38 an artful attempt to dodge the requirements of the floodplain ordinance; stated discounted insurance rates are only one benefit of complying with FEMA requirements; stated other benefits include improvements to public safety, reduction of damage to property and public infrastructure, avoidance of economic disruption and losses, reduction of human suffering, and protection of the environment; discussed the standards of review stating it states in point number five whether generally, the public health, safety and welfare will be preserved, and any reasonable conditions necessary for such preservation have not been made; and stated he respectfully submits the Lido Beach Redevelopment Partnership does not meet the requirements due to non- compliance with Ordinance 15-502 and the applications should be denied. Citizen Input: PB Chair Gannon stated there were thirty plus people signed up to speak at three minutes maximum each; stated he would call five people down at a time; and stated if somebody has already stated something the speaker agrees with they could simply say they agree, or add a brief statement to the comments; and requested the comments be as brief as possible. Attorney Connolly stated the court reporter that was present has requested people spell their name before they speak. Ms. Diane Barth appeared and stated credible legal reasons have been given by highly qualified people to deny the applications. Ms. Kathy Hart appeared and questioned how the buffer zone was set; stated she did research and other beach restaurants have enormous buffer zones, citing Sharkey's in Venice as an example; questioned where beachgoers would park; questioned how the infrastructure would be upgraded to handle the increase in intensity of the use noting the pipes are old; stated she is a real estate agent and when people looking east of I-75 want to know how fast they can get to the beach, she shows them Lido Beach, Siesta Beach and Anna Maria Island Beach, and stated Lido is the favorite. Ms. Jeanette Monaco appeared and stated she is a longtime resident; stated people from all walks of life come to the beach and use the Pavilion and concession stand, watch the birds, and play a tambourine on Sunday during the free concerts; stated the delivery trucks, odor from the garbage, and late-night hours of operation, in addition to the noise, dust, fumes, smoke, glare from lights, late-night operations, odors, truck and other delivery trips, the amount, location, and nature of any outside displays, storage, or activities, potential for increased litter, and privacy and safety issues outlined in the standards for review that would be caused by the development will create adverse impacts on the livability and usability of nearby land; stated the overall appearance and function of the area would be significantly lessened by the increase of a non-residential use in a residential area; expressed her concerns regarding the impact on traffic of people drinking then leaving the parking lot; stated the grassy area and trees should not be lost to a Tiki Bar; noted the Zoning Code says the natural features and characteristics of the land need tol be preserved; and stated people did not want to spend al lot of money to use the pool or cabanas, noting those can be found at the Ritz Carlton. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 38 Mr. Arnold Binderman appeared and stated he has been a resident of Lido Key on Ben Franklin Drive for 13 years; stated he walks every night for an hour and can hear the noise from the Tiki Bar at the Ritz Carlton; stated a thatched hut roof and small wall will not dampen sound; stated the Ritz Carlton is ten times the height of the wall being proposed for the development and it doesn't damped the sound; stated sound carries over large bodies of water and therefore it is guaranteed that every person on Lido Key will hear the noise; stated there is a big safety issue due to the lack of sidewalks and the fact a lot of people that live on the Key are retirees that walk in the street, day and night; stated there will be people that have been drinking that will be whipping around streets that don't have sidewalks; noted the National Highway Safety Administration has reviewed 120 studies on the issue and say people will have problems making decisions even after one drink; and stated it is a residential community were they have their homes and where they live and the commercial uses should stay up a the Circle where they already are. Ms. Beth Dilworth appeared and stated she has lived on Lido Beach since 1948 which is seventy years; stated her concerns were the hours of operation, late-night noise, and ensuring the beach will always remain open to the public; stated Section 1C of Resolution No. 96R-919 states there shall be no music whether amplified or not at the outdoor pool bar and Section 1D states the hours of operation for the outdoor pool bar shall be limited to 11:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through Saturday and closed on Sunday with no beverages served on any day of the week after 8:00 pm; stated since the development will be a totally open venue situated in the middle of a residential neighborhood, the venue should have to abide by the same resolution as the other establishments and not be able to serve any beverages or have music after 8:00 pm; stated she was also concerned about holidays and special events, such as the 4th of July, questioning if the venue would remain open to the public or become private; stated Lido Beach must always remain open to the general public and the park should never be removed from the Parks and Recreation Department; stated it seems extremely irresponsible to allow the project to move forward as it now stands; and stated it is about time the Planning Board and City Commission listen to the residents of Lido Key. Ms. Laurel Kaiser appeared and stated the first family picture she has of herself is her with her mother holding her upi in an inner tube in nothing but a diaper on Lido Beach; stated her sister was filmed with a bunch of little girls in front of the Lido Casino and appeared on the front page of the Herald Tribune abut the same time she was born; stated she has made a living in Sarasota introducing ecotourism to the area; stated the Planning Board recommended the granting of a Major Condition Use to Sarasota County who turned the other side of Lido Beach, on the back side in a very sensitive environmental area and recreational area, into an absolute commercial nightmare where there are fifteen operators running businesses in the County park in the same neighborhood; stated her hat is off to the gentleman who came and met with the Planning Board noting she is not qualified to present it the way he did to show all the reasons that this is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, it doesn't meet the criteria for a Major Conditional Use and it would be disruptive and the experience Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 38 on Lido Beach would never be the same; stated she didn't think anyone has taken into consideration the amount of parkland that is available; stated water access that is available is no more than it was when she was in a diaper on Lido Beach and more people are here; questioned where people take their children and if an 11-year old or 12-year old should be traipsing through the bar to use the restroom; stated the leaseholders should have to accept the existing conditions, that is what they signed up for; stated residents should not be asked to change their way of life; stated it is a habitat that is critical for humans; stated there is not enough to go around that it should not be turned over to a commercialized restaurant and bar patron activities on the public beach; stated the resident's quality of life depends on the decision made tonight; and stated she had met Mr. Barwin in the coffee shop that afternoon and he said he didn't know what the big deal was, we have a building that needs fixed up. Mr. Martin Hyde appeared along with his stuffed shaggy dog and stated the proposal was a total shaggy dog story, hence his friend; stated the proposal is a very important one as it essentially changes the landscape of the Lido Beach Pavilion and the surrounding neighborhood irrevocably and for practical purposes, with two one-way ten-year extensions to the lessee, permanently; stated his objections were on two grounds, one the City's Comprehensive Plan does not allow the City to enter into new arrangements for the sale and distribution of alcohol; stated he is aware of the fact the Pavilion serves alcohol, as does Marina Jack and Mattisons, however those are grandfathered in and what they do does not make a new agreement a part of the current City Comprehensive Plan, which is a fatal flaw in the application that has been overlooked; stated what was more concerning to him is the compatibility with the neighborhood; stated the agreement clearly stipulates operating hours that extend into the late evening by which time the beach will be closed to the public; noted the concession currently ends at 5:00 pm however the new operating hours potentially lead people to drinking hard liquor adjacent to a pitch-black beach as late as midnight which in itself is incompatible with the quiet residential neighborhood that is largely asleep by 10:00 pm; stated the bigger part of his concern is the potentially lethal combination that serving strong drinks to beachgoers for extended hours creates, noting an incident a few years ago on Siesta Key where an individual that had been drinking at the beach stuck and killed a wife and mother on the sidewalk; stated the City of Sarasota would be potentially facilitating those drivers in part by sharing in the profits from the sale of liquor; stated in addition to drunk driving the increased availability of hard liquor creates the potential for public disorder of all kinds including sexual assault and accidental drownings from drunken swimming in the dark; stated the City has a choice to not be a part of any such tragedies where people are harmed; stated there is zero upside to the proposal for anyone other than the lessee, however there is a potentially serious downside for the neighbors; stated his main concern remains how anyone involved would feel if something bad happened that wouldn't have happened were it not for the late-night sale of hard liquor SO a small group of investors could make a profit; and requested the Planning Board deny the project due to its incompatibility with the neighborhood and with the goals and ideals of the City of Sarasota. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 38 Mr. Craig Vorselen appeared and stated he is a full-time resident of Bird Key;stated he recommends the Planning Board deny the application for Major Conditional Use as he feels it is not in the public interest and does not meet the standards for review for Major Conditional Uses in the Zoning Code; stated the burden of proof is on the applicant and has not been met; stated he took issue with some of staff's conclusions which he feels are not supported in fact or on any basis, including common sense; stated staff's findings that the proposed Major Conditional Use to allow a restaurant with a bar is consistent with the Open Space-Recreation-Conservation Future Land Use Goals because the uses would be considered amenities for the existing land use is patently absurd and is contradicted by the testimony of expert witnesses; stated according to staff's comments the location of the proposed Tiki Bar west of a mechanical room mitigates the impact of the Tiki Bar on the neighboring residential areas by potentially reducing noise; noted potentially means maybe it does and maybe it doesn't; stated if it potentially reduces the noise that means it does not reduce the noise in accordance with the statute and therefore the criteria is not adequately addressed; stated staff's comments that the events that will be held have historically been on-site and will continue within the subject area are factually incorrect in terms of the sale of hard liquor, which has not been there before; stated the entire scale of the application is ignored in staff's analysis; and stated due to the inconsistencies with the analysis as well as testimony that has been presented tonight, he strongly urged the Planning Board to deny the application. Ms. Susan Chapman appeared and stated she was a City Commissioner for 4 years, prior to that she served on the Planning Board for 5 years, and prior to that was a Code Enforcement Special Magistrate for Sarasota County for 16 years, SO she knows what competent, substantial evidence is; stated a Major Conditional use is for certain uses that are conditional instead of being allowed by right, although they may have beneficial effects and serve important public interests; stated there has been no information presented that shows what public interests are involved however information has been presented that the project is against public interests; stated the project is subject to the conditional use regulations because the project may but does not necessarily have significant adverse effects on the environment; stated overburdened public services change the desired character of the area or create major nuisances and she wanted to focus on the major nuisance issue; noted Mr. Binderman had testified earlier that every night he walks the beach and hears the noise from the Tiki Bar for the Ritz Carlton; stated Resolution 01-1338, which granted the approval for the Tiki Bar at the Ritz, states there shall be no amplified music or amplified entertainment in connection with the outdoor bar; stated when she was on the Planning Board the Ritz sought to increase the Major Conditional Use and the Planning Board denied it because the Planning Board members went to the location there was a sign regarding the amplified music at the bar and the big celebrations they were having; stated her purpose in bringing that issue up was to inform the current Planning Board members that in the City of Sarasota there is inadequate enforcement of Major Conditional Uses; stated if the development becomes a nuisance there will be no Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 38 enforcement; and stated there is inadequate noise enforcement in the City of Sarasota as well. Mr. Ken Ayotte appeared and stated he was an affected party; stated he is a full-time resident and lives at 555 Ben Franklin Drive, across the street from the project; stated he was amazed the project has gotten as far as it has due to the inconsistency with not only the City's Comprehensive Plan but the concept of Sarasota and what Sarasota is all about; stated he bought 3 years ago and loves the quiet and the access noting his kids and grandkids love it also; stated the technical aspects of the project are inconsistent with the plan, inconsistent with Sarasota and what Lido is all about; questioned if any of the Planning Board members wanted to take their kids to the beach and tell them to use thel bathroom but go through the bar; stated althoughl hel hates wet and sandy towels one of his greatest memories with the grandkids is when they bring their wet and sandy towels into the condominium; stated he takes his dog out at night on Coolidge and there is no sidewalk, sO he is standing in the streets at 9:00 at night and it is quiet, you can hear the surf, and he does not want the surf drowned out by Jimmy Buffett; stated he is pro development but there needs to be smart and wise development; stated the project is sO far off the track that the citizens would be remiss in not expressing their amazement; and stated the Planning Board should be insulted that something like this would get this far because it is so inconsistent with the community. Ms. Virginia Hoffman appeared and stated she has lived in Sarasota for 51 years; stated she knows 4 of the Planning Board members rather well and the community is lucky to have dedicated volunteers that are very knowledgeable; stated the site plan creates a perfect storm of incompatibility that erodes the public access to a very valuable community asset; stated she knows the Planning Board members love the community and its citizens and they have heard enough tonight, and she agrees with everything that has been said 100%; and requested the Planning Board deny the conditional use and site plan applications. Ms. Helen Magill appeared and stated the reason citizens were wearing red is because they are being robbed; stated the Lido Pavilion is a national treasure, noting her husband proposed to her there; stated it is very precious, is something the grandchildren will inherit; stated wel livein an affluent community where there are very few things that are free, this is a place they can go, it costs nothing, and they can walk through the area and not feel as if they have to buy something; stated when a restaurant is there they will feel as if they need to buy something even if only going to the restroom; stated with the fragility of the environment the last thing they need is for people to find another way to use the bathroom; questioned what the disconnect was the caused all these people to come out and oppose the project; noted someone from staff said the community started the whole conversation about doing something with the Pavilion but they only started the conversation about remodeling the restroom; stated there was a lot of difference between remodeling and putting in a restaurant with a bar and drinking and all of the other amenities that the applicants were planning; and thanked the Planning Board for considering denial of the project. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 38 Ms. Barbara Campo appeared and stated she is a downtown resident and was present to speak about the negative impact the proposal is going to have on the quality of life of the residents of both St. Armands and Lido Key; stated she was going to focus specifically on traffic as a former resident of St. Armands Key that lived on South Washington Drive; stated as a resident of St. Armands is was oftentimes impossible to get out of her driveway because it serves as a cut-through for drivers wanting to get to Lido Key while avoiding the traffic on the Circle; stated the endless cut-through traffic, some speeding, became sO intolerable that the residents requested the City investigate the situation, which it did, and it was determined that there were indeed a lot of speeders SO speed bumps were installed; stated that although the speed concern was addressed it is fair to say that the concern regarding the volume of traffic was not addressed; and stated due to the annual marketing budget of the owners of the new beach bar the proposal would increase the volume of traffic and the overflow of cars into the quiet residential neighborhoods. Ms. Cathy Antunes appeared and stated she asked that the Planning Board recommend denial because the proposal violates the Comprehensive Plan in many, many ways; stated the Open PwsePeratbComematin classification applies to the Lido Pavilion and it is supposed to be protected from development; stated the secondary permitted use is food, beverage and entertainment; stated the proposed development would become a primary use in violation of the Comprehensive Plan; stated according to the Environmental Protection Chapter, shoreline land uses must comply with the Future Land Use Plan Map and those strategies say the Resort Residential Future Land Use classification shall not be expanded on Lido Key, noting proponents of the development have said the project will be a resort style facility; stated Lido Pavilion is the only opportunity to create a resort style facility on public land and that goes against the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; discussed the proposed number of seats stating she has counted the seats three times and the restaurant seating is 200, the bar seating and standing room is 100; stated in July the applicants proffered they would be serving alcohol on the deck sO they have to serve food on the pool deck; stated the food and beverage service will quadruple in intensity; stated the project is a business plan that has a $243,000 budget item for marketing and promotion and is changing the primary use to a destination bar and restaurant; stated when the traffic study was performed the existing use was considered a fast, casual restaurant which is fiction, it is a concession, a snack bar, and the baseline numbers were bloated and projections low-balled; stated when looking at it as a high turnover restaurant with a drinking place the differential in terms of multipliers is huge; stated outdoor seating is included in the traffic methodology but not for parking which will increase by 17.5%; and stated according to FDOT' S Barrier Island Traffic Study there is already a 540-space parking deficit on Lido. Mr. Mike Cosentino appeared and questioned if it was appropriate for staff to consult with the applicants and attorney during the process. Attorney Connolly stated there was no problem with that. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 38 Mr. Cosentino stated he knows Mr. Syprett, knows Mr. Meshad's father, and has no problem with the applicants requesting the exception and the use however he has an enormous problem with the Planning Board agreeing to it because it is completely inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the goals the community, and the rules that are set forth before the Planning Board; stated his Dad came to Sarasota in 1948 and his Mother was a graduate of Sarasota High in 1952; stated he is a resident of Siesta Key however his parent S first date was on Lido Beach; discussed hanging around the adults at the Lido Pavilion when he was a child and his disbelief the Lido Casino was torn down; stated the proposed development puts the final nail in the coffin for Lido Pavilion; commended the Planning Board for their efforts; discussed an on-going lawsuit he has against the County Commission for giving away ten million dollars worth of public property on Siesta Key, SO he is very passionate about public beach access and the ability to use the public beaches; stated he could not in any way, shape or form support any measure that creates socioeconomic division of a public property and that is what this proposal does; stated he agreed with the comments that have been made regarding having to go purchase something just to use the bathroom because you have to go through the bar to get to it; discussed the FEMA 50% rule stating his Dad started Costentino Construction in 1956 and as a result he owns the oldest construction company in town; and stated he specializes in trying to maximize his customer's use of 50% rule situations and this project does not fit. Mr. Jim Lampl appeared and stated the existing operation is a hot dog/hamburger stand that happens to serve beer and wine; stated the applicants are proposing a great business plan for a destination beach bar restaurant, noting he had a restaurant for five years; stated the competent testimony by experts should be enough to kill the proposal unanimously; stated the proposal should notl have gone before the Planning Board, staff should have killed it because of the Comprehensive Plan violations a long time ago; stated the proposal is not what the Lido Beach Association wanted, they want restrooms and little bit of paint and it cleaned up; stated he maintained that the City Manager and his staff wanted to get the property off of the maintenance sheet, noting the proposal coincides with the handoff from the County; stated citizens should not have to spend days and week making the case against the proposal because staff shouldn'thave let it get this far as they should know the Comprehensive Plan; stated he did a bar count two weeks ago and the proposed development has 33 bar seats; stated that probably means double the amount of standing patrons; stated Dan from City staff did not mention anything about bar-standing patrons which will add at least 100 people; and stated this is a charade. Ms. Diane Desenberg appeared and stated she is a resident of Lido Key and agrees with a lot of the comments concerning the non-conforming use, especially for serving alcohol; stated she wanted to talk about traffic noting in the standards for review for conditional uses it indicates that consideration should be given to whether the overall residential appearance and function of the area will be significantly lessened; stated she would submit that the proposal will increase traffic and make Lido Key less functional; stated the project could be denied based on that; stated the traffic study neglects the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 38 biggest, most glaring problem with traffic on Lido Key which is getting back and forth to the mainland; stated during season for a couple of hours around sunset a huge number of cars heading to the mainland piles up at the light at US 41 and Gulfstream Avenue, noting that is the only road off the keys and it sometimes backs up to Bird Key or even St. Armands Circle; stated she cannot go to meetings, classes, dining, etc. during February and March, shej just stays home unless it is crucial, then she has to sit in traffic sometimes up to 501 minutes; stated she is a resident of Lido Key and has been for almost 20 years; stated she lived in Sarasota prior to the construction of I-75 and seasonal traffic and slowdowns were in certain ways even worse than they are now; stated she didn't want to complain about traffic, but was requesting the Planning Board not make things worse, noting anything they approve that increases that late afternoon traffic during season makes it a less livable, less vibrant and less functional Lido Key; stated the project will increase the intensity of use bringing with it more cars; stated the proposal includes a restaurant with 200 seats, and a Tiki Bar with 33 seats and standing room for hundreds more; noted the seats will turn over several times a day which is potentially a lot of people and cars, and adding this intensity of use will bring more traffic making living on Lido Key more problematic; and requested the Planning Board mot approve the conditional use. Ms. Cindy Taliaferro appeared and stated she is a 9 year resident of Golden Gate Point; stated she first fell in love with the area in the 1970s and decided if she ever had the opportunity she would move here; stated she fell in love with Lido Beach but moved to Golden Gate Point; stated she noticed Lido was the same as it had always been, quiet, and St. Armands Circle was still there and vibrant; stated when she moved here her daughter was 17 and in her junior year, she feared her daughter would not want to live here, and she hoped her daughter would come back after college; stated there is not really a reason to come back because the cost of living is SO high and the pay is low; stated her daughter did come back because she loves the beaches noting when the kids were in high school they would play frisbee at Siesta and Lido and would get together with a youth group; stated she is back now and has a heart for the community; stated she has served on the sea turtle patrol for Mote Marine for 9 years and the littlest sound at night will spook a turtle from laying eggs, and she didn't know how there could be live music on the beach and expect the turtles to come up and nest, they won't; stated Lido has 800 adult black skimmers and fledged 247 new hatchlings; stated it is a big volunteer effort to educate people sO loud noise from boat races, fireworks, etc. doesn't scare them and they leave the community and the predators eat the eggs or the sun cooks them; and questioned how live music could be an option. Mr. Jay Elsasser appeared and stated he lives at 1750 Ben Franklin Drive and thanked the Planning Board members for their service; stated this was not fun for anybody but it was appreciated; stated the community was present because of the Major Conditional Use; stated many, if not all, who live nearby feel the proposal is just simply not compatible; stated the fact SO many people in the neighborhood, in addition to the thousands more that signed a petition, is by any reasonable standard an indication that the development is not compatible; stated the overwhelming concern is that it simply Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 38 does not fit; discussed Zoning Code section IV-906 stating specific attention should be given to subparagraph A.2 in its entirety, subparagraph A.2(a) regarding function, subparagraph A.2(c) regarding character and subparagraph, and subparagraph A.2(d) regarding adverse impacts on the livability and usability of nearby land due to, among other things, noise; stated a diverse population visits the public beach, the proposal includes amplified music, and questioned who the music would appeal to and what type of music will be played; stated it is a family beach and with all the people how could you choose what is appropriate, suggesting the sounds of nature and the ocean is what it should be; questioned how the City would ensure any music that is played is appropriate for kids of all ages; and noted there are properties along the beach that are prohibited from having any music at all. Ms. Mary Ann Bowie appeared and stated she recommended the Planning Board recommend denial of the applications; stated her grandparents arrived in Sarasota 90 years ago; stated she is a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, has been accepted as an expert witness in various courts in Florida, is President of the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association, and is a member of the Board of Directors of CCNA; presented her resume for the record and proffered herself as an expert witness; stated in her professional opinion the applications should be denied and presented for the record a resolution that was adopted by CCNA; stated the resolution encourages the City Commission to deny any proposal that does not adhere to the highest standards in securing the public's interests; stated approving the applications would not be in the public interest, would diminish the public enjoyment of Lido Pavilion and the Planning Board should recommend denial; stated the applicants had made verbal commitments and in reality verbal commitments do not matter; stated the only conditions that matter are the six conditions listed in the Major Conditional Use and those donot limit the pool entrance. fees, when music can be played, how late liquor can be served, or if adjacent picnic tables will be provided for the public; and noted the Park Advisory Board recommended denial, as has every person present tonight. Ms. Sylvia Babineau appeared and stated she lives on Ben Franklin Drive on Lido Key and is a real estate broker; stated she agrees with everything that has been said; discussed the traffic study stating she deals with traffic on Lido every day; stated she thought the traffic study would be done at the busiest time however this study was done on June 19th, a Thursday, when no one is at the beach, there was red tide, and threats of storms; presented photographs showing the parking lot was full and people parked up and down Ben Franklin Drive, as well as in driveways of residents; stated she didn't want anything done about that because those are the people that come to their beach; stated almost 3,400 people have signed a petition, the majority from the Sarasota area, but also people that have come from all over the world, and everyone says they don't want a bar;and stated if this development is going to be approved then why not open up all the parks in Sarasota and put bars in the middle of every park. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 38 Mr. Dan Denton appeared and stated he is a 29 year resident and a homeowner on South Polk Drive on Lido; stated one of his favorite things about living on Lido is going through St. Armands Circle and all the activity and then turning left and it is quiet; stated he loves it there even though he can hear the Daiquiri Deck at night however he would rather not hear another one coming from the other direction; stated he is one of the people referred to regarding the swimming pool, noting he swims laps every day since retirement; stated it is impossible that the City cannot keep the modest Pavilion and pool facility maintained and in somewhat decent shape; stated it is not necessary to monetize the natural assets; and stated he agreed with the objections that have been stated and he encourages the Planning Board not recommend acceptance of the plan. Mr. William Thompson appeared and stated he has lived here for 2 years and is ai fishery observer; stated he works for NOAA, went to grad school and published a couple of papers as an undergrad; stated he moved around for a few years, finally got his dream job, and came here for work for a weekend; stated he never stepped foot in downtown Sarasota, he stayed on the Island, and moved here a month and half later; stated his parents have a restaurant in Mississippi that grosses four million in sales, exactly the same as the applicants say they will make, which is 1,100 people a day at his parent's restaurant; stated the restaurant owners were avoiding the question, and talk about market pricei is ridiculous because the figures they are: reporting are impossible, far from normal; discussed the size of the kitchen compared to his parent' S stating the business figures are not even close; stated he goes to the beach all of the time, he works offshore, comes home for a whole week and Monday through Thursday no one is there; and stated data was excluded from the traffic study to fit the applicant's S assumptions. Mr. Stephen Reid appeared and stated he lives on Westway Drive in Lido Shores with his wife and 6 children and they have probably netted thousands of hours on the local beaches; stated the Planning Board members were the judges, he doesn'thave a silver bullet that can kill the plan like he would like; stated the citizens were making a human appeal and the Planning Board was in a uncomfortable position as the applications came to them from the City Commission and staff and he hoped the Planning Board denied it; stated competent substantial evidence has been presented that the Planning Board can hang their hat on in denying the applications; noted the red tide of residents that are adamantly opposed to the project; stated he believed there are hundreds and hundreds more who feel the same way; stated these are the people directly impacted by the development; stated the development will diminish property values and will add traffic; stated the numbers can be manipulated to make it sound doable and reasonable but they go by their gut, get a feeling about something, and then assemble facts to match what they want; stated if the Planning Board members had any inclination to approve the project he hoped they heard something tonight to cause a splinter in that thought process; stated the Planning Board was their hope and they were appealing to the Planning Board and have a lot of faith in the members; stated the Planning Board has the ability and character to preserve the integrity of the beach and the region; stated the attorneys and Mr. Metcalf had provided a lot for the Planning Board tol hang their hats on and requested they not get caught upin the technical details; Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 38 and stated the Planning Board knows what the community would like and his hope was what the community is asking them to do means more than following through on an initiative that could be better. PB Chair Gannon asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no additional citizen input. PB Chair Gannon stated the process was only about half way completed, noting there was still rebuttals, Board discussions, and the vote that has to occur, and announced the Planning Board will take a ten-minute recess. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A TEN-MINUTE RECESS. PB Chair Gannon stated the meeting was into the rebuttal phase and stated they would hear from the applicants first. Mr. Suarez, Mr. Syprett and Mr. Meshad appeared. Mr. Suarez stated it was virtually impossible to rebut two-plus hours of testimony in five minutes; stated the applicants understand differences, but they have the same goals as they heard tonight, which is to save the Pavilion, there are just different opinions on how to go about it; stated the applicants understand a lot of what has been said noting a lot of it is very emotional, but there were professional opinions, and that they disagreed with a number of those; stated the applicants had addressed the standards for review which, as the City Attorney has pointed out, is what the Planning Board should be looking at; stated the applicants integrity has been questioned as well as staff's capability of analyzing the submittal, the selection of one of the most prestigious engineering firms they selected to doi the traffic analysis has been put into question, and he didn'tknow how to respond to that kind of stuff; stated as it relates to the neighbor to the south and the Comprehensive Plan, the site is two-acres plus within an eighty-plus acre site park; stated the use in an existing accessory use to the park that is going from a 164-seat to 233-seat restaurant, noting the difference in the number of seats is what really counts; stated the impact is much less than the interpretation of the general public, and there is an honest disagreement as to what the impact is; stated the applicants have not been sneaking around, they have been straightforward; stated the applicants were born and raised in Sarasota, he has lived in Sarasota for 36 years, he has been a member of the Education Foundation, has been in the Community Foundation, has represented the AIA and has been in the State AIA, his kids grew up here, are members of the community and want only the best for the community; stated the applicant might be on a different side of the coin but their goal has always been upfront; stated the applicants responded to an invitation, were selected, and have moved forward positively; stated the statements that they have not submitted enough information regarding FEMA and lighting shows the gentleman does not understand the City of Sarasota process, noting at the time the building permit is applied for is when all the details regarding FEMA and lighting is provided; stated they are not hiding or putting it off, its just that its not supposed to be submitted at this point in the process; stated he has practiced in the City for 36 years and has been involved in some of the largest projects in the City; and stated the concession has been referred to as a small concession but it is 164 seats. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 38 PB Chair Gannon stated there was a statement made about the amplified music and questioned if that was a requirement for the applicant's operation or if they could operate without amplified music. Mr. Syprett stated he would like the ability to have some amplified music during the day and noted the type of music would be in the theme of what they have, a laid-back beach atmosphere; and stated they would be doing a similar type of music that is currently done on Sundays, and they are willing to proffer something as far as the hours. PB Chair Gannon questioned if the applicants could operate with a beer and wine license only. Mr. Syprett stated that would be a very limiting factor and noted the intent of the Ad Hoc Committee's plan and what Mr. Shoffstall communicated to the applicants was they wanted to be able tol have beverages that have liquor in them too. Mr. Meshad stated it is a restaurant with a restaurant license, no different that a Chili's or anywhere else; stated he didn't know if anybody would claim that a Chili's is a spring break bar that's going to be doing wet t-shirt contests; stated they have to serve more food than liquor SO that in and of itself keeps it under check; and noted it is just an expansion of the existing use, it's a full service restaurant. PB Chair Gannon stated the Planning Board would next hear from affected parties. Mr. David Riedlinger appeared and stated he was before the Planning Board and had talked specifically about the FEMA issues and the applicants stated he didn't know anything about how things work in Sarasota; stated he did know how things work in Sarasota, he understands the situation, and has contacted FEMA; stated he took this case specifically to them and FEMA said it was an artful misinterpretation of 15-50, he didn't make that up, he brought actual facts, and it is not a matter of interpretation; stated he heard Mr. Barwin saying in the last couple of days that they have liaisons, he called today and asked people at FEMA and questioned if there are special exceptions they can get and are there different rules for government entities versus private entities and FEMA stated there were not; stated this is all just a game that comes down to the thing speaks for itself; and stated the document he provided speaks for itself. Mr. John Patterson appeared and stated one of the things that was brought up is the Planning Board should consider this as a whole, the whole of Lido Beach, not just the 2.4 acre parcel, and you then come to the conclusion that this is ancillary to the whole 70 acres or what that is; stated with all due respect that is not a good argument, the Property Appraiser has already cut this out as a separate parcel after it was leased; stated it is in the City's ownership but the applicant's to use under the lease, they have exclusive rights to use the parcel as set forth in the lease, SO it is not, it is a standalone parcel; stated the applicant' stated they always have a majority of their sales through food and not through alcoholic beverages, noting there is nothingi in the lease that limits that; stated Mr. Syprett and Mr. Meshad are good people, he has known their fathers for ages; stated there is no requirement that they be the ones who are running this, it is a signing of a lease, they could get out tomorrow, there is no limit to that, and what it is going to be; and presented evidence of police incident reports related to the Daiquiri Deck on Siesta Key. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 38 Mr. Kevin Hennessy, representing Cindy and Carl Shoffstall, appeared and stated the Planning Board has asked pointed questions as to the need for music and hard liquor sales and questioned if they got an answer because he didn't hear it; stated he thinks the answer is yes, it goes to the statement that the citizen planner made that regardless of what they are saying if its not written as a condition, it its not a restriction in the lease, they are not bound by it; stated they are not planning on putting a Chili's on the beach, they own Daiquiri Decks which he wants to put there along with the character associated with that; stated the simple question is going to be is this a use, which is allowed by this very vague agreement, very vague proposal by staff, going to be allowed and is it going to be consistent with the neighborhood; stated the entire neighborhood has said no; stated they think the Planning Board should deny the request and suggested they inquire of the City Attorney their ability to do that, noting it is in staff's S recommendation; and stated staff's recommendation is for approval but it then also flip-flops and says you have every ability to say no based on the information. PB Chair Gannon stated they would ask City staff. Mr. Scott Ashby appeared and stated he lives south of the Pavilion; stated the Planning Board has to decide the legal and code ramifications, which sound pretty compelling like there is a real case against this; stated he is sort of biased; stated it sounds like the decision is down to a difference of opinion; stated all the neighbors can ask is that the Planning Board weigh the tens of hundreds of residents in the City and people who really believe in this beach and consider it a real asset in a public place for all levels of people, all kinds of people who are overwhelmingly against this idea, you weigh that with the developers; and stated they would like to think there is no comparison. PB Chair Gannon asked if there were other affected parties that wished to rebut. There were: none. PB Chair Gannon stated the Planning Board would next hear from City staff. General Manager Schneider appeared and stated with her again is Dan Greenberg, Dan Ohrenstein and traffic engineer Chris Hatton; stated she would try to address most of the comments from one of the affected parties', a professional planner; stated she was sure he is fully understanding of the codes where he lives, but our Zoning Code may be a little bit different than what he is familiar with; stated some of the documentation he submitted on the Open PsekavatbmCmwratin Future Land Use actually gives examples of fairly intensive development that can take place within our parks, noting Bobby Jones Golf Course has a full restaurant with a bar and you have to pay to be able to go play golf; stated the City has plenty of facilities in the parks that are utilized in a very similar manner; stated the G zoning is an implementing zone district; noted the Comprehensive Plan also talks about how if you are a use that is permitted under the G zoning or an implementing zone district you do comply with the Comprehensive Plan, there is language in there for that; stated it is a Government Leasehold use and there are definitions in the Zoning Code that specifically talk about leaseholds that is fairly broad; stated if there is a lease with the City, that is a use that is permitted under the G zoning, SO while restaurant is not a specific use, it is a leasehold use, and through that leasehold, that brings in any number of uses; stated MarineMax is a leasehold use Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 38 that has been before the Planning Board and noted other leasehold uses are O'Leary's, Marina Jack and the Payne Park Café, a restaurant with alcohol sales as well; stated it has been mentioned that the proposal does not comply with the parking code noting there is an existing restaurant and the code does not require when.something goes from one use to the same use or even a similar use, if you want to call it a concession versus ai restaurant, that you provide additional parking, parking is only required when there is a physical expansion; stated the applicants are taking out an office and putting in the restaurant noting as they expand the kitchen they are providing the additional parking for the additional square footage that is devoted to the restaurant use, sO they are providing the parking the Code requires them to provide; stated as to lighting per the City Commission lighting is not required at this stage in the process, it is required when they apply for their building permit; noted that is at the direction of the City Commission and staff has adopted policy from them as to what we receive at the DRC level and lighting is not at that time; stated staff receives the lighting plan as part of the building permit and they coordinate with Sarasota County, noting staff has already met with Sarasota County regarding sea turtles sO they are aware of the project and that they will be getting a visit; stated they will be coordinating prior to the building permit being issued as to the type of lighting that will be allowed on the property per their ordinance; stated there are also allegations that we're supposed to have the entire park updated which is not true; stated the comments made that outdoor restaurants are prohibited from playing amplified music, having entertainment, in commercial areas is not accurate; stated there is a provision in the Zoning Code for accessory outdoor restaurants that talks about prohibition of music which is something that the City Attorney has indicated is not a legal provision due to the freedom of speech requirements, sO you can! have outdoor music in restaurants; stated establishments have to comply with the City's sound regulations noting the development is not within a completely enclosed building SO they do have to keep it within certain decibel levels and to a certain time frame; stated some of the provisions that are conditions that the public has brought up are conditions that relate to hotels because there is a hotel immediately adjacent to the parking lot; stated there has been a lot of talk about it being a residential neighborhood but there is a hotel that is on the other side of the parking lot that has conditional use permits and the City's zoning does not allow them to have music on the pool deck, noting the same applies to the Ritz Carlton; stated a comment was made that you cannot have vents or floodproofing in AE zones which is an inaccurate statement, that is the flood zone district where you can have floodproofing, itis the VE zone that you cannot have any kind of floodproofing within it; stated there were comments made that the City does not enforce Conditional Use permits and provided a list of Conditional Uses that have liquor licenses noting there are actually two Lido Beach hotels on the list; and stated staff has been collecting data since August 2013 as it relates to police reports out on the island, noting the Ritz Carlton has had 20 police calls since August 2013 and the Lido Beach Resort has had 71. PB Chair Gannon requested General Manager Schneider talk about parking stating it was his impression the applicants were adding additional parking and questioned if that was the case. General Manager Schneider stated the applicants are adding 21 Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 38 parking spaces to the site. PB Chair Gannon questioned how many parking spaces were required to be added. General Manager Schneider stated 10 additional spaces were required. PB Vice Chair Normile questioned if the property was in the Coastal Islands Overlay District which regulates intensity, noting it says density comma intensity. General Manager Schneider stated it is in the Overlay. PB Chair Gannon stated there was testimony given about closing or no alcohol served after 8:00 pm and requested General Manager Schneider address that. General Manager Schneider stated she believed that was a reference to a Conditional Use permit for the Ritz Carlton Tiki Bar. PB Chair Gannon questioned if that was different because it was a hotel. General Manager Schneider stated the Ritz Carlton is a private club noting hotels and private clubs share the same prohibition on music; stated back in 1999, she believes, the Ritz Carlton was pressured to maintain the Tiki Bar because it was such a local attraction soi it was put into the Conditional Use permit with thel hope that it would remain; stated they do have the option of removing it if they choose to do SO noting some of the limitations were put on it because there is maybe 30 feet of separation between the Mark Twain and where the Tiki Bar is. PB Chair Gannon questioned if any consideration was given to having an 8:00 pm limit on alcohol service and music for the Lido Beach facility. General Manager Schneider stated the lease agreement, which is not before the Planning Board tonight, has limitations on the hours of operation. PB Chair Gannon questioned if alcohol sales or music was specified. General Manger Schneider stated she believed it is just the operation of facility. PB Chair Gannon questioned if an additional restriction could be put on the sale of alcohol and music at a different time. General Manager Schneider stated she thought the applicants were willing to proffer to do SO or accept the Planning Board's request that they do sO; and stated there was also a comment that there was no way to make sure they had income of 51% with food sales versus 49% for alcohol, noting the State actually does the tracking through the liquor license. PB Chair Gannon questioned what would happen if the alcohol sales exceed 49%. General Manager Schneider stated the State would rescind the liquor license, noting the license holder would have a certain amount of time to get back on track; and stated in some cases they have tried to come in and apply for a nightclub license, which is just a 4COP license, and stated in order to do that they would have to come back before the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated there were two legal issues that came up during the various rebuttals; one, there was a lot of talk about the mixing of the building permit FEMA issues with the Conditional Use and he wished to read Section IV-907 of the Zoning Code which is "Effect of Decision" with the Conditional Use; read the section into the record stating Approval of a conditional use shall be deemed to authorize only the particular use for which it is issued. Approval of a site plan shall authorize the applicant to apply for the issuance of a building permit. Development of the conditional use shall not be carried out until the applicant has secured all other permits and approvals required by these regulations, the City, or regional, state and federal agencies. ; stated Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 38 the effect of that Section is what the Planning Board is dealing with is the use, and that is all they are really talking about today; stated if the use ultimately gets approved by the City Commission, then the building permit, the lighting, the FEMA, that will be handled through the building permit, not through this Board; stated the second thing that was discussed that he wanted to bring up is the allegation that the representations of the applicant are irrelevant, you look at the conditions only, and that is not accurate; stated all conditional uses are reduced to writing in a Resolution, and the Resolution will provide the following: "Applicant by acceptance of Application 18-CU-02, further recognizes that pursuant to Section IV-910(B), Zoning Code 2002 Edition, a conditional use approval can be revoked if the use is not conducted consistent with any condition of approval or if there is a change in intensity character beyond what was initially intended which affects the public health, safety and welfare. Applicant by acceptance of Application 18-CU-02 hereby acknowledges that the baseline for determining a change in intensity, character, or violation of any conditions of approval will be the statements, representations, testimony and the like regarding the character, level of activity, nature, scope, intensity, etc. of the conditional use provided by applicant and its agents at the Planning Board public hearing conducted on September 12, 2018. Applicant by accepting approval of Application 18-CU-02 hereby covenants to operate the approved conditional use consistent with all representations made by applicant at said public hearing." PB Chair Gannon questioned if the result of that is that the statements they made are as binding as if it was a proffer. Attorney Connolly stated as binding as the conditions; and noted there are six conditions that are recommended for approval, SO the applicant's representations today are just as binding in the context of if there is any allegation of a change in intensity. PB Member Morriss stated he wished to argue a point with Attorney Connolly and stated Item 6, regarding FEMA, when the applicant has demonstrated the financial and technical capacity to complete any and all improvements; stated he would argue that the inability to hit FEMA is the inability to meet the technical requirements. Attorney Connolly questioned if PB Member Morriss was referring to Section IV-906. PB Member Morriss stated he wasj just talking, trying to use the referencing, and noted page eleven, number six, says when the applicant has demonstrated the financial and technical capacity to complete any improvements and mitigation necessitated by the development as proposed and has made adequately the provision (stopped talking). Attorney Connolly stated the financial aspect is one thing and he thought what PB Member Morriss was focusing on was is there the technical capacity to complete any improvements, and the answer to that is that City staff has testified that any building permit will have to comply with FEMA; stated he guessed what they were saying is the applicant, if they get this approval, is getting it at their own risk, if they don't meet the FEMA conditions, they won't get a building permit, and ultimately a CO. PB Member Morriss stated it seems like a circular argument, give them the approval but they have to prove they can get the approval, if they don't get the approval - that doesn't make sense; and stated he happens to take the angle that there is a real probability that the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 38 technical capacity is not there. Attorney Connolly stated as he has said many times before, he never has a preference whether the Planning Board votes up or down on any development application, his preference is that there be competent, substantial evidence in the record to support whatever the decision is; stated what the Planning Board is doing is focusing on a standard of review and referencing the competent, substantial evidence in the record; stated if that is the decision they ultimately want to vote on, that is supportable, and SO now he has a record, if he is in front of the Circuit Judge he can highlight Page 627, give or take by now, of the statement you made and how that is competent, substantial evidence in the record. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing and stated Board deliberations would begin. PB Member Morriss stated he thought at least on one point it failed; stated he was going to hit the low hanging fruit; stated he could not buy that this is an accessory use, it is really a radical shift from a snack bar to a full-service restaurant with liquor sales; stated the notion of compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, we've heard way too many hours of testimony that it is not; stated it is noise, smell, possible traffic problems, possible drunks, possible impacts on the wildlife; stated he could keep going but he would rather not; stated then there is the FEMA thing; stated those three things are enough for him to basically say he would have to recommend it is inconsistent. PB Vice Chair Normile made a motion that the conditional use be denied. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Attorney Connolly noted it would be a recommendation to the City Commission of denial to which PB Vice Chair Normile replied exactly. PB Chair Gannon asked PB Vice Chair Normile to comment. PB Vice Chair Normile stated she would track all of the statements sO that Attorney Connolly can go to court; stated it is a riddle wrapped in an enigma, is really complicated, the Future Land Use is called Open psekmatbCmeratin it is zoned Governmental, there is a Major Conditional Use request in a Coastal Islands Overlay District; stated it is complicated but as complicated as it is, it isn'treally about the Planning Board's opinion of whether they like it or not, noting legally they have to track the standards for review; and stated she would go through the standards of review one by one. PB Vice Chair Normile stated number one, the Future Land Use of Open Space- Recreation-Conservation is described in the Comprehensive Plan as, quote, natural areas, recreational sites, and limited accessory structures; stated the key words to her are for LIMITED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; stated she didn'tfind that 250 seat-plus, more than that probably-restaurant or Tiki Bar are in any way a limited accessory structure; stated that this is not supporting infrastructure for recreation sites and activities it is a secondary use, the primary use is the beach, sO the limited accessory structure does not fly; number 2A, will the overall residential appearance and function of the area be significantly lessened based on the number, size, and location of non- residential uses and the intensity and scale of the proposed use, she could argue all night about whether a concurrency study actually tells us anything about how much Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 38 traffic is really going to be on the road, but the fact is, Lido Beach is the main draw, it is going to continue to be the main draw but we are adding a secondary draw, sO it is going to increase traffic exponentially; stated there is sufficient evidence in the record, and it is simple physics that no two cars can occupy the same parking space, SO you only have SO many parking spaces, they get full, and there is no evidence in the record that there will be enough parking for an additional large restaurant; number 2C, compatibility with adjacent residential development based on building, style or scale, there is no significant finding, she has to admit that a ground-level Tiki Bar with music is not very compatible; number 2D, will it have significant adverse impacts on the livability and usability of nearby land due to dust, fumes, smoke, etc., she thinks there is no doubt that a kitchen with a 300-seat capability will create some fumes, she knows there is new technology to mitigate that, but knows that anybody who has ever been to the Ritz Beach Residences "enjoys" whatever they are cooking at the beach restaurant, the Ritz Beach Restaurant, or doesn't enjoy it, she should say, the Tiki Bar location is also very, very close to the access lane to the beach, SO she thinks it does have an adverse impact on the livability; number 3, the transportation system, she won'teven: read that, they have talked about the concurrency study, there are questions about the concurrency study, not because it was done wrong or because the firm that did it did it wrong in any way whatsoever, it isj just a concurrency study and doesn'treally measure the traffic as it will probably appear, it follows certain standards, it measures whether or not the individual has to pay fees to the City, there were enough questions about the traffic study that they can say that it isn'tr really measuring what we need to measure to determine whether or not the transportation system will function, there was no accounting for service vehicles or the picnic table square footage or facilities for children and how many people will drive there with children, creating more traffic or special events, or how many employees, and a concurrency study just doesn't do that, in addition the facility will be open an additional 5 12 hours which sustains the traffic level for that many more hours, plus the service vehicles; health, safety and welfare, are they preserved, she doesn't see any findings, she is sure there are; number 6 (referring to number 2b) is historical and she didn't see any findings; stated there is no proof under number 7 (referring to number 6) that FEMA will be satisfied which she sees as a substantial - substantial issue and it is circular as PB Member Morriss said, it doesn't say you will prove, it says you proved, and she feels badly for the applicants because they probably want to get this out of the way before they have to hit the FEMA regulations, but that is not what the code says; and stated the final determination is, for her, that the proposal will overburden public services with parking and traffic, will change the desired character of the area, has the potential to create a nuisance in an otherwise quiet area; and there is competent, substantial evidence to prove that. PB Member Ohlrich stated PB Vice Chair Normile had covered the standards of review quite thoroughly; stated she agrees with what she said; stated as she was thinking about the wealth of information they received in their packet, as well as the 902 emails they received on Monday, she kept thinking something sounds familiar to her about the application; stated she was reminded of the July 11th Planning Board meeting where they discussed and decided on a Major Conditional Use application for 99 Bottles, noted Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 38 that application was approved with a number of proffers and stipulations including hours of operation, no outdoor seating, no outdoor music, no stages for outdoor music, no sale of hard liquor or spirits, and no open doors; stated she could not figure out why it was necessary to protect the health, welfare and safety of the citizens in that application with all of those proffers and stipulations, but it wasn't necessary for this application; stated they received a lot of communication from residents about this application and the Major Conditional Use, and as she mentioned, their packet was full, and 920, she said 902, as valid as the proffers and stipulations were for 99 Bottles to protect the health, welfare and safety of our residents, they are valid for this too, SO she was going to support the motion to deny. PB Chair Gannon questioned if PB Member Morriss had anything to add. PB Member Morriss stated he was in shock and awe at how beautifully Ms. Normile put that. PB Chair Gannon stated that with this application, and he understands all of the points PB Vice Chair Normile made on the denial, there was testimony in terms of the use of accessory facilities in City public parks and several of those were cited; stated in these very Chambers last Thursday, they saw overwhelming support for what's going to be significant amounts of entertainment, restaurant use in the 55 acre The Bay parcel; stated he thinks there has to be a balance in terms of how you apply the criteria across the City through a number of different parks that we have, whether it be the restaurant at Bobby Jones or enjoying a drink at the Café in the Park at Payne Park; stated they have examples of where that's in use, as this was presented it looked like there were clear examples; stated in addition to in terms of it enhancing the livability, many of the features that are being upgraded to him go a long way towards enhancing the value of that park property by going from a swim lane pool that is primarily for adults to go and do recreational - I mean workouts, to having a splash pool where a family can come and sit there with the kids and have a shade and be able to watch the kids playing in the splash pool and/or swim in the lanes, etc., there was a significant number of additions being provided that was enhancing that; stated where he came down, as was pointed out here and he thinks it is under the Major Conditional Use standards of review number two, whether the character was significantly lessened, the intensity is not increased to an extent that significantly lessens the overall residential appearances, and as was pointed out, where wel havehad to deal with Major Conditional Uses around alcohol that they have found the necessity to have proffers in there that would control; stated two of the major issues he heard expressed by the residents, loud music later in the evening and the potential for drinks in the beach area, are a significant concern; stated it appears from where it is going today with a snack bar with beer and wine to the other proposed use is a significant increase in intensity; stated what he struggled with is it is a proposal to really upgrade in a very positive way for the residents of the community and visitors, it is not in any way denying citizens access to the beach, it is a leasehold, the sand is separate, people can still go there, that has been made very clear; stated we have an addition to the. free access to the beach, but without having any other proffers, some of the fears could be achieved in terms of drunken drivers or people wandering around the beach and SO forth; stated while he would like to see the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 38 enhancements done, he is concerned about the intensity there without any other proffers to reduce the music or to reduce the hours of liquor service, etc., sO since that is what is being proposed, and there are: no proffers to mitigate those issues, he is going to support the denial also. PB Member Morriss stated The Bay project is quite a different context, the key issue here is context, nobody come out against that because nobody has ever gone to the parking lot to hang out with their kids, this is a place that is in the heart of Sarasota, it is in everybody's heart; stated he didn't think there was anybody present who hasn't been there and disrupting that for any reason is a very dangerous thing to do, unless it is extremely well considered; and stated it seemed like the product PB Chair Gannon was talking about is an enhancement but it would be great somewhere else, they already established at least one of the criteria, and SO he can say whatever he wants, that is why there is a bunch of them. PB Chair Gannon pointed out there are 5 voting people. PB Member Morriss stated they were the arbitrators of context also, if you go for strictly legal interpretations he thinks you can go down a rabbit hole really quickly and get confused and the tall grass starts becoming what you react to, when in fact, this is what they should be reacting to; and stated there are reasonable concerns from the community who live here, and he thinks they didn't, hopefully, ignore those. PB Chair Gannon stated we have a motion, the motion is to deny. Attorney Connolly clarified the motion is to recommend denial. PB Gannon clarified the motion is to recommend denial to the City Commission. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct. PB Chair Gannon stated that is the motion, let's vote. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Member Blumetti voting no. Attorney Connolly emphasized thati is a recommendation that the Planning Board made to the City Commission; and stated under the Zoning Code the City Commission still has to hold a quasi-judicial public hearing because this is in the G zone. 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. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by staff. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 38 VI. 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. There were no topics by Planning Board members. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:41 pm. Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Patrick) J. Gannon, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]