CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY JANUARY 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Michael Halflants, Chair Members Present: Daniel Deleo, Vice Chair Members Douglas Christy, Dan Clermont, Shane LaMay, Terrill Salem Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Myra Schwarz, General Manger, Development Services Alison Christie, Development Review Chief Planner Noah Fossick, Development Review Senior Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Amanda Cisneros, Development Review Coordinator Development Services 11:05:00 A.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Halflants called the meeting to order. General Manager Schwarz (acting as the Planning Board's Secretary) called the roll. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY PB Secretary Schwarz recommended a time for lunch break. PB Chair Halflants announced when the break will take place. IV. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by thel Planning Board.) 11:08:00 A.M. A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Attorney Connolly discussed time limits for each item and provided information on affected persons and the order of speakers. PB Secretary Schwarz read the Pledge of Conduct. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 14 City Attorney Connolly noted that there were no affected persons for the first agenda item and requested the Board Members communicate any ex-parte communications. Vice Chair Deleo noted that he had ex-parte communications with the developer of the property and mentioned he did a site visit. PB Chair Halflants noted that a board member of the Rosemary District addressed him about the matter. PB Member Lamay stated he had no ex-parte communications. PB Member Christy stated he had no ex-parte communications but was familiar with the matter as he visited the site for personal reasons. 11:29:00 A.M. B. Quasi-judicia Public Hearings 1. Wolfie's (1420 Boulevard of the Arts): Planning Board Adjustment application No. 23-ADP-04 request for approval to install signage including LED neon style lighting and a marquee board that extends above the top of the canopy and building. The subject property has a street address of 1420 Boulevard of the Arts and is currently zoned Downtown Edge (DTE). (Noah Fossick, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Mark Kauffman presented requesting approval for a sign and gave a description of the Rosemary District. Jonathan Mitchell, the tenant, presented and provided a description of the restaurant and site. Mr. Mitchell provided a photo of the restaurant and pointed out where the sign would be installed. Mr. Mitchell also read a letter of support and compared signs in the area to the sign that is being proposed. PB Member Christy questioned if the style of the sign originated at the initial location. Mr. Mitchell stated it will not be the same style as the original sign and described the proposed sign. PB Member Christy questioned if different styles were reviewed to meet the City Code. Mr. Mitchell stated he had deep concerns and changing the style would not be in his advantage. PB Member Salem questioned if the sign requirements were reviewed by the applicant prior to designing the sign outside of the requirements. Mr. Mitchell stated that he believed the City would work with him to have the sign approved. PB Member Lamay questioned the televisions, visibility and if they were part of the sign. Mr. Mitchell stated they are not. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 14 Vice Chair Deleo clarified he did not meet with the developer, he met with Mr. Mitchell. Vice Chair Deleo questioned the reason for: not submitting the photometric study. Brian Vaughn, the sign contractor stated there has not been a precedent for a sign previously and stated examples were sent from the City. Mr. Vaughn noted the examples sent addressed parking lot lights. He also stated the buildings would have signage but was not calculated in the photometric plan. Brian Vaughn listed regulations from the City of general applicability for lighting surveys and stated they do not address signage or the façade. Vice Chair Deleo questioned signage was not an issue based on the examples presented. Mr. Vaughn noted photometrics were addressed. Vice Chair Deleo voiced his opinions on the sign and the review process. PB Chair Halflants discussed applications that were previously approved to develop the area. PB Chair Halflants voiced his opinion on the applicant's proposal. PB Chair Halflants compared signs in the area and the previous restaurant. Mr. Mitchell noted it was not successful due to placement and noted trees block the view from certain angles. 12:06:26 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Noah Fossick presented and provided a description of the proposal. Mr. Fossick gave the location of the subject property, stating the site is Zoned Downtown Edge with a Future Land Use Classification of Urban Edge. Senior Planner Fossick noted the applicant is requesting approval from the Planning Board for two separate adjustments, the first Adjustment to permit LED neon lighting. The second Adjustment permits a marquee sign for use other than a theater and to allow the sign to extend to top of the building. Senior Planner Fossick specified staffs review is based on facts and findings, the letters proposed are permitted per the Zoning Code and noted the Adjustments proposed are under consideration for signs. Mr. Fossick addressed the applicants' interests in regulations and how they relate to the applicant's business operations and clarified the regulations are the desire of the City Commission and community. Senior Planner Fossick also noted the current regulations do not preclude artistic expression or signage at the property, they are intended to create cohesion and compatibility. Mr. Fossick stated the photometric study was required due to the lighting style and noted a requirement in the Zoning Code pertaining to the light spillage. Senior Planner Fossick stated staff reviewed the adjustments against the approval of criteria of the Zoning Code and found the adjustments do not comply with the required standards for review and recommended denial. Vice Chair Deleo questioned if the decision was made by Senior Planner Fossick to require the Photometric Study. Mr. Fossick clarified that this decision was made by the department to verify compliance with the Zoning Code. Vice Chair Deleo questioned if the application could've been approved under the circumstances as presented. Senior Planner Fossick clarified the review process for approval. Vice Chair Deleo questioned if the application was denied by staff based on the code. Senior Planner Fossick confirmed that the proposal was initially submitted as a Building Permit, staff Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 14 questioned the sign plan and determined irregularities with the Zoning Code. The application was then submitted for an Adjustment. PB Member Salem questioned if the Zoning Code permits the theater to have the current type of signage. Senior Planner Fossick confirmed in the Downtown Edge District a theater is allowed per right a marquee sign. PB Member Christy questioned the Code section that requires a photometric site plan, compliance and questioned if a photometric site plan is required for all sign permits. Senior Planner Fossick clarified that the photometric plan was requested due to the unique lighting style being proposed. PB Member Christy questioned the photometric site plan was requested due to the Zone district. Mr. Fossick clarified signage was required for this application due to the lighting being proposed and noted a photometric study would be required if the petition were to be approved. Chief Planner Alison Christie presented and clarified the photometric study is required for al building permit. Ms. Christie noted it was required for the Adjustment application to avoid denial during the permit process which would require the applicant to return if denied. PB Member Salem questioned if a photometric study is required for a simple sign permit. Director of Development Services Lucia Panica clarified the photometric study is typically not requested as signage would meet code. Ms. Panica stated the photometric study was requested to prevent the applicant from returning to Planning Board and noted the study is required during the Building Permit process. Ms. Panica clarified that the Photometric Study examples that were sent did not address signage as they are: required for Site Plans. Ms. Panica stated a meeting was held with the applicant to clarify the examples sent during the application process. PB Member Salem questioned the number of times met with the applicant. Ms. Panica listed dates and stated the applicant was advised a Planning Board Adjustment would be required at the first meeting and when the Building Permit was requested. PB Member Salem questioned if the applicant continued to move forward with the Building Permit after being told an Adjustment is required. Ms. Panica confirmed and mentioned the Code cannot be deviated from and the Director has the ability to grant limited adjustments to an application. PB Chair Halflants questioned when a photometric study is required and if the marquee is permitted or the lettering. Ms. Panica advised when the study is required and noted the request for the marquee that is only permitted for a theater. PB Member Christy questioned if a marquee can be used without lettering. Ms. Panica stated that it would be related to a façade. PB Member Lamay questioned the definition of a sign and a mural. Ms. Panica advised the Zoning Text Amendments are being reviewed and provided examples of a mural versus a sign. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 14 Citizen Input: Enrico Ingnani presented and voiced concerns regarding the proposed sign. Ian Black presented and discussed his experience with the Rosemary District and voiced his opinion on the opportunities the proposal would bring to the Rosemary District. Louise Converse presented and stated that she is a tenant in Rosemary Square. Ms. Converse discussed her experience and voiced her opinion on the applicant's process. David Lough presented and voiced his opinion on the proposed sign. 1:34:14 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Development Services Director Lucia Panica presented to clarify approvals of previous signs that were presented by the applicant. Ms. Panica addressed the timeline of when the examples were approved. Ms. Panica also stated all applications need to meet criteria. PB Chair Halflants questioned visibility of the sign from the street if the sign met code requirements. Ms. Panica confirmed and provided different types of signs that meet code requirements. 1:36:37 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Kauffman voiced his opinion on the code for Rosemary District and compared different areas in the City of Sarasota. Mr. Brian Vaughn voiced his opinion on the request for a photometric study for the sign and the lighting for the proposed sign. Mr. Vaughn compared the lighting to an existing sign in the City. Mr. Mitchell stated the proposed sign is to fit in with the arts district and addressed concerns for the restaurant. Assistant City Attorney Connolly discussed the Standards ofReview. PB Member Christy stated 3 out of 5 of the standards of review are not applicable and would be a problem and voiced he supports the style. Mr. Christy stated the proposal is not consistent with what is permitted for an adjustment. PB Member Lamay voiced concerns on the City comparing the proposal to a Master Plan Community and voiced his opinion on the sign. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 14 PB Vice Chair Deleo addressed citizen's S input and voiced his opinion on the applicant's proposal. Vice Chair Deleo suggested ifthe proposal were to be approved a photometric study should be required. PB Chair Halflants voiced his opinion on the approval for the proposed sign. Mr. Halflants pointed out the criteria in the Staff Report and addressed the applicant's proposal stating the applicant is requesting to go beyond sign regulations. PB Vice Chair Deleo made a motion to find the adjustment 23-ADP-04 is consistent with Section IV-1903 of1 the Zoning Code and to establish the conditions outlined in the staff report and require a photometric study be completed. PB Member Lamay seconded the motion. PB Member Salem reopened the discussion. Mr. Salem stated the applicant was unable to comply with staff and compared his experiences working with staff. PB Chair Halflants voiced his opinion approving the proposed sign. PB Member Salem questioned the applicant's reason for the specific sign. PB Member Deleo addressed the applicant's application process, voiced his opinion on the code, application process and stated the Planning Board has ability to approve an adjustment. PB Member Lamay questioned if the plaza or developer is responsible for the removal oft trees. Ms. Panica clarified conversations with Mr. Mitchell in relation to the restaurant and addressed outdoor seating. PB Chair Halflants voiced his opinion on the applicant's reason for the size of the proposed sign. PB Member Christy questioned the statement listed on page six of the staff report. Assistant City Attorney Connolly clarified the statement. PB Vice Chair Deleo clarified the motion made and pointed out the conditions. PB Member Christy questioned if the statement listed is the law. Assistant City Attorney Connolly confirmed, provided an explanation, and clarified the motion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 14 PB Member Salem questioned if a change can be made to the sign to achieve the applicants request. Ms. Panica clarified the reasoning for a photometric study. Ms. Panica stated it was requested prior to Building Permit to avoid a second adjustment for lighting. Development Services Director Lucia Panica discussed the sign type, lighting and provided an example. Motion failed 3-2 with PB Chair Halflants, PB members Salem and Christy dissenting. Assistant City Attorney Connolly stated a second motion with three affirmative votes is required. PB Member Douglas Christy made a motion to move based on the evidence on record and applicable standards that adjustment 23-ADP-04 be found not consistent with Section IV-1903 ofthe Zoning Code and deny the request for an adjustment. PB Chair Halflants seconded the motion. PB Member Salem provided a reason for his decision. Motion passed to deny, 3-2 with PB member Lamy and Vice Chair Deleo dissenting. The Planning Board took a 30 -minute break. 1:40:37 P.M. 1. 1260 N. Palm Avenue Residences (1260, 1262, 1264, 1266, 1268, 1270, 1272 and 1274 N. Palm Avenue): Appeal Application Nos. 23-APP-04, 24-APP-01, and Planning Board Adjustment Application No. 24-ADP-01 appealing two Administrative decisions made by the Development Services Department regarding property with street addresses of 1260, 1262, 1264, 1266, 1268, 1270, 12722, and 1274 North Palm Avenue, for the project known as 1260 North Palm Residences, also known as The Obsidian. Appellants are appealing the decision of September 22, 2023, regarding application No. 23-ADS-09 which denied an Administrative Adjustment request to reduce habitable space from 106 feet to 81 feet and four inches on the ground floor and from 146 feet and seven inches to 134 feet on the second floor. Appellants are also appealing the decision of October 13, 2023, regarding application No. 23-ASP-02 which denied the Administrative Site Plan for the project. Applicants are also seeking Planning Board Adjustment approval to reduce required retail frontage on the ground floor by 30.5% from 95 feet to 66 feet of frontage. (Alison Christie, AICP, Development Review Chief Planner) City Attorney Connolly questioned the Planning Board members of ex-parte communications and called on affected persons. Mr. Connolly gave a recommendation for affected persons and discussed time limits. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 14 Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Chris Gallagher, George Scarf, and Robert Lincoln presented on behalf of the owner. Mr. Freedman provided the number of appeals and a description. Mr. Gallagher provided information on the existing site and the current establishments. Mr. Gallagher discussed zoning, property size, trees, and flood zone. Chris Gallagher provided information on the proposed application and gave a description of properties in the area. Mr. Gallagher compared previous adjustments and site plans in the area to the proposed adjustments and site plans. Mr. Gallagher compared locations under the current code. Mr. George Scarfe discussed staff comments regarding previous adjustment denials for previous applications, pointed out the Zoning Code and confirmed the property is not historic. Mr. Scarfe also addressed consistency, compatibility with the neighborhood and pedestrian experience. Mr. Scarfe stated the adjustments are regarding life safety, and noted there is a need for a curb cut as the property will have only one frontage. Mr. Scarfe addressed the habitable space and stated the proposed location is for the fire control room and noted per the fire department there is not a second location to place the fire control room. George Scarfe also stated the stairs that exit to the public right-of-way are required by the Florida Building Code. Mr. Robert Lincoln pointed out the pedestrian walkway and stated the adjustment required by staff is from a code requirement that states one-hundred percent retail is required and expressed that has not been a requirement for previous projects. Mr. Lincoln discussed requirements given by utilities. Chair Halflants questioned the Site Plan provided. Mr. Scarfe clarified the Site Plan shown was the second submittal during the DRC process. Mr. Gallagher addressed the driveway and clarified the reason for the width. Mr. Freedman addressed the ground floor plan that is being proposed and noted that changes have been made throughout the DRC process. Mr. Lincoln explained the plan and pointed out each use. Mr. Scarfe explained changes made throughout the DRC process. Mr. Lincoln addressed the entrance lobby and frontage access from the primary street. PB Member Lamay questioned the square footage ofthe existing building and proposed building. PB Member Lamay addressed the examples that were! provided by the applicant and questioned the similarities and differences of the proposed building and existing buildings. Mr. Scarfe referred to the Future Land Use and stated not all buildings will be the same. Mr. Lincoln noted the amount of retail in the proposed building will be reduced. PB Member Lamay questioned the benefits for the City and pedestrians. Mr. Lincoln discussed property rights. PB Member Clermont requested City Attorney Connolly to explain the Standards of Review Section IV-506 paragraph 6 and to discuss the applicant's S rights. City Attorney Connolly provided an explanation. PB Member Clermont questioned the limitations of interstitial space and height of the building. Mr. Connoly responded. Mr. Clermont discussed articles with the applicant regarding interstitial space and the proposed Site Plan. Mr. Scarfprovided an explanation for the excessiveinterstitial space. Mr. Clermont questioned the benefits for the community. Mr. Scarf discussed property rights. Mr. Lincoln compared buildings in the area to the adjustments the applicant is requesting. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 14 Vice Chair Deleo questioned the limitations of the site regarding inhabitable space and retail frontage. Mr. Scarfe addressed Vice Chair Deleo. Mr. Lincoln referred to the Downtown Code. Vice Chair Deleo questioned ifthe applicant acknowledged pedestrian accessibility to retail stores. Vice Chair Deleo questioned the developer's placement of the proposal. Mr. Lincoln advised the adjustments would still be required. Chair Halflants questioned the proposed driveway and placement. Mr. Scarf noted approval from Bay Plaza was not given for an alternate location. Chair Halflants addressed the driveway and impact on the sidewalk and questioned ifthe size of the driveway could be reduced. Mr. Scarfe addressed the minimum requirements, addressed the location and curb cuts. Chair Halflants questioned parking requirements. Mr. Scarfe provided details on the number of parking spaces. Chair Halflants questioned the possibility of increasing retail size and reducing the number of parking spaces. Mr. Scarfe advised it can be reviewed. Chair Halflants questioned reducing the height oft the proposed building. Mr. Scarfe referred to the Downtown Master Plan. 3:57:52 P.M. Staff Presentation: Alison Christie, Development Review Chief Planner presented and provided a description of the location and Zone District. Ms. Christie reviewed the adjustments being proposed and why the adjustments were denied by the Director of Development Services. Ms. Christie also noted the Site Plan did not receive full sign-off during DRC review and stated the conditions if the proposal were to be approved. Chief Planner Christie stated the appeals and adjustments were reviewed by staff and recommended denial as they did not meet the applicable Development Standards of the Zoning Code. Ms. Christie addressed the calculations and explained the differences in reduction for retail frontage that is being requested. Ms. Christie addressed the life safety concerns and advised it was acknowledged by Staff and stated the adjustment for ingress/egress off North Palm Avenue was approved. Ms. Christie discussed the Downtown Bayfront Zone District and retail frontages in specific areas of the Downtown Bayfront. Chief Planner Christie discussed the timeline of when adjustments were denied, conversations with the applicant and explained why adjustments and the Site Plan were denied. 4:25:25 P.M. Affected Persons: Mr. Morgan Bentley presented on behalf of Bay Plaza Condominium Association and addressed negotiations between the applicant and Bay Plaza. Mr. Bentley discussed property rights, Standards of Review, and the adjustments requesting to reduce the amount of retail being proposed. Mr. Bentley addressed the plans proposed throughout the DRC process. Mr. Bentley voiced his reasons for requesting denial, life safety issues, retail frontage, and interstitial space. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 14 Ms. Frouzeh Salini presented and addressed the number of businesses in the current building, the area and limited space for the proposed application. Mr. Frank Creaturo presented and voiced concerns about the current businesses. Mr. Creaturo voiced his opinion on the changes in the area. Mr. Mark Lavin presented and voiced concerns of the businesses in the current building, compared the proposal to developments in the area, and the limited space available for the proposed building. Mr. David Lough presented on behalf of the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Associations. Mr. Lough addressed the adjustments and voiced opinions on the negative impact the proposal would have. Mr. Lough addressed staff comments, discussed future applications, and noted a request of denial. Mr. Edward Loke presented, addressed concerns on pedestrian experience and the limited space for the size of the proposed building. Roger Messer presented and discussed concerns on the size of the proposed application. 4:06:53 P.M. Citizen Input: Mr. Paul Hess presented and voiced concerns about the size of the proposed building, construction of the project and threats of damaging structures nearby. Ms. Carole Kleinberg presented and voiced concerns about the building, location of the building, and the requests of the applicant. Ms. Linda Sloan presented and voiced concerns about the location of the building, height, impact on environment, and reduction of retail the applicant is proposing. Ms. Sloan also discussed the proposed driveway and the pedestrian experience. Mr. Irving Ross presented and discussed the collapse of a building in another municipality. Mr. Ross also voiced concerns about the distance between Bay Plaza and the proposed building, and life safety. Mr. Jose Hernandez presented and discussed an article regarding the developer and proposed application. Ms. Kathy Lindman presented and voiced concerns about decreased retail and pedestrian access. Mr. Jerome Apt presented and voiced concerns about the height of the building and the proposed interstitial space. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 14 Mr. David Bellows presented and discussed the guidelines of the City of Sarasota Zoning Code. Mr. Bellows voiced concerns about the proposed project. Mr. Jim Lampel presented and addressed the applicant's s presentation, comments made by the applicant regarding existing retail. Mr. Lampel voiced concerns about the size of the proposed building, and limited space. Mr. Ron Shapiro presented and voiced concerns about the building's height, limited space for the location, incompatibility, and health safety. of nearby residents and pedestrians. Mr. William Carnes presented via Zoom and voiced concerns about the height of the building, construction process, and limited space of the proposed building. 4:43:00 The Planning Board took a 15-minute break. City Attorney Connolly announced Mr. Robert Lincoln would like to request to continue the meeting to another date. Mr. Robert Lincoln presented and requested returning to the Board to address issues that were raised. Chair Halflants questioned the amount of time needed to present a revised plan. Mr. Lincoln suggested January 18, 2024. City Attorney Connolly stated that staff had a list of dates. PB Vice Chair Deleo questioned denying the request. Vice Chair Deleo voiced his opposition in returning. PB Member Clermont and Lamy agreed with Vice Chair Deleo. Chair Halflants questioned comments from staff about revised plans. City Attorney Connolly explained the process if plans were to change, returning to a continued meeting, and denying the application. Mr Lincoln stated the applicant would like for the PB members to review the changes prior to City Commission. City Attorney Connolly discussed the options the PB members have. PB Salem voiced concerns between the applicant and staff, PB member Salem also questioned the time frame applicant would have to make a change. City Attorney Connolly noted that if an appeal to the PB decision were to be made, City Commission has the option to return the Site Plan to the PB. Mr. Morgan Bentley noted that the site plan would need to be redrawn, staff would need to review and the possibility of staff approving a new site plan. Vice Chair Deleo voiced concerns about continuing the meeting. PB member Clermont voiced concerns about continuing the meeting and staff needing to review a new plan. PB Chair Halflants stated the continuance should be approved. Mr. Joel Freedman explained the process of submitting revised plans. PB member Salem questioned if changes would be made to retail and height. Mr. Freedman responded. Discussion took place regarding the differences between major and minor changes. Mr. Lincoln stated if the PB members were to deny, then the applicant would appeal to City Commission. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 14 Vice Chair Deleo made a motion to deny the request for an extension, seconded by PB member Lamay. Motion passed 3-2, with Chair Halflants and PB member Salem dissenting. 5:18:43 Affected Persons Rebuttal: Mr. Morgan Bentley presented and addressed comments regarding the reduction of retail requested by the applicant. Staff Rebuttal: Chair Halflants questioned if the applicant could meet retail requirements if the plan were to change. Chief Planner Christie stated she would need to review a site plan with the changes. Chair Halflants voiced concerns about meeting retail frontage and requirements. Ms. Christie clarified that access would need to be reviewed. Chair Halflants voiced concerns about the code and how a lobby can be counted towards required retail. Ms. Christie stated there may be ways to achieve Chair Halflants concerns. PB Vice Chair Deleo addressed issues with the current site plan. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Robert Lincoln, George Scarfe, and Chris Gallagher presented, and Mr. Lincoln stated life safety issues would be addressed during the building permit process. Mr. Lincoln noted the City would address concerns regarding the construction process. Mr. Lincoln presented the building plan and pointed out the residential entries and stated changes could be made to the site plan. Mr. Lincoln compared projects throughout the City with similar requests from the applicant and inconsistency with the Code. Mr. Lincoln also discussed property rights. Mr. Scarfe presented the floor plans for the proposed buildings, discussed balconies and window placement. Mr. Scarfe addressed comments made by the public regarding building maintenance. Mr. Gallagher addressed Mr. Morgans comments regarding adjustments made to the frontage. Mr. Gallagher referred to Chapter One of the Zoning Code and discussed the process of different buildings in the City of Sarasota. Mr. Scarfe presented a sketch of an optional revised plan. Chair Halflants voiced his opinion on different options for the building. Mr. Scarf addressed Chair Halflants comments and stated changes will be reviewed. 6:12:20 P.M. City Attorney Connolly discussed the motions and the standards of review. Vice Chair Deleo made a single motion in three parts based on the evidence on the record and the standards of review. The first part of the motion made to find that the Administrative Site Plan 23-ASP-02 is not consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and upholds the decision of the Director of Development Services to deny appeal 24-APP-01. Second motion to find that the Administrative Adjustment 23-ADS-09 is not consistent with Section IV-903 of the Zoning Code and upholds the decision of the Director of Development Services to deny appeal 23-APP-04. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 14 Third part of the motion is to find Planning Board Adjustment 24-ADP-01 is not consistent with Section IV-903 of the Zoning Code and to deny the adjustment. PB Clermont seconded the motion. Vice Chair Deleo noted that enough information was provided to support the motion made. PB Clermont discussed the height of thel building and voiced his support for the motion. Chair Halflants discussed the number of stories proposed for the height of the building and his opposition to the motion. Vice Chair Deleo voiced his opinion on the reduction of habitable space and the proposed retail space. PB Member Clermont explained why he supported the motion. Motion passed 4-1 with Chair Halflants dissenting. 6:20:50 P.M. V. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TOTHE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may: not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no citizen' S input. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 8, 2023 2. December 13, 2023 VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF VIII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the: next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Salem questioned reviewing the Historic Overlay District in the Newtown area regarding garage setbacks. Ms. Lucia Panica advised the PB members that the Planning Department is currently reviewing the process. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 14 Chair Halflants discussed reviewing the required width of driveways and sidewalk materials, the façade of the proposed building. PB Member Clermont questioned balcony requirements and overhang. PB Members clarified start time for the 1/24/24 meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:29:20 P.M. lm AR Alison Christie Michael Halflants, Chair General Manager and Secretary to the Board Planning Beard/Local Planning Agency