CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE. PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay (arrived at 6:05 pm), and Mort Siegel (left at 7:37 pm) Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Neighborhod & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. Attorney Connolly reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures, stated no applications for affected person status had been filed, and reviewed the recommended time limits for the petition. Board Members agreed to the time limits. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. PB Chair Gallagher requested any ex-parte communications be disclosed. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she had discussed the application with Senior Planner Mendez, former City employee Mike Taylor, former Mayor Kelly Kirschner, and Urban Design Studio employees Karin Murphy and Andrew Georgiadis. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 10 B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. SARASOTA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR ASSOCIATION: Application 14-GZW-01 is ai request by the Sarasota County Agricultural Fair Association for a Governmental (G) Zone Waiver to grant deviations from the regulations of the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District and the general sign regulations in the Zoning Code to allow construction of a replacement ground sign adjacent to Fruitville Road proposed to include a changeable LED electronic message board. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Rory S. Martin, President of the Sarasota County Agricultural Fair Association, Inc.; Mr. Ian Vingoe, President, Ian Vingoe Consulting, and Mr. Grant Vosburg, Project Manager, Robson Corporation appeared. Mr. Martin stated the intent was to replace the aging sign at Robart's Arena; the sign is a crucial part of the information system for the venue; the applicants have received surtax grant funds from the County for the project; Mr. Vingoe had been retained to research the code, work with City staff, and write a RFP using Ringling Museum's sign as a model; and the intent is to award the contract to the Robson Corporation if the project is approved. Mr. Vosberg gave an overview of the sign and scope of work stating the existing sign would be removed down to grade; the intent is to maintain the leading edge setback; and discussed the technical aspects of the proposed LED sign noting the overall size is 198 square feet, the height is 14 feet, the sign automatically dims/brightens throughout the day and drops to 30% brightness at night and has been pre-set to City and County standards, and the text and logo portion of the header sign is the only part that illuminates at night. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned the process for receiving grant funds from the County; why the RFP was written sO that four waivers would be required and if the applicants had a back-up plan; stated she understood the liabilities and dangers associated with manually changing the sign messages and questioned if a monument sign consistent with the overlay district were installed would the liability be reduced; noted her support for the Fair; stated her concerns with LED signage; noted animated text/g graphics and advertising not associated with events being held at Robart's S is prohibited; questioned how the applicants arrived at the 15 second change in the sign's message and if any thought had been given to meeting the City's standard or something in-between; questioned how many lines would fit and if motorists going 45 miles per hour would be able to read the messages; suggested signage by the door would be more effective due to the captive audience; and questioned if the purpose was to generate revenue, get a message out, or both. Mr. Martin stated a total of five million dollars of the voter approved surtax was allocated for fairground improvements and the grant funds were distributed via a MOU between the Fair and the Board of County Commissioners for each specific improvement; there is no back-up plan; the applicants looked at available technology; multiple events are held at the venue and changing out the sign manually was labor intensive; and noted the proposed sign is 50% smaller in size than the existing sign. Mr. Vingoe stated one of the waivers was necessary due to the fact LED signs are Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page3of1 10 internally lit and the City requires external lighting. Mr. Vosberg noted a monument sign would require manual change out while the LED is wireless technology. Mr. Martin stated a monument sign would be a greater traffic hazard as higher signs are more easily seen and are less distracting. In response to a question by PB member Ahearn-Koch, Attorney Connolly stated animation is prohibited while graphics and text are not. Mr. Martin stated the 15 seconds is based on sight distance and the time it takes to navigate that distance on an average, noted the need to promote multiple events, and stated the message has to be changed more often than every 24 hours. Mr. Vosberg stated the number of lines can vary; the acceptable standard is six inches; and noted he had not seen any traffic studies suggesting the proposed signage was unsafe. Mr. Vingoe stated the purpose was both for messaging and revenue noting the need to get the message out sO people would attend events thereby generating revenue. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated the applicants had indicated only the logo and the top part would be illuminated at night; questioned what a logo was in this case; if that portion of the sign was LED; if the signage would be dimmed to 30% during the day; if the plan was to leave the sign on at night; what code was being referred to when stating minimum brightness; what the normal candela per square meter (also called NITS) for billboards is; if the proposed signage would be 3000 NITS at night; where the 30% brightness came from; what existing signs would be comparable to 500 NITS at night; and if the sign would automatically go dark if it malfunctioned. Mr. Vosberg stated the logo was the squiggly lines; the words Sarasota Fairgrounds, Robarts Arena and the squiggly lines would be the only part illuminated at night; the LED will automatically dim down at night; noted the sign could be turned off/on at specified times; stated the sign auto adjusts during the daytime; the sign would be on at night at minimum brightness of 500 NITS; stated a Conforming Use Letter has to be filed with the courts; the average NITS for billboards is 8,000 - 10,000; the sign has been manually set to drop to 500 NITS at dark; an example of an existing sign is the Life Planning Law Firm sign on Mound; and stated the sign would go dark ifit malfunctioned. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why the applicants had stated their only other option was to leave the existing marquee sign in place; if the waiver for the 15 seconds was denied would the project be abandoned; how it would be more difficult for the applicants if the 15 seconds is not approved; stated if a sign was replaced with something comparable to the existing sign it would be static, modern, and would still get the message out; and questioned what restaurants the applicants referred to had LED signs and how often the message changes on those. Mr. Martin stated the Code allows for only repair/ maintenance of the existing sign; cited the number of events held; stated one message every 24 hours would negate the benefit of having a LED programmable sign; noted the size of the sign is being decreased significantly and smaller fonts would have to be used if 24 hours' worth of events had to be posted making it difficult to read; stated the restaurant referred to is on Washington Blvd; he had not timed the sign at the restaurant; noted he did time the LED sign at the Van Wezel and that sign changes 16-20 times per minute; and noted the LED sign for The Players scrolls. Discussion ensued regarding the fact the Van Wezel is a City operation and does not conform to the 24 hour requirement. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 10 PB Vice-Chair Svekis questioned what the proposed daytime NITS were; stated per his research the general guidelines suggested for daytime NITS was 5,000; since there were no code provisions once the project was approved there would be no recourse; questioned if the applicants were familiar with the County's discussion noting the issue was with the bottom of the sign being at four feet from the ground; and stated his concerns that the proposed height would be distracting to drivers. Mr. Vosberg stated the NITS would be set to a maximum of 8,500 and a minimum of 500 at night and reiterated a Conforming Use Letter had to be filed with the courts. Mr. Martin stated a lower sign would be more susceptible to vandalism and would be below the visibility of drivers. Discussion ensued regarding appropriate heights and viewing angles. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the applicants would be selling space for advertising; stated if advertising is part of a sponsor package with the values separated out it is paid advertising; and questioned if the applicants would be open to the idea of not using the color red in the LED signage. Mr. Martin stated the only events Robarts sponsors is the Fair; for other events there is a contract and license agreement only; and noted for large/frequent sponsors they do put "Sponsored by" on the sign. Mr. Vosberg stated access to the full spectrum of colors is available. Mr. Vingoe stated the RFP included a requirement that the colors of the sign should be neutral earth tones with the preponderance of colors tans and browns and any powerful colors should be used for trim only. PB member Lindsay questioned how much front footage was on Fruitville Road and the total acreage of the property. Mr. Martin stated the property consists of 65 acres and there is approximately 1400 feet of frontage on Fruitville Road. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated the specifics of the sign had already been discussed in detail SO she would briefly review the requested waivers and staff's S recommended conditions; stated the applicants were requesting four waivers that related to the height of monument signs, lighting provisions, setbacks and site visibility, and the frequency of change; stated staff recommended five conditions, the first outlining consistency and maximum parameters; noted the applicants had made an effort to keep within the general design parameters for monument signs; stated the second deals with the change in frequency to 15 seconds; noted if less restrictive requirements are enacted in the future the applicants could follow those less restrictive standards; stated changes are forthcoming as part of the Urban Design Studio's (UDS) work; stated the third requires messages to be related to Fair events and the sign cannot be used for off-site advertising; stated the fourth is a proffer from the applicant that the sign would be used for public emergency messages upon request; stated the fifth requires additional details be provided at the time of building permit application; noted a signed affidavit is recorded in the official records for enforcement purposes; and stated staff recommended approval with those five conditions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 10 PB member Siegel stated it was his understanding that the Planning Board's responsibility is to look at the purpose of the overlay district and signage and confine their consideration to those two statutes rather than what is in a business plan, motives, or profits; questioned if there was any evidence of public safety issues at the location based on the current sign; questioned if staff saw any public safety potential problems related to the proposal; and how the City would address any public safety issues that arose. Senior Planner Mendez stated the existing sign had been hit a few times; the only safety issue she was aware of was the manually changing out of the message on the sign; there would likely be less public safety issues than there are with the existing sign; and there are other provisions the City can fall back on if traffic or safety issues arise. PB Vice-Chair Svekis questioned what the Code was as it relates to LED signage, illumination, NIT levels, etc.; stated three of the four waivers requested are not positive for public safety; questioned if it was fair to say the requirements the applicants are requesting waivers from were adopted due to public safety concerns; stated traffic travels at 50 miles per hour on Fruitville Road and Sarasota has an aging population with inherent vision issues; he was uncomfortable approving something when there is no code in place; and noted literature he has read states daytime NITS should be no more than 5,000. Senior Planner Mendez stated nothing is formally adopted in the Code; noted the uniqueness of the site; and stated Grant Vosberg has been working with the UDS: in developing regulations for LED signs. PB member Lindsay stated the topic should be dealt with through code revisions; it was inappropriate to try to regulate ad hoc; and the applicants should not be penalized because the City has not addressed the issue. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated there had been studies done that say electronic signs divert the eye from the road; questioned if staff had performed any traffic studies or attended seminars on the subject; and noted the City code requires the signs change no more than every 24 hours. PB member Lindsay stated the City violates that provision on a regular basis with the Van Wezel sign. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated those violations should not be perpetuated; noted the signs at Van Wezel and Ringling Museum are at traffic signals while Robarts is not; traffic passes Robarts at high speeds, there are bikers, the Boys & Girls Club, and events at Robarts that create public safety issues. Senior Planner Mendez stated since she does not have the expertise to do SO it would be inappropriate for her to do those studies and that in her discussions with the applicants prior to submittal she provided a recommendation that the sign should not change more than once in the timespan that it takes the average driver to pass in order to minimize distraction. PB Chair Gallagher suggested an expert be brought in if the City wished to create standards, noting everything was conjecture at this point. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned what type of sign this would be considered under the Code and if a ground sign is considered a building identification sign. Senior Planner Mendez stated it is considered a ground sign and noted the City does not regulate content. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 10 PB: member Siegel stated the Planning Board needed to stay within the issues; it was unfair to the applicants; and the decision should be based on the standards. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted the code states signs can change every 24 hours; waivers are: not a given; and competent and substantial evidence showing hardship is required. PB member Lindsay stated it was not the applicant's S fault the City does not have adopted standards; and stated since the Van Wezel is a City operation they have set the standard because it is a comparable use. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned Attorney Connolly as to whether the Van Wezel sign sets a precedent. Attorney Connolly stated it did not. Attorney Connolly stated the public hearing had gone amuck; the purpose of the hearing was to consider the four waivers the applicants applied for; the Planning Board needed to focus on Section IV, 1706 of the City's Zoning Code which is the criteria for whether or not the Planning Board should recommend to the City Commission to grant or deny the waivers; read the criteria into the record; and noted staff had addressed the criteria in their report. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned what about the building or land created a hardship for the applicants that would require the sign changing every 15 seconds; why five events couldn'tbe listed on a static sign; stated public safety was the biggest issue for her and questioned if the City was putting itself in a position by allowing the 15 seconds; and if the applicants had requested the absolute minimum waiver. Senior Planner Mendez noted her response to criteria "a" that states in part "There is arguably no similar property within the City that has the same range of uses and activities as the Fair, ranging from agricultural expositions to high school graduations, to major entertainment events. It also represents one of the larger contiguous properties within the City, with substantial property frontage along Fruitville Road but with no actual structures. Therefore, it is necessary to have the sign to act as a landmark and direct visitors to the parking and the primary Fair property south of Ringling Boulevard.";s stated the applicants had substantially reduced the area of the sign; it could potentially be a hardship to list 24 hours' worth of events on a smaller sign; there was no evidence to support the contention that the sign changing every 15 seconds created public safety concerns; stated it was difficult to determine what the absolute minimum waiver for the use was; the applicants had provided evidence supporting the request; no evidence that refuted that had been presented; and noted the applicants had reduced the overall area of the sign to what they believed to be the minimum needed. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated the applicants had also requested a waiver from the height requirements. Senior Planner Mendez stated that although a height waiver is requested, it does not necessarily impact overall size of the sign. Sign area is not regulated in the district, therefore, in general, the sign could be twice the existing size whether or not a height waiver was granted. PB Vice-Chair Svekis questioned what recourse was available to correct the situation once approved noting it is a government project that deals with lighting issues no one understands. PB Chair Gallagher stated staff had recommended conditions. PB Vice- Chair Svekis stated he felt uncomfortable without a code to follow. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 10 Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Martin appeared and stated the applicants had researched the issue; he understood there is no code; the applicants had reached out to area experts to design a project that functions as needed for the applicants as well as meets future design criteria; the UDS had stated Robarts was a location they would recommend LED signage for; the applicants were trying to decrease the net amount of signage while still communicating messages effectively; the applicants met with City staff and it was determined the G-Zone Waiver process was the only process available; and noted the uniqueness of the facility. Mr. Vingoe stated there was nothing in the proposal that is technologically out of line or dangerous; he had worked with many cities on the east coast and no established boundaries are being crossed; and noted the Ringling Museum sign was used as a model. PB Vice-Chair Svekis questioned what the NITS were on the Ringling Museum sign. Mr. Vosberg stated the Ringling Museum sign had the capacity to go to 12,000 NITS, it is controlled by photo cells, does not dim at night, and noted that in terms of recourse a Conforming Use Letter had to be filed. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB member Lindsay made a motion to find Application 14-GZW-01 consistent with Section IV-1706 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the waivers to the City Commission, subject to the five conditions listed. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. PB member Lindsay stated the Zoning code focuses on normal commercial properties within the City; there are no comparable properties in the City; the scale of the proposed sign is in keeping with the size of the road and facility; the height allows for people in the westbound lanes to see it over the cars in the eastbound lanes; the 15 second change out is likely reasonable; the existing signs that change out more frequently have not generated traffic concerns; no evidence had been presented that traffic problems have occurred in other cities; the venue is comparable to the Van Wezel whose sign changes more frequently; the applications can't be denied just because no data exists; criteria "c", "d", and "e need to be considered; noted a large building could be constructed at the same location as the proposed sign; stated he felt the requests were reasonable given the size of the site, the size of the road the site is on; the use of the site which is analogous to other entertainment venues in the area that have similar signs; and the proposed sign is less intrusive than the Van Wezel and USF signs. PB: member Siegel stated he agreed with PB: member Lindsay and Attorney Connolly; the applicant had met the criteria; it was extremely inappropriate to exercise unbridled discretion; the applicants had met their burden; and he supports the waivers requested. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated while new technology has to be embraced it is ahead of cities most of the time; cities have to figure how to codify new technology; and stated he was troubled by the height. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 10 PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated she was not as concerned with the height, setback, lighting, or LED as she was the 15 second change out of the message; she sees the 15 second change out as a public safety issue; noted Miami had problems controlling LED signs; stated she had read studies that say flashing signs are a distraction; referenced a study done in Sweden; stated because the facility is located on a major thoroughfare the electronic sign changing every 15 seconds was a major safety issue; she would grant the other three waivers; the 15 second change out was a very dangerous and she hoped another precedent was not being set; the burden was on the applicant and they have not met that; and she would like to see the 15 second change out removed. PB Chair Gallagher stated he supported the motion; if Board members had read studies they should share those with the other Planning Board members and staff; the sign would not create any greater distraction than an attractive man or woman walking down the road; and the decisions made are to be about evidence and he would be happy to read any evidence for future considerations. The motion carried 3/2 with PB Vice-Chair Svekis and PB member Ahearn-Koch voting no. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen's input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 13, 2014 By consensus the Planning Board approved the August 13, 2014 minutes as presented. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no presentations of topics by staff. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB member Lindsay stated the need to work into staff's S schedule the examination of available data related to light levels from LED signs noting the examination needs to be data driven. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated he had spent three hours on the internet looking up information for this hearing and presented copies of the information. PB member Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 10 Ahearn-Koch stated she too had spent a lot of time researching the issue for this hearing as well as for her business, stated she had located nine or ten reports backing up her statements, and stated the need to be careful of where data comes from. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated the City Commission had discussed the Sunshine Law at their special meeting and it was stated that if a topic that is likely to come before the Commission in the future is being discussed at a meeting no more than one commissioner could attend even if neither speaks; stated attendance alone is the litmus test; stated if two or more commissioners wanted to attend a function they have to provide a minutes secretary; and stated there is a concern about continuous lawsuits particularly when not covered by the City. PB member Lindsay stated the statute says minutes have to be kept; noted it does not have to be a stenographic record or recording; stated that information was based on a panic response to an individual that is costing a lot of people money defending those things; and the statute is not intended to keep public officials from participating in a public process. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned Attorney Connolly if that applied to advisory boards as well. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct. PB Vice-Chair Svekis questioned Attorney Connolly as to why materials were provided for quasi-judicial hearings if the focus is supposed to be strictly on the quasi-judicial aspects of a case. PB Chair Gallagher noted it was the responsibility of the Board members to sort through the information and determine what applies. Attorney Connolly reiterated his statement the quasi-judicial hearings were running amuck; noted PB Vice-Chair Svekis and PB member Ahearn-Koch had stated they spent hours doing research on the internet and stated the PB members can't do that; quasi- judicial public hearings require a decision be made based on competent, substantial evidence provided for the record at the table; internet research is ex-parte communication and there was no revelation to the parties; PB Vice-Chair Svekis had provided information in writing; under Section IV-202 of the Zoning Code subsection 7a talks about quasi-judicial hearings; any written information must be submitted to the City Auditor & Clerk's office to be included in the record of the meeting; and in the future any research beyond what is provided in the record had better be put in the record. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if it counts even though it is part of her job. Attorney Connolly stated if decisions are based on the information, it counts; parties have a due process right to know what decisions are based upon; if parties do not know about information decisions are based upon that is criteria for setting aside decisions and having to start all over; the purpose of his discussion at the beginning of every meeting is to ensure competent, substantial evidence is in the record; and noted that is the purpose of disclosing ex-parte communications. PB member Lindsay stated the parties have a right to the information SO they can refute it if SO desired. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if information gathered as part of her profession counted as well and if stating the information for the record would be enough. Attorney Connolly reiterated if the information is being relied upon to make a decision itl has to be provided SO the parties can question the Board member. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 10 PB: member Lindsay questioned if the special meeting on 9/17 was going to be held. Attorney Connolly stated the meeting will be held, and the special meeting scheduled for 9/23 would only occur if the meeting on 9/17 needed to be continued. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm. - lelzlw 25m CG--L cw-d David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, fhair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]