CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members: Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager, Neighborhood & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, 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. Chair Gallagher noted the new recording system stating the microphones are very sensitive. 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 TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. Attorney Connolly reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures and the recommended time limits for the petitions. Board Members agreed to the time limits. The oath was administered to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. Attorney Connolly stated two applications for affected person status had been received. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 15 PB Chair Gallagher requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications. PB Chair Gallagher stated he has been involved in the State Street Parking Garage project for years and it is not possible to reiterate every communication he has had over the years. PB Chair Gallagher stated recent conversations were with the Urban Design Studio, Courtney Mendez, and Steve Stancel. B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Seaward Development [129 TAFT DRIVE): Site Plan application 14-SP-01 proposes a multifamily residential project on property located in the WFR (Waterfront Resort) zone district. The proposed project consists of two buildings 35 feet above base flood elevation (or B.F.E.), one containing 12 residential units and one containing 6 residential units, for a total of 18 units. Parking for the units will be located in enclosed garages under the buildings, with surface parking for guests. The applicant has received approval for a variance from the 25% maximum building coverage on the site. [Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner). Attorney Connelly stated an application for affected person status had been received from Mr. Tom Thibodeau. Mr. Thibodeau was not present and therefore his request was denied. Applicant Presentation: Brenda Patten of the Berlin Patten Law Firm representing Seaward Development LLC; Patrick DiPinto, Managing Partner of Seaward Development LLC; and Mark Sultana, Architect for the project appeared and discussed the proposal. Ms. Patten stated the applicants were requesting approval for development on property located at 129 Taft Drive and noted the zoning allows for twenty units however the applicants are only requesting 18 units. Ms. Patten stated the proposed site plan consists of two buildings with a maximum height of 35 feet noting the west building will consist of 12 units and the east building will have 61 units. Ms. Patten stated the space between the buildings is designated as a ground level recreation area with a shade structure, a BBQ grill, and a fountain. Ms. Patten discussed the proposed parking stating the west building will have 25 spaces for residents and the east building will have 12 spaces for residents. Twelve surface parking spaces are proposed at the access points for guests and service vehicles. Ms. Patten stated the applicants have received a variance to allow 34.6% building coverage on the parcel with the condition that the parking structure also not exceed 34.6% building coverage and that with the approved variance the plan meets all code requirements. Ms. Patten discussed the staff report noting the recommendation for approval with three conditions, stated the first condition reads "Eliminate the three curb cuts and associated six on-site parking spaces along the Taft Drive frontage", / stated the applicants strongly disagree with that condition, and noted the proposal meets the City's Zoning Code and Engineering Design and Criteria Manual. Ms. Patten stated staff recommended eliminating the curb cuts to improve pedestrian access and provide for more public parking spaces on Taft Drive, noted a 5 foot sidewalk is being provided, and if the zoning was the same as the properties east of Ben Franklin Drive 8 lots with 8 driveways would be permitted. Ms. Patten stated the staff report states consideration of pedestrian circulation is appropriate due to the location of the parcel between Ted Sperling Park and a beach access point and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 15 noted there is already a public sidewalk on the south side of Taft Drive that leads to a marked crosswalk at Ben Franklin Drive which provides access to a sidewalk on the west side of Ben Franklin Drive and that is the safest route to access the beach. Ms. Patten noted staff had concerns regarding the reduction in the number of public parking spaces on Taft Drive due to the curb cuts, however there are "no parking" signs along that portion of Taft Drive and those could be eliminated to allow for public parking along the north side of Taft Drive. Ms. Patten stated the curb cuts are an important safety issue for residents entering the garages, noted large service vehicles will use the public entrances that face Taft Drive, stated if those curb cuts are eliminated vehicles will park along Taft Drive using up public parking spaces, and noted fire safety is a big issue. Ms. Patten discussed a site plan that was approved for the site in 2003 stating that as part of that 6 curb cuts, 4 of those being on Taft Drive, were approved and in order to justify denial of the application or approval of the elimination of the proposed curb cuts for this project would require new facts to be presented as to why those are no longer appropriate. Ms. Patten stated Mr. DiPinto had met with the neighbors prior to the variance hearing, they have 11 letters of support, and requested the Planning Board approve the application without condition number 1. PB member Siegel questioned where the confusion was between staff and the applicant. Ms. Patten stated there was no confusion, they submitted their plan and staff's S response was the curb cuts interfere with pedestrian traffic and reduces parking available to the public, noting the Fire Department objected to the elimination of the curb cuts. PB member Siegel stated his concerns that the applicant's opposition to condition number one was not reflected in the staff report. Mr. Sultana stated at DRC staff had recommended eliminating one curb cut, the applicants met with staff and stated their objection to the deletion of a curb cut however did agree to reduce the widths to 14 feet. Mr. Sultana stated the applicants were never informed that staff would be recommending all three curb cuts be eliminated. Ms. Patten stated she was unaware of that recommendation until she received the staff report. PB member Siegel questioned if the neighbors Mr. DiPinto spoke with were private owners. Mr. DiPinto stated yes noting the neighbors were strongly opposed to the large development approved in 2003 and were very supportive of this proposal. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the applicants would be willing to eliminate the curb cuts if the Fire Department did not require them. Mr. Sultana stated that since the front doors of the buildings face Taft Drive if the curb cuts were eliminated access would be from the rear of the building and noted the 3 curb cuts on Taft coincide with the three front doors. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why have the curb cuts on Blvd of the Presidents. Mr. Sultana stated those provide the residents access to the parking garages. Mr. DiPinto noted those are for the owners only and the front curb cuts are for service vendors. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if providing two curb cuts, with the western one being made wider, could be a compromise. Mr. Sultana stated the applicants had suggested that to staff and staff didn'tfeel it would make a difference. Ms. Patten noted the Fire Department had provided a truck template that the applicants relied on. Mr. Sultana noted the Fire Department had approved the curb cuts as shown. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned when the previous site plan was approved. Ms. Patten stated the site plan was submitted in 2003 and approved in 2004. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 15 PB member Lindsay questioned if the 6 foot wall between the two western curb cuts could be reduced in height with fencing for safety reasons noting an opaque wall at a curb cut creates visual impairments for drivers and pedestrians. Mr. Sultana stated the applicants agreement with that change. PB member Svekis questioned if the Fire Department required the two curb cuts at the western portion of the property would they be able to service the building to the east using those curb cuts. Mr. Sultana stated the Fire Department only required each curb cut have a minimum width of 15 feet, stated the applicants had met with staff and staff had not stated any objections until issuing their staff report. Ms. Patten noted staff had stated their concerns regarding the number of curb cuts previously however the applicants were not aware that staff was going to recommend the elimination of the curb cuts. PB member Svekis questioned the number of parking spaces for guest parking, noting if a service vehicle was parked there the guest parking would be blocked. Mr. Sultana stated there are 12 guest parking spaces as well as a loading zone in the rear of the property and noted the need to ensure access to the parking garages is not blocked. PB Chair Gallagher requested the applicants review the pedestrian routes. Mr. Sultana stated there is a pedestrian crosswalk across Ben Franklin Drive that leads to an existing sidewalk, a new sidewalk is proposed along Ben Franklin Drive, Taft Drive and Blvd of the Presidents providing pedestrian access into the building via the front doors, handicap access is provided at both sides of the buildings as well as in the parking garage, a sidewalk goes from the front of the building to the pool as well as to the front sidewalk, and a sidewalk as well as a Kayak storage rack, is proposed along the back of thé building to allow for easy access to the park. PB Chair Gallagher questioned what the required setbacks are. Mr. Sultana stated the required setback along Taft Drive is 30 feet noting 35 feet is proposed, along Blvd of the Presidents is 10 feet and 34 feet is proposed, along Ben Franklin Drive is 30 feet and 32 feet is proposed, and the rear is 15 feet ad approximately 20 is proposed. Ms. Patten stated the large setbacks are due to the frontages being considered front yards. PB member Svekis questioned if any of the applicants were kayakers and if SO how they transported their kayaks. Mr. Sultana stated he puts his kayak on a wheeled cart and pulls it behind him. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated the request is for site plan approval in the WFR Zone District, noted the base development standards have been met, and discussed the curb cuts/parking issues. Senior Planner Mendez stated she was surprised by the applicant's comments noting staff has been quite consistent in their comments through the DRC, a special meeting was held that included the applicants, staff and the City's Parking Manager to discuss alternatives, and while there is no parking allowed on Taft Drive currently there is support for changing that. Senior Planner Mendez stated the applicants were emphatic that they were not interested in on-street parking for their project and are set on the number of curb cuts. Senior Planner Mendez noted the project met the minimum standards ofthe Codes and therefore the DRC signed off on the project however it was noted the curb cut and parking issues would be discussed at the Planning Board meeting, and noted that is reflected in the recommended condition. Senior Planner Mendez further stated the Fire Department comment was ifthe Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page5of1 15 curb cuts were constructed those needed to be a minimum of15 feet wide however the Fire Department did not require the curb cuts. Senior Planner Mendez presented an aerial with the site plan overlayed on it, noted the location ofthe three curb cuts and six parking spaces, stated the alternative suggested was for the removal of the curb cuts to allow for on-street parking which serves the same needs, stated even with the required separation 400 feet of frontage would be available which would allow for up to 10 - 13 parking spaces, double what is currently proposed, the proposed sidewalk would function as protection for pedestrians as well as allow for wide pedestrian access to the buildings. Senior Planner Mendez stated cut through traffic is an issue on Blvd ofthe Presidents and noted on-street parking could slow traffic in that area. Senior Planner Mendez discussed the applicant's comments regarding service vehicles stating with on-street parking and long parking area on-site would be available as well as the loading zone that is provided for. Senior Planner Mendez stated staff also relies on the Advisory Community Design Guidelines which has a section on parking and vehicle that states "Site design should minimize the impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties and pedestrian safety" and some oft the techniques used to minimize the impacts of driveways and parking lots are listed as "Locate surface parking at the rear or side of the zoning lot; Minimize the number and width of driveways and curb cuts; Locate parking in less visible areas ofthe site; and, Locate driveways SO they are visually less dominant". Senior Planner Mendez stated that ift the curb cuts/parking areas are eliminated the amount ofin impervious surface would be substantially reduced opening up green space that would enhance the site and noted otherwise the site plan was good, particularly the height ofthe buildings as that is more consistent with the adjacent zoning. PB member Lindsay questioned the width of the pavement on Taft Drive and if on-street parking would be permitted on both sides ofthe road and noted the property to the south is government owned with no curb cuts. Senior Planner Mendez stated staffi is looking for solutions to parking for both this project and public parking. PB member Lindsay noted absent the reconstruction ofthe road parking on the south side is best. Senior Planner Mendez noted concerns with parking over the water mains on the south side to which PB member Lindsay stated that was a stretch. PB member Siegel questioned if that would technically be allowed and if any traffic studies had been completed noting he drove through the area and there was not much traffic. Senior Planner Mendez noted there is more traffic at peak hour than during normal times ofthe day. PB member Siegel stated that was a judgment on staff's part and questioned if there was history of problems. Senior Planner Mendez stated staff": S recommendations are based on the Advisory Community Design Guidelines, planning principles, and the criteria for site plan approval. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted when the Ritz Beach Club was considered by the Planning Board a year ago parking for the Tiki Bar was an issue, questioned ifthe provision of on-street parking would help to solve that as well as access to the beach, questioned how many spaces are typically needed, if DRC sign-offi includes the Fire Department, and ifthe Fire Department would be ok with eliminating the curb cuts. Senior Planner Mendez stated two spaces per unit are required, that she had not heard anything to indicate the Fire Department would object to the elimination of the curb cuts, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 15 and noted other access is available. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the Fire Department's comments were recommendations only, where the spot allocated for service vehicles was, when the Ritz Beach Club was built and ifthe Planning Board was required to consider as evidence the previous site plan approved for the property. Senior Planner Mendez stated the only requirement oft the Fire Department is a minimum width of15 feet and the loading zone for service vehicles is located off of Blvd oft the Presidents. Attorney Connolly stated the Planning Board' s decision on quasi-judicial matters must be supported by competent and substantial evidence, noted the vast majority ofthe time that can lead to multiple conclusions, and the Planning Board should only consider the information provided at this hearing to support their decision. PB member Svekis noted the sidewalk on the south side meanders and questioned what would be required to have it connect SO the residents of this proposed project could cross. Senior Planner Mendez staff would not recommend connecting unless parking spaces were provided and noted mid-block connections are discouraged. PB member Svekis questioned ifCounty approval would be required. Senior Planner Mendez stated only if outside of the City's right-of-way. PB member Lindsay questioned if the park is owned by the County or only operated. Senior Planner Mendez confirmed the park is County owned. Citizen Testimony: There was no citizen testimony. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Sultana appeared and questioned if the Planning board received copies of the DRC comments. They do not. Mr. Sultana noted the advisory comments regarding curb cuts which states "In our previous request, we asked that you consider reductions in the number of driveway cuts along Taft Drive. While three driveways remain, two have been converted to one-dimensional and appropriately narrowed. While we still do not feel this is an ideal solution, we acknowledge that this is advisory only and the plans may move forward to Planning Board as currently designed." Mr. Sultana stated the comments do not say to remove all three curb cuts anywhere and noted as a result the applicants came up with a plan to reduce the widths. Ms. Patten appeared and stated if parking is to be provided on Taft Drive the south side is the most appropriate location since it is public land, has an existing sidewalk, and has an existing crosswalk. Ms. Patten also stated the loading space provided will not accommodate all service vehicles, noted three points are front doors to the development and service vehicles need to be able to park in that area for convenience, and further noted the service vehicles with longer lengths cannot park in the loading zone. Mr. Sultana stated parking on the south side of Taft Drive will provide what the City wants and the applicants could then have curb cuts without interfering with pedestrians. Ms. Patten stated while she respects Senior Planner Mendez's knowledge of the codes the site is difficult, is long and thin with three front yards, noted the previously approved project had four curb cuts on Taft Drive for a reason, and the development of the site will not work without the curb cuts. Mr. DiPinto stated he is concerned for the future residents that will live there, that he cleans the property of beer cans and cigarette butts every Monday morning, and stated future residents will not want to live there if public parking is allowed on their property. Mr. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 15 DiPinto stated Mr. Lyons stated parking on their front yard would be monitored and stated late night people leaving the bar and going to their vehicles parked 40 feet from their bedroom windows would be challenging. PB member Svekis stated his concerns regarding Mr. DiPinto's remarks about parking in the owner's front yard noting public right-of-way is not their front yard and stated he can't see forbidding public parking for a particular project. Mr. DiPinto stated he was looking out for the owners, noting they shouldn'thave to provide parking for bar patrons. Staff Rebuttal: PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if there was a concrete discussion with the applicants regarding the elimination of the curb cuts. Senior Planner Mendez stated there were discussions however staff did not state clearly they would be recommending eliminating all of the curb cuts however did bring the issue up. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if consideration had been given to having two curb cuts with six parking spaces. Senior Planner Mendez stated that had been discussed however the applicants felt that was not feasible due to the desire to have a parking space at each building entrance, noting if only two curb cuts that are fully separated there may be an opportunity for limited on-street parking and that the visibility triangle shown negate the ability to have on-street parking. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if parking on the south side had been thoroughly investigated. Senior Planner Mendez stated that had been discussed but not with the County. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the six curb cuts referenced on the first page of the executive summary was an error and requested verification there are five. Senior Planner Mendez confirmed five is correct. PB member Svekis noted staff's narrative discussed the preservation and enhancement of pedestrian experience stating when most people move kayaks they use the street rather than sidewalk and questioned if the launch facility being located where it is would create a hazard for kayak haulers. Senior Planner Mendez stated the existing pavement is narrower than the right-of-way and if the road was brought up to standards there would be more width. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB: member Siegel made a motion to find Site Plan 14-SP-01 consistent with Section IV- 506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the following modification of the conditions: Strike Condition #1 in its entirety; Strike under Condition #2 the language "With the exception of changes required by Condition #1 (above)" and include all of the rest of Condition #2 and Condition #2i in their entirety. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion and requested it be amended to add a condition that "the wall between the two western curb cuts on Taft Drive be substantially transparent for pedestrians and motorists above 30" above grade." - Discussion ensued regarding the size and location of the wall. PB member Siegel agreed to the amendment. PB: member Siegel stated the Planning board has observed the Lido community being extremely active and he feels it is significant that the developer met with the adjacent residents, that no one is present to object, and he supports the project. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 15 PB member Lindsay stated he felt the circular drive was good noting FedEx and UPS will be at the location every day and it is more practical for them than using the loading zone which justifies the extra curb cut. PB member Lindsay discussed the parking issue stating if the City wants extra parking they can make it available on the south side entirely unobstructed with no curb cuts which would provide more parking than the north side and could do angled parking to increase the number of parking spaces even more. PB member Lindsay also noted the applicants have provided parking that exceeds the code requirements which means parking generated by the project will occur on-site rather than on the street. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated the need to consider parking needs on Lido which has been a problem, noted the beach cannot be accessed, stated the need to consider the City's recommendation that she feels was not made lightly, stated she would like to see the south side pursued if the project goes through, complimented the applicants for taking great pains to design a beautiful project and be respectful of the neighbors, noted the applicants stated they did not have sufficient notice of the condition to eliminate the curb cuts, however does not support the motion based on the standards of always trying to improve pedestrian access, parking and public access, and noted the public street is not the projects front yard. PB: member Svekis stated the issue is six parking spaces, delivery vehicles will not generate much traffic, he does not see a problem with the curb cuts, and he hopes the City will pursue the on-street parking. PB Chair Gallagher stated he supports the project, given there is a 50 foot right-of-way the City can do parking on both sides of the street, that the Planning Board is stuck between a rock and hard place, that he appreciates staff' S perspective regarding a pedestrian friendly environment, that the applicants are caught with old zoning that requires 30 setbacks which points to the need to take a comprehensive look at the codes, that downtown already had been addressed, the streets have been designated SO you know what to expect, he feels everyone is trying to do the right thing, if the City is interested in on-street parking they can pursue that, and the applicant made a good point regarding the fact eight driveways could be allowed. The motion passed 4/1 with PB member Ahearn-Koch voting no. PB Chair Gallagher made a recommendation that the Secretary take to the Urban Design Studio problems that arise at Planning Board meetings noting PB member Lindsay's point regarding the wall and that in the future the developer could come back and make it a 6' foot solid wall. 2. STATE STREET PARKING GARAGE [1538 STATE STREET): Application 14-ADP-02 proposes three adjustments including two adjustments to off-street parking requirements in the Downtown Core (DTC) zone district as specified in Section VII- 206(8) ofthe Zoning Code (2002 Edition) and one adjustment to the building design standards in the Downtown zone districts as listed in table VI-1004 of the Zoning Code for the proposed State Street Parking Garage located on property within the Downtown Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 15 Core (DTC) zone district with a street address of1538 State Street. The first requested adjustment is from the requirement in Section VII-206(8)(D) which states that parking shall be accessed from an alley or secondary street when possible and limits development to only a single access if access is taken from a primary street. The applicant is requesting an access drive on State Street and Ringling Boulevard, both of which are primary streets, requiring adjustment to both location and number of access points under this section. The second requested adjustment is from the requirement in Section VII-206(8)(C)0) requiring garages to be located in the third layer and masked by a liner building. In this case the applicant is not proposing a liner building above the ground level, resulting in upper story parking located in the second layer and abutting the right-of-way, requiring adjustment from both the location of parking and liner building requirement above the measured third floor. This adjustment applies only to the public garage portion along the State Street façade. The third requested adjustment is from the design standard requirement in Table VI-1004 that buildings in the DTC zone district shall have a minimum 12 foot recess along each street front commencing above the 2nd, 3md, or 4th story. The applicant's design proposes no recess along the full height and length of the State Street and Lemon Avenue facades. [Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner). Attorney Connolly stated an application for affected person status had been received from Mr. John Vetri. Mr. Vetri was not present and therefore his request was denied. Applicant Presentation: Joel Freedman, Daryl McLain, and Steve Stancel appeared. Mr. Freedman discussed the project stating there are currently 125 surface parking spaces, the proposal is a public garage with approximately 399 spaces, the ground floor will consist of 13,873 sq ft of retail, the liner building will contain retail on the ground floor with the upper floors containing either residential, office, or commercial that will be developed by a private second entity, the site is currently accessed by Ringling with a curb cut, the applicants are requesting that curb cut be relocated to the east, and that the alley to Lemon Avenue be reopened. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants are requesting three adjustments, the first is to eliminate the required 12 foot building recess above the second, third and fourth floors, noting the zoning is Downtown Core which allows up to ten stories. Mr. Freedman stated the second adjustment is to allow parking to be located in the first and second layer noting the code requires a 20 foot setback from the property line and the proposal is for the parking to go all the way to the edge of the building. Mr. Freedman stated the third adjustment requested is related to access, stated Lemon Avenue, State Street, and Ringling Blvd are primary streets and the code does not allow for vehicle access along primary streets, noted the existing curb cut and the need to open up the alley for service vehicles. Mr. Freedman further stated opening access on State Street serves a very important purpose in terms of functionality. Mr. Freedman discussed the proposed liner building stating that would be developed separately at a later time, stated the applicants were requesting the elimination of the required building recess and noted the future developer may request other adjustments in the future. Mr. Freedman discussed the history of the property stating the site was purchased in a land banking situation, the Downtown Master Plan identified the property as a site for a civic parking structure, the challenge is the depth of the of property noting it is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 15 under 120 feet, the need to be as reasonably efficient as possible which generated the need to request the elimination of the required building recess, stated the viability of the liner building is also impacted, efforts have been made to make the architecture exemplary including retail on the bottom with faux windows and noted the building will be constructed of cast concrete. Mr. Freedman stated the liner building details could change, a 20 foot sidewalk with an 8 foot awning is proposed for the Lemon Avenue elevation, the alley cannot be vacated as 12 would go to each owner providing for 10 additional feet while 12 feet is needed for the required building recess and noted issues with existing utilities as well. Mr. Freedman stated requesting an encroachment onto State Street would increase the cost, noted the importance of access on State Street which will provide better access to the ramp, the ground floor retail will be 17 feet in height which meets the requirement that the first two stories be retail, and noted that will be finished by a future developer. Mr. Freedman stated the proposed access on State Street has been separated based on comments from the Urban Design Studio noting they have been working with the applicants, stating that will provide for pedestrian safety as well as slowing traffic. Mr. Freedman discussed the code requirements for exemplary architecture and use of high quality materials noting the City is proposing using a cast in place process. Mr. Freedman stated the project will enhance the appearance of the environment, noted a surface parking lot is the worst thing for the downtown urban core, stated a tremendous pedestrian environment will be created along the street frontage and the project will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare as it will activate State Street between Orange and Lemon. Mr. McLain discussed project noting the site is 105 feet wide, 120 feet is required for two full bays which is necessary for efficiency, cantilevering 10 feet does not work since 15 feet is needed, cantilevering against the adjacent property would require purchasing air rights which would be expensive and require ventilation, columns would be required that would interfere with parking spaces, a 12 foot recess would mean losing 42 of the parking spaces, discussed the driveway stating the Parking Structure Pre-Cast Design Institute states entrances should be placed on a high volume street that provides direct access, the parking facility should have more than one entryway and entryways should be located away from intersections. Mr. McLain stated Lemon Avenue is too narrow for access and opening the alley provides trucks access to the loading dock. Mr. McLain discussed the elevations stating the structure will be constructed using pre-cast panels including the columns and corners, railings will be iron wrought, windows will be aluminum frame with no glass for ventilation purposes, and the stair towers will have windows to bring in daylight. Mr. McLain stated several public hearings were held regarding the architecture of the building noting the Urban Design Studio came in and wanted a unified architecture downtown and requested classic architecture. Mr. McLain stated the intent is for the developer of the liner building to tie into the architecture of the parking garage, noted the liner building will have its own entryway for security reasons. Mr. Stancel discussed the process stating approximately one year ago the City Commission hired AD Morgan and directed staff to look at creating 300 - 500 parking spaces on-site with retail on the bottom floor, and to look at the highest and best use Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 15 for non-residential development. Mr. Stancel stated staff worked with AD Morgan between February and July, held two major workshops, several neighborhood meetings, met with all the abutters, talked to private developers about joint ventures, and went to the City Commission in August who asked for more options. Mr. Stancel stated City staff, AD Morgan and the Urban Design Studio worked together, developed 4-5 options which the City Commission reviewed 2-3 times and in November chose the pad lite proposal which consists of a 48 foot deep pad site with five levels above the retail adjacent to Lemon Avenue, retail on the bottom of the parking garage with five levels of parking above that. Mr.Stancel stated the process is moving fast, 45% plans were submitted last week, the applicants are going to the City Commission April 21st for approval of the phase II contract that will have a guaranteed price, site construction will begin the end of May if approved, July vertical construction will begin and the structure should be substantially completed mid- February 2015. PB: member Siegel questioned if the City Commission has signed off on the design. Mr. Stancel stated the City Commission chose the design, staff is putting on the final touches, staff tried to develop a plan that did not require adjustments but that was not possible due to constraints of the site. PB member Siegel questioned how this is tied to a traditional base and how to get there considering the Palm Avenue Garage. Mr. McLain stated public hearings were held, there was no preference, the applicants came back with several options, then the City hired the Urban Design Studio who requested classic architecture. Mr. Freedman stated the proposed architecture is consistent with other downtown buildings, citing the Terrace Building as an example. PB member Lindsay questioned if the parking for the liner building was there or in the garage. Mr. Stancel stated it depends on the use noting if commercial retail is built they would have to lease spaces in the garage. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she had reviewed the City Commission meetings noting the City Commission had approved the pad light with the idea of a live/work situation with two large apartments and questioned how we got here from there. Mr. Stancel stated that it had been clarified that the space above the retail could be any use allowed. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if it was still possible. Mr. McLain stated if the developer thinks it will work. Mr. Freedman noted the City is selling the pad site. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why the adjustment for the required recess included the pad site. Mr. Freedman stated developers need surety and the required recess would impact the ability to sell due to loss of space. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if retail and residential is built on the pad site would 80 parking spaces in the garage be made available. Mr. Stancel stated the maximum for the liner would be 40 - 44 depending on the use. PB: member Ahearn-Koch noted there was an agreement with the church for 300 spaces on Sundays, questioned what hours those spaces would be unavailable to the public, and questioned if there were any other limitations on the spaces. Mr. Stancel stated the church had use of the spaces from 9 am - 1 pm and there are no other limitations. PB member Svekis questioned the required depth of a liner building. Mr. Freedman stated the code says five foot minimum. PB member Svekis questioned if the liner building will have access from the garage. Mr. McLain confirmed that was correct. PB member Svekis questioned the elevations for the liner building, how much later it would be developed and noted the need to treat the wall Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 15 in the meantime. Mr. Freedman stated Ian Black is marketing the pad site and the hopes are that it will be sold before the garage is completed. Mr. Stancel stated it will be built into the contract that the purchaser must begin construction within two years of the CO. PB member Svekis noted the narrative states the 10' 6" separation between the floors in the garage is more than normal and questioned much more. Mr. McLain stated 7' 6" to 7' 10" is considered normal noting the parking garage will have 8' ceiling to floor and the depth is the most important issue. PB member Svekis questioned if the applicants have any control over the design of the liner building. Mr. Stancel stated the minimum is four floors and the maximum is five floors noting a stipulation will be included that the architecture be substantially the same as the garage. PB: member Svekis questioned the design of the windows and if the structure becomes a black canyon at night. Mr. McLain stated LED lights will be placed on the outside at each column to diffuse the inside lights. PB member Svekis questioned how carbon monoxide build-up will be addressed. Mr. McLain stated the design is open air noting the alley side is totally open and the east end is closed and will have a decorative façade. PB member Svekis questioned if future parking needs will be met and when another parking garage will be needed. PB member Lindsay stated this only takes care of the deficit. Mr. Stancel stated the 07/08 Parking Master Plan indicated the need for 300 - 500 spaces for the next 15 - 20 years. PB: member Svekis noted the structure could fill up during the Farmer's Market. PB Chair Gallagher questioned Attorney Connolly if the Planning Board could consider the 3 adjustments separately. Attorney Connolly stated the adjustments could be separated out. PB Chair Gallagher noted the property is a single parcel with one ID number and questioned seeking adjustments then separating those out later. Attorney Connolly stated the adjustment would be separated out later noting two are for the State Street Parking Garage only and the recess adjustment is for both. Attorney Connolly stated if approved the resolution will be specific to the frontages. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if there were issues with the required minimum and maximum setbacks since the property is currently one property ID. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants hope to have the liner building site sold prior to building permit and site plan approvals and stated that will be addressed at that time noting this could be considered phase 1 of 2. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the plan presented includes the entire site. Mr. Freedman stated they will be separated out at the time of building permit application. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if another applicant were to propose a project and state they would not build the liner yet because they were hoping to sell it would that be a problem. Attorney Connolly stated that would be resolved at building permit, noted a lot split could be done, stated if both are developed at the same time there is no issue, and that does not need to be addressed as part of the adjustments being considered. PB Chair Gallagher stated if the Planning Board saw the need for additional adjustments those should be discussed. Attorney Connolly stated the Planning Board could make the point to the applicants/staff and they could decide what risk they are willing to take. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the two pieces of the building jutting out past the property line will go to the City Commission for approval of the encroachments. Mr. Freedman stated because it is City property it is an easement agreement. Attorney Connolly stated the zoning code authorizes encroachments by easement, he has prepared a draft, and it will probably Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 15 go to the City Commission in April. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if there were problems with habitable space in terms of the location of the stairs and elevators and ift there are any access problems with street walls on Ringling hiding the parking access. Mr. Stancel stated that will be addressed at building permit application noting the garage is more than 120 feet from Ringling and will be landscaped. PB Chair questioned if the easement from Ringling will be incorporated. Mr. Stancel stated yes noting the City can use the easement for any public purpose. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the adjacent property owner would still be able to use the parking spaces they currently use. Mr. Stancel stated those do not belong to that property owner and are available for use by anyone. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated she has been involved in the process as a facilitator, noted the applicants had covered the major issues and stated the required window area for the garage is 30% versus 70% for retail and noted the windows in the garage are greater than 30%. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the City Commission has any questions about the proposed adjustments. Senior Planner Mendez stated Mr. Stancel had discussed proposed adjustment with the City Commission and there were no concerns expressed. PB member Siegel questioned the status of the major encroachments. Senior Planner Mendez noted the City Attorney had explained because the agreement is between two City owned properties there will be an easement agreement and that is likely to go to the City Commission for approval in April. PB member Svekis questioned where the notes form the workshops were. Senior Planner Mendez stated there are binders in the Planning Department and Clerk's offices. PB member Svekis questioned the definition of stakeholders. Mr. Stancel appeared and stated those were all of the businesses along State Street and Pineapple Avenue, discussions were held with PNC and Northern Trust banks and discussions were held regarding the option of working with the Farmer': S Market, CRAAB Board, and the Downtown Improvement District. PB Chair Gallagher questioned why staff did not comment on the criteria regarding not granting the adjustment would preclude all reasonable use of the site and if that was typical. Senior Planner Mendez stated staff did not comment due to it being a City project. PB Chair Gallagher questioned the definition of exemplary architecture. Senior Planner Mendez stated there is no specific definition sO staff uses their best judgment. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the City was going to meet its deadline for constructing the garage. Mr. Stancel stated if the City Commission approves the contract in April the deadline should be met noting the possibility of unknown issues such as environmental concerns. PB member Svekis stated his concerns regarding the Urban Design Studio's comments on how the building should look and questioned the need for an overlay for different architecture SO everything isn't classic. Mr. Stancel stated the Urban Design Studio is not 100% in love with the design, the were compromises made on several levels, the Urban Design Studio is satisfied with the outcome and will be addressing the issue in their recommendations. Citizen Testimony: There was no public input. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 15 PB: member Ahearn-Koch made a motion to find Adjustment 14-ADP-02 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to the one condition. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. PB: member Ahearn-Koch noted the City is under a contractual obligation which has created time constraints and stated the need to focus on getting the project completed. PB: member Siegel stated it was interesting that PB Chair Gallagher brought up the issue of what is exemplary architecture noting he feels the Palm Avenue garage comes as close as you can get, the State Street garage has a bit of monotony to it but is after all a parking garage. PB member Lindsay stated he is normally suspicious when the government wants a waiver from its own rules however under these circumstances since it is a public purpose making small adjustments is reasonable to ensure an efficient, cost effective, productive product. PB member Svekis stated he felt two primary streets should not be prohibited, the noise level over the retail is being controlled, and the recess makes sense. PB Chair Gallagher stated he does not support the adjustments noting he does not see a problem with the recess adjustments after having had a discussion with Andre Duany and stated it is an issue that can be addressed by the Urban Design Studio. PB Chair Gallagher stated he has concerns with the liner building adjustments since other privately owned properties have the same issues to deal with. PB Chair Gallagher further stated he feels stating there are three primary streets is a stretch, three access points are not necessary, and noted the code says to cut down on curb cuts. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Chair Gallagher 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. February 12, 2014 PB member Siegel made a motion to approve the minutes. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB member Svekis stated his name should be moved down one line. The minutes were approved unanimously with that change. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may: require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 15 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 Svekis noted the issue of the need for small affordable units downtown has been raised and noted he felt above a parking garage would be a good place for those. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. CG. auidl David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]