CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Robert Lindsay, Chair Members Present: Chris Gallagher, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, Michael Halflants, and David Morriss Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager, Neighborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Chief Planner John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER PB Chair Lindsay 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 Secretary Smith stated Ms. Ebaugh would not be able to attend tonight's meeting and as a result Agenda Item VII.1., School Planning Update, would be rescheduled to January or February, 2017. The Planning Board agreed to the change by consent. 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. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all who intended to speak in the following public hearings, and recommended time limits for presentations. B. Non-Quasl-Judicia. Public Hearings 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 16-PA-04 and Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 16-ZTA-04 (Continued from 11/9/16): Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 16-PA-04 is a request to revise Illustration LU-20, the Primary Grid Street Map in the Comprehensive Plan in order to remove the primary street designation from segments ofl Morrill Street, Laurel Street Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 18 and Oak Street. The portion of each street proposed to be de-designated commences at a point 50 ft. east of the intersection with S. Orange Avenue and continues east to Rawls Avenue. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 16-ZTA-04 is a request to revise Map VI-1001, Primary/Secondary Street Grid in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed) to reflect these changes as well. (David L. Smith, AICP, General Manager) Attorney Connolly stated that the public hearing for this item was closed at the November 2016 Planning Board Meeting; noted that subsequently, the City Attorney's Office was contacted by representatives of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association who stated that they had not received notice for the November Planning Board public hearing; stated the City has confirmed that the notice was mailed out by the City's Clerk's Office; pointed out that the City has met its legal obligation and is not required to reopen the public hearing; explained that he has promised the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association that he would recommend to the Planning Board to allow one representative to make a 3-minute presentation this evening, however this would be left to the Planning Board's discretion. Responding to PB Chair Lindsay's questions, Attorney Connolly confirmed that this is not considered a re-opening of the public hearing and there are no due process concerns. The Planning Board agreed, by consensus, to hear the representative. Ms. Kate Lowman, representing Laurel Park, spoke in support of the proposed amendment; suggested that the length of the re-designated segments of the three streets be increased from 50 ft. to 100 ft.; and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak this evening. General Manager Smith, responding to the Planning Board's request at the November meeting, referred the Planning Board to page 10 of the staff report, where staff offers additional potential solutions to the concerns that brought about the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and the proposed street re-designations; noted that one of those solutions is proposed Ordinance No. 16-5183, text revisions to Section IV- 1903, Adjustments, which was approved in October 2016; added that another potential solution is addressing the parking requirements in downtown zone districts; stated that per the Planning Board's request, staff has also given consideration to (1) the above identified Zoning Text Amendment, (2) increase in the Primary Grid street length greater than that proposed by staff, (3) language to allow access along a Primary Grid street while maintaining the remainder of the Primary Grid street standards, and (4) designating Rawls Avenue as a Primary Grid Street; and concluded that staff recommends the re-designation of a segment of these streets from Primary Grid to Secondary Grid streets as originally proposed. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked what the options for access would be if the entire block was being developed and these streets were Primary Grid streets. General Manager Smith stated that Rawls Avenue would be the access point, unless the City had approved an Adjustment, pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Code, and added that, depending on the properties involved, this could be either a Planning Board Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 18 Adjustment or an Administrative Adjustment. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked what options a development team would have if they were to develop this in two parcels. General Manager Smith stated that the development team could come to the Planning Board to request approval of an adjustment to avoid Rawls Ave. Discussion ensued. Responding to PB Member Gannon's question, General Manager Smith confirmed that the re-designated street segments could be increased to 100 feet, and still be consistent with the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM). Discussion ensued as to how the recommended staff motion could be revised to increase the segments to 100 ft. PB Chair Lindsay asked for a motion. PB Member Gannon moved to find 16-PA-04 and 16-ZTA-04 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and approve adoption with the proposed revisions identified in the staff report, extending the primary Street Grid 100 ft. eastward from South Orange Avenue. The motion fails due to lack of second PB Member Morriss moved to adopt proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 16- PA-04 amending lustration LU-20, Primary Grid Streets Map of the future Land Use Plan and 16-ZTA-04 amending Map VI-1001 of the Zoning Code. Discussion ensued. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher stated that he will not support the motion because he does not think it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. PB Member Halflants stated that he does not support the establishment of a rule that requires Planning Board approval to receive access to a property. Discussion ensued. General Manager Smith paraphrased the motion, saying it is to approve the proposed Plan Amendment and the Zoning Text Amendment, de-designating Morrill, Laurel, and Oak Streets to secondary streets except 50 ft. eastward of Orange Avenue. The motion passed with a vote of 3 to 2, with PB Vice Chair Gallagher and PB Chair Lindsay voting "No." C. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. Rosemary Square (1440 Blvd of the Arts & 550 Central Avenue) (Continued from 11/9/16): Adjustment Application No. 17-ADP-01 requests approval of an Adjustment from Section VII-110(5)(C), Zoning Code (2002 ED.) for property located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District and the Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD) with street address of 1440 Boulevard of the Arts and 550 Central Avenue, known as Rosemary Square. Applicant is requesting to allow up to seven wall signs to be located in multiple bands not at the top of the first floor façade and to allow signage Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 18 to exceed the allowable height of2 feet up to a maximum of 16 feet 2 inches for two signs; a maximum of 4 feet 2 inches for one sign; and a maximum of12 feet 2 inches for one sign. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Chief Planner) Attorney Connolly stated that Daniel Mahon had filed an application for, and was granted, affected person's status last month; added that new information was submitted since last month's meeting, and he wanted the Planning Board to be aware ofi it, and to decide if they want to restart the public hearing, SO that the new information can be considered both by the Planning Board and by the public. Responding to PB Chair Lindsay's question, Attorney Connolly stated that the new information was significantly different to justify re-advertisement of this public hearing. PB Chair Lindsay re-opened the public hearing, and pointed out that this is a quasi-judicial public hearing. Applicant Presentation Mr. Jonathan Parks introduced himself and stated that he is here to continue the discussion on the Rosemary Square arts focused project, and to request the Planning Board's approval of their application; noted they responded to the Planning Board's request, they have revisited the project and they are prepared to present all the signage on the buildings; pointed out that they want to bring the arts to Boulevard of the Arts; and stated the request goes beyond the minimum requirements of the City Code. Ms. Selma Wilson introduced the Rosemary Square Signage Guidelines, November 2016, a document which was included in the PB packet for this meeting; and explained the team's strategy for the types and location of signs for each tenant. Mr. Parks introduced Rosemary Square Sign Adjustment Application, Perspective Views, November 16, 2016, also found in the packet, which includes illustrations of signage on all the buildings based on the maximum allowable requirements of the code, and two alternative options. Mr. Parks added that the Code is written for the downtown area and this project is not in the downtown area; pointed out that it is not a residential development, sO they need wayfinding signs, because they are meant to be a new economic generator for this district, they are a pioneer building in this area, and they are at the center of the Rosemary District. Mr. Kauffman stated that they want to make Rosemary District exciting; added that what they propose is better than what is currently allowed; and stated each one of the organizations that will occupy the buildings wants their name on the signs to help them raise funds. PB Member Morriss asked how the signage requirements relating to the font would be enforced. Mr. Parks and Ms. Wilson stated that it will be in the lease. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 18 PB Member Halflants asked why some of the banner signs read from the top down, and others from the bottom up. The applicants explained their reasons for that. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated that he likes the sign for the Opera, and would like to see all signs following the same rule. The applicant explained that the location of the sign is correlated with the location of the tenants in the building, noting it was discussed with the tenants, the tenants had clear preferences, and those preferences are reflected the renderings. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon asked for clarification regarding the number and location of signs on the north face of building three. StffPresentation Chief Planner Mendez identified herself for the record, stated that the applicants have provided all the materials thatl had been requested for their Adjustments; added that they also made a proffer which is stated in Condition 1; noted that they have done a good job showing in the renderings the potential for additional signage on the first floor façade, as well as presenting their vision for signage, and how they intend to enforce their signage vision by including certain conditions in the lease documents; added that the enforcement portion was not proffered as part of the Adjustment application, therefore it can only be considered "supportive information," noted that, as presented, the signage enforcement through the lease concept is not tied together with the Adjustment application, which means that the signs would be regulated by the Zoning Code, and therefore what is presented is not one. hundred percent guaranteed; added that the applicants still have both options available with their second proposal; noted there is a reduction on the overall signage, however the signs they are proposing are not at the permitted location (level) for signage, and they require additional adjustments for the overall height of the signs, which exceed the two feet height allowable by the Code; and concluded that, considering all the above, staff continues to recommend denial of the Adjustment application, because the direction staff has received from the City Commission is that new buildings should be designed to comply with the sign regulations that are in place in order to achieve a consistent sign location throughout the downtown area to prevent the proliferation of signage and sign clutter. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked for Clarification on when the signs are regulated. Chief Planner Mendez stated that in terms of signage, if it is completely internal and cannot be seen from the street, it would not be subject to City Code, but if the sign is visible from the street, it is regulated by the City Code. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked for clarification on the definition of the word "street." Chief Planner Mendez clarified the sign would be subject to Code regulations if it is visible from the right of way including the alley. PB Chair Lindsay asked Attorney Connolly if there is a way the Planning Board can reference the exhibits in this packet as part of the approval. Attorney Connolly responded "yes," if the documents are clearly identified SO as to avoid ambiguity. PB Chair Lindsay asked how specific the language should be to include provisions for a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 18 sign with a combination of text and logos. Attorney Connolly explained that his earlier response related to the signs that are subject to the Adjustment application; added that the banner signs are subject to City Code regulations; and clarified that this discussion is about the signs that are subject to the Adjustment application because of their location and their height, not about the other signs. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Lindsay asked how they could refer to the exhibits for the signs subject to the Adjustment. Attorney Connolly stated that reference to exhibits could be done in a manner like the one used to refer to site plans in Site Plan application approvals, stating the name of the exhibit and the date it was received by City staff. Discussion ensued. Affected Persons Daniel Mahon stated that he would like to see more consistency in the signs. Public input 1. Richard Russell, Executive Director of the Sarasota Opera, spoke in support of the Sign Adjustment. 2. Michael Sperber, Sarasota Contemporary Dance, spoke in support of the proposed Sign Adjustment. 3. Michelle Bianchi Pingel, The Players Theatre, spoke in support of the proposed Sign Adjustment. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Kauffman stated that this is a contemporary building and the different types of signs add to the ambiance of the area; added that he wants to make his tenants happy; and stated he would appreciate the Planning Board S support. Staff Rebuttal Chief Planner Mendez noted that there is a variety of allowable signs for the downtown districts, including window signage, that could be used by the applicant; and noted that there was a letter in opposition from Victor Calderon that was submitted for the record. PB Chair Lindsay closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. PB Member Morriss stated that he would like to make a motion, however he would like to see something more coherent, possibly the same sign method for all the signs. PB Member Halflants suggested the public hearing be continued. PB Chair Lindsay stated that there should be a purpose or justification for the continuation. PB Member Morriss stated that he would be happy if he could see the same sign methodology apply to all tenants to achieve visual harmony. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Lindsay noted that there should be a motion on the table before further discussion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 18 PB Vice Chair Gallagher made a motion for denial sO that the Planning Board can have a discussion. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that this is downtown, it is a different district, and there is a group of people who are trying to develop a master plan for the Rosemary District, which could include signage requirements; added that he is struggling to find the application consistent with the character of the area, which is defined by what the community decided they want to have and is included in the City Code; noted that there are a lot of available options within the Code that the applicant can use; stated he would like to support the artistic ideas of the arts groups, however the Code does not address the subject of signage for nonprofit arts groups; and concluded that the Code must be applied consistently to all applicants. PB Member Halflants, speaking to his second, stated that three arts organizations are coming together at this location, and this should be celebrated, however the signage should be consistent throughout the development to tie it together. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon stated that the applicant has tried very hard to bring art to the Boulevard of the Arts; added that this is an opportunity to find some consistency to provide signage and not deny the application; and suggested that the Planning Board review and act separately on each sign. Attorney Connolly noted that this brings back to the table what was presented by Chief Planner Mendez in last month's public hearing, which showed the different types of signs and the reasons for the adjustment for each sign; and, agreeing with PB Vice Chair Gallagher, pointed out that each sign must be reviewed against the criteria for Sign Adjustments in the Code. PB Member Halflants expressed appreciation for PB Member Gannon's S efforts to work with the applicants and allow this to go forward, however it is not the Planning Board's: role to create the signs; and noted that the applicants were given a second opportunity to present their ideas. PB Chair Lindsay stated that the Code does not provide an exception for signs that are part of an integrated overall sign plan for a development. Attorney Connolly read the pertinent section of City Code relating to Signs, as follows: "A single external wall sign band maybe applied at the top oft the first-floor façade ofeach building, provided it does not exceed 2f. in height; where there is more than one sign, all signs should be complimentary to each other in the following ways: 1. Type ofconstruction materials, 2. Letter size and style of copy, 3. Method used to support the sign. 1 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 18 Discussion ensued. PB Chair Lindsay expressed concerns about locating signs at different heights to correspond to the floor where each agency is located within the building; and noted that he supports the banner style of signs, because they contribute to the identity of the building and to the downtown. PB Member Gannon suggested that a new motion be made. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants withdrew his second, and the motion for denial failed due to lack of second. PB Member Gannon moved to find the petition consistent with applicable sections of the Zoning Code specifically for designated signs 1 and 2. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Gannon stated that the specific signs on building one are consistent with that building, the style sets it apart as a designated artistic structure, and it is a reasonable adjustment. Speaking to his second PB Member Halflants stated that he agrees with what was said; added that he understands PB Vice Chair Gallagher' S comments that there is nothing in the City Code to address this, however he thinks that exceptions should be made for art organizations. PB Chair Lindsay asked if the motion was for the general configuration of the signs or if it also address the color. PB Member Gannon, the maker of the motion, stated that the specific Adjustment in the staff report related to (1) the location of the signs: top of the first floor, vertical application to the third and fourth floor facades, and (2) height of the signs: an increase to the allowable height from two feet to a maximum of seventeen feet. PB Chair Lindsay concluded that the motion is about the configuration of the sign, and not the color. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Gallagher expressed his concerns, noting what is being considered is not provided by the City Code. PB Member Morriss stated that application of the Code could result in severe mediocrity in town, and that is why the Planning Board is here, to prevent the Code from dominating everything that happens. The motion passes 4 to 1 with P.B. Vice Chair Gallagher voting "No." PB Member Gannon moved to approve Option B of Sign Number 3 on the West Façade of Building 3, to follow the same vertical application, with text beginning at the top, similar application as Signs 1 and 2. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 18 PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. The motion passes 4 to 1 with P.B. Vice Chair Gallagher voting "No." PB Member Gannon moved to deny all other signs proposed by the applicant. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. PB Members Gannon and Halflants, speaking to the motion and the second, respectively,stated that their reason was to avoid inconsistency among the signs. The motion for denial passes unanimously, with a vote of asses 5 to 0. The Planning Board took a ten-minute recess, and reconvened at 8:11 PM 2. World of Beer (1888 Main Street): Site Plan Application No. 16-SP-13 and Major Conditional Use. Application 16-CU-04 are a request for Major Conditional Use and Site Plan approval for a "nightclub use" as defined by the Zoning Code to allow operation with a 4COP (full liquor) license. The existing establishment, known as World of Beer, is located in the Downtown Core (DTC) Zone District with a street address of 1888 Main Street. World of Beer will continue to operate as a restaurant and serve food and the hours of operation will remain 11:00 a.m. to midnight, Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Chief Planner) Applicant Presentation Mr. Rob Robinson, Agent for World of Beer, introduced himself and his client, Mark Broderick, Managing Partner for World of Beer; stated that World of Beer is located at the corner of Main Street and Links Avenue, and it serves tavern type food and high end beer; it is a two story building, attached to a garage, and they have live entertainment on the weekends; explained that they are in the process of acquiring a 4COP License, which changes their establishment": S classification to a nightclub; stated according to City Code a nightclub is permitted as a Major Conditional Use accompanied by a Site Plan; added that he agrees with the contents of the staff analysis and the staff recommendation for approval, including four of the five recommended conditions; and stated the applicants have a problem with staff recommended Condition 3, which states: 3. No live or amplified music shall be performed or cast directly from the second-floor outdoor patio area except in conjunction with an approval Temporary Activity or Special Event permit. Mr. Robinson pointed out that since April 2015, when World of Beer begun its operation at this location, they have had live music on the first or second-floor patio on Friday and Saturday evenings every week; there have been no noise complaints; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 18 unlike a new application, this business has a track record of no complaints; stated they have an internal system of checking the volume of the sound; the speakers are directed away from the nearest residential areas; stated that the live music draws customers, and its elimination will have a major impact on the operations of the business, because it would put them in a competitive disadvantage with other similarly situated businesses on Main Street that offer similar live music; added that their track record of no past issues indicates that they will have no issues in the future; stated that the City enforces the Noise Ordinance and removes the licenses of the establishments that commit violations; noted the interior of the restaurant is too small to keep the bands indoors; stated music is provided by local artists; stated that nothing is going to change in the operations; stated traffic concurrency is not an issue; noted in the past twenty months there had been only two calls to the police about incidents that happened at the nearby intersection about which the management was unaware; and stated they are asking for approval of the Conditional Use Application with the elimination of condition #3. PB Member Halflants asked what the difference was between using the upstairs and downstairs patio. Mr. Broderick explained that it depends on the size of the band, solo artists prefer to play at the upstairs patio, but 4-5 person bands do not fit in the upstairs patio and play downstairs. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked how the establishment has managed to have such a small number of police reports regarding disturbances. Mr. Broderick stated that they attract a different clientele than other establishments because of the types of beer they sell. PB Member Gannon asked where the band plays at the lower level. Mr. Broderick stated that bands play under the awnings, where the seating areas are located, except when they have larger bands playing; and stated they get a Special Event Permit to use City property for events such as the recent event in support of the Alzheimer's Association. PB Member Gannon asked if the noise is controlled based on the time of the evening. Mr. Robinson stated that the City's Noise Ordinance regulates that, requiring that the volume be lowered at 10:00 p.m., no noise is permitted after the establishment's closing hours; and noted closing time varies depending of the day of the week. PB Member Gannon asked why the trees in front of the building were cut down. Mr. Broderick stated that they received permits to remove two or three black olive trees, which were obscuring the view of the restaurant and created a lot of debris due to their foliage, however they provided mitigation for the elimination of these trees in the form of shrubs on the premises, and trees that were planted at Payne Park. PB Member Gannon stated that by removing the trees they removed the shaded area for pedestrians. Mr. Broderick stated that the removal of the trees has helped the area because it opened up the plaza resulting in reduced problems created by homeless people in the area. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 18 Staff Presentation Chief Planner Mendez introduced herself for the record; stated that the applicants are requesting approval for a Conditional Use and a Site Plan, as is required by the City Code when an establishment is classified as a nightclub which is based on the type of liquor license; stated the applicant has offered a proffer that the conditional use will be for World of Beer, its entities, and any other restaurant on the premises which serves food and alcohol; noted the applicants had agreed to the condition that food services shall be available during all hours of operation; added that studies and police incident records show that establishments that combine the service of food and liquor have the least number of complaints; pointed out that the staff report includes a report regarding such complaints, and she wanted to highlight that the police reports indicate that there were only two calls at this general area, one of them was a general suspicion, and the other was about a fight at that location, however it was not linked directly to this establishment; pointed out that World of Beer has shown a positive record for the duration of its operation at this location; stated that the previous owner had issues with noise and there were complaints from the nearby residents; and discussed staff recommended Condition 3, stating that the Planning Board could take into consideration the mitigating factors that the applicant brought forward this evening regarding the ability to control the intensity of sound through their system, and the Planning Board could remove Condition 3. PB Member Gannon asked if the City has received any noise complaints in the last twenty months. Chief Planner Mendez stated there were: none. PB Vice Chair Gallagher noted that some of the establishments listed on the Table of incidents in the packet were open much longer than others, which could contribute to the difference in the number of complaints; and asked clarification about staff recommended Condition 1. Chief Planner Mendez explained that the intent of Condition 1 is that the Conditional Use would be transferable to a future tenant on the premises, with a different license or the re-assignment of a license, sO long as they offer food and operate as a nightclub. Discussion ensued regarding the types of food to be served. PB Morriss asked why this was transferable. Chief Planner Mendez explained that there is a limited number of 4COP licenses and they are sold on the market, and it is done through state licensing, they come in for a zoning sign-off on that; and clarified that the City Code ties the Conditional Use to the type of license, not to a specific license. PB Member Gannon asked for clarification on staff recommended Condition 1 regarding the reference to "any other restaurant. " Chief Planner Mendez stated that it refers to any other restaurant at this location. PB: Member Gannon asked for clarification about the location of the trees that were removed. Chief Planner Mendez stated that the trees were in Links Plaza. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 18 Affected Persons There were none. Public Input 1. Curt Schantz, resident, stated that World of Beer has been a good neighbor, unlike previous occupants of the premises; spoke in support of keeping staff recommended Condition 3 noting he supports the approval of the staff recommendation in its entirety because their condominium community will have protection from potential noise problems with future occupants of the premises. 2. Dean Miller, resident of the Rivo Condominiums, stated he agreed with the previous speaker and supports the adoption of the staff recommendation in its entirety. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Robinson stated that this establishment should be judged based on its own track record rather than the actions of the previous tenants; and added that the City Noise Ordinance is enforced and is a strong mechanism to address any potential problems with future tenants. Mr. Broderick stated that there had been music on the second floor for the last three weeks. PB Member Halflants asked if the fact that the neighbors could hear the music of previous tenants at this location indicates that they were violating the noise ordinance. Mr. Broderick stated that they have made considerable investment in a sound system that is controlled by the management instead ofthe musicians; noting the speakers are built it and mounted pointing downwards, and they follow the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance. Staff Rebuttal Chief Planner Mendez stated that the hours of operation for the outdoor patio areas would fall under the more restrictive requirements of the outdoor restaurant areas, which require the use of the patio to cease at 11:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, except the day prior to a holiday, and 11:59 p.m. Friday, Saturday and the day before a holiday; and explained that this is different than the establishment's overall hours of operation indicated in staff recommended Condition 2. Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development pointed out that the Noise Ordinance is even more restrictive regarding sound outside of an enclosed building as it prohibits amplified sound between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am that exceeds 65 dba when measured at the property line. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked if the previous owners were in violation of the Noise Ordinance at the time. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 18 PB Member Morriss questioned what is involved in acquiring a Special Event Permit. Chief Planner Mendez stated that a Temporary Activity Permit costs approximately $50.00 and is issued in a couple business days; explained that a Special Event Permit is more involved and is necessary if one is using public property, and noted it requires evidence of security protections, ingress, egress, etc. PB Member Gannon asked if the proffer in Condition 1 can be restricted to the World of Beer and its entities, and not be extended to future lessees of the premises. Attorney Connolly stated that the proffer in Condition 1 is the applicant's language and staff cannot change it; and added that the City Code allows Conditional Uses to run with the property, and this proffer states that the applicants are willing to get less rights than what they are entitled to. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Lindsay closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. PB Vice Chair Gallagher moved to adopt the recommended staff motion with staff recommended Conditions 1, 2, 4 and 5. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that the applicants have met all specific review criteria, have demonstrated a good track record, strong testimony was presented, and the Noise Ordinance can address potential violations. PB Member Halflants agreed with what was said. PB Member Gannon stated that he disagreed with the removal of staff recommended Condition 3. PB Member Morriss stated that he agrees with PB Member Gannon regarding concerns with transferability to future tenants, however the Conditional Use goes with the land. PB Chair Lindsay stated that hei is not concerned with the removal of Condition 3, because it does not seem necessary in this location, and the applicant has a great track record. Motion passes with a vote of 4 to 1, PB Member Gannon voting "No." 3. 10th Street Boat Basin (1059 N. Tamiami Trail): Governmental (G) Zone Waiver Application No. 16-GZW-03 is a request for a Governmental (G) Zone Waiver to grant deviations from the regulations of Section VII-1304, Seawall, Groins, and Beach Protection Devices, Zoning Code (2002 Ed) in order to allow construction of approximately 250 feet ofi replacement seawall including portions seaward ofthe existing bulkhead line and to allow backfill oft the existing boat basin along the southern edge of the basin. Waiver from Section VI-1304 is also requested to allow the height of the permitted seawall cap to exceed 5 feet above mean high water, to a maximum 5.5 feet. Waiver from Section VII-1303 is also requested in relation to filling ofthe existing slip and backfill behind the new portions of seawall (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Chief Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 18 Attorney Connolly called Mr. Craig Ramey who had filed an application for affected person' S status. Mr. Ramey was not in the audience, and Attorney Connolly recommended against granting him affected person's status. The Planning Board accepted the recommendation by consensus. Applicant Presentation Mr. Bill Nichols, City of Sarasota Public Works, manager for this project, introduced himself to the record; explained that there are three separate efforts involved in this project: 1. the installation of a nutrient separating Baffle Box, to be located in an 8-ft. by 11- ft. concrete box structure at the corner of Florida Avenue and 10th Street, upstream of the discharge into the boat basin, to prevent sediment deposits in the boat basin, as evidenced today; 2. the dredging of the boat basin, removing 16,000 - 20,000 cubic yards of material; they will go down to minus 8-ft., and will restore navigation within the boat basin; and 3. the replacement of approximately 250-ft of deteriorated sea wall at the south side of the boat basin where the old corrugated steel panels are. Mr. Nichols referenced Drawing No. PV-4, page 10 -17, City of Sarasota 10th Street Outfall Dredging and Seawall Replacement, Sarasota County Florida, 100% Plans, dated 11/16/2016, received by the City of Sarasota Neighborhood and Development Services on November 29, 2016; described the alignment of the replacement sea wall, explaining that the seawall is not uniform at that location; noted that there is a difference of two feet in elevation and this effort will resolve the irregularity by connecting a good section of the seawall to another good section of the seawall; pointed out that they intend to complete this project before the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) initiates work on the adjacent 10th Street roundabout, a project that is expected to last 18 to 20 months; and added that once FDOT has completed their work, the City will return to recreate the MURT along the east end of the boat basin, adjacent to the south side of the basin, then across to the squadron, completing that continuous route. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that this is a win-win situation, clean water, better boating, and not tripping over the wall. PB Chair Lindsay noted that the water is shallow on that end of the basin. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon asked where the dredge material would go. Mr. Nichols stated that the contractor would take it to a landfill of his choice that meets the specifications required by this project. PB Member Gannon stated that he read the dredge material will be deposited on the concrete pad until it dries. Mr. Nichols responded that they will accelerate the drying process and the material would be ready to be removed from the site within two to three days. PB Member Gannon asked how much of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 18 parking area will be taken up by the dredging/c drying process. Mr. Nichols stated that it will take all the parking area. PB: Member Gannon asked in terms of timing, if the sediment box is the first thing that is going in. Mr. Nichols explained that they will be building the box on the hill and they will be dredging at the same time, because these are mutually exclusive processes. PB. Member Gannon asked what happens to the sidewalk while this is going on. Mr. Nichols responded that the sidewalk will not be usable. PB Member Gannon asked what the plan was for pedestrian and bicycle circulation during this process. Mr. Nichols responded that they will route pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the south side. Discussion ensued about the bicycle and pedestrian route, directing pedestrians and cyclists around the project's security fence, and ensuring sufficient access during the construction period. PB Member Gannon asked about mitigation plans for the trees that will be removed, as shown on Drawing PV-3. Mr. Nichols responded that they plan to remove two banyan trees, and although not currently required, the City could mitigate their removal to continue providing shade; and explained that they did not receive any comments regarding mitigation when they went through the development review process, only that they need to obtain a tree removal permit. PB Member Gannon asked where the fill that they will use in this project would come from, and asked if it is the materials that will be dredged up. Mr. Nichols responded that it is clean fill of certain specifications, and it is not the material that will be dredged up. PB Member Gannon asked if there was any consideration given to keeping the area for future use. Mr. Nichols explained that it has not been operational for some time, and no one. has expressed interest to that effect; pointed out that they will remove the tie backs when installing the seawall; added that part of the Cultural Park Master Plan shows buildings along there, much like Channel-side in Tampa, multi-use, patio dining, etc.; added that he does not know what will be proposed by the upcoming Sarasota 2020 Plan; and explained that what they are building is a seawall without tiebacks, therefore, any future development of this location could proceed unimpeded. Staff Presentation Chief Planner Mendez introduced herself for the record and stated that this is a G- Zone Waiver Application from Section VII-1304, Seawall, Groins, and Beach Protection Devices, for the portions that are landward of the mean high water line that will create the uniform front and the associated fill behind them, and the height to exceed 5: ft. above the mean high water line, to 5.5 ft. to match the existing grade and slope around the property. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 18 Responding to PB Member Gannon's earlier comments, Chief Planner Mendez stated that this project is required to comply with all regulations, including the tree removal requirements, noting the trees to be removed are exotic and invasive, as defined by City Code, and they do not: require mitigation. Discussion ensued. Responding to PB Vice Chair Gallagher's s question, Chief Planner Mendez stated that the G-Zone Waiver relates to the seawall. PB Member Gannon suggested a spelling correction in the staff recommended motion. For clarification purposes, Attorney Connolly noted that there are three Zone G Waivers, as. follows: a) Section VII-1304 states that seawalls and bulkheads must be directed landward of the mean high water line, sO the first variance is for the portion that will be constructed seaward of the mean high water lines, b) Section VII-1304 also states that in no event such bulkheads and seawalls shall exceed an elevation of 5: ft. above the mean water mark, and the proposed seawall will go up to 5.5 ft., and c) Section VII-1303 states that there should be no filling of submerged lands and waterfront lands beyond the mean high water line, and the waiver will allow to fill the little channel, or slip. PB Chair Lindsay closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. PB Member Morriss moved to find Application 16-GZW-03 consistent with Section IV- 1706 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the waivers to the City Commission, subject to the following conditions: 1. All related development and construction plans for the proposed sight shall be in compliance with those plans labeled 10th Street Outfall Dredging and Seawall Replacement submitted as a part of 16-GZW-03, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on November 29, 2016. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. 2. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated it is straight forward. The motion passed unanimously, with a vote of 5 to 0. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016. at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 18 General Manager Schneider stated that this is Chief Planner Mendez's last Planning Board meeting, as she is concluding her eight-year employment with the City of Sarasota. The Planning Board thanked Chief Planner Mendez for her diligent service to the City of Sarasota. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICETOTHE 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.) Patrick Braga, a Sarasota County resident, currently attending Cornell University studying Urban Design, Economics, and Music, and former intern with the Sarasota Urban Design Studio, expressed opposition to the concept of gateway signs to Downtown. PB Members suggested Mr. Braga speak to the Downtown Improvement District Board. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 9, 2016 PB member Gannon stated the reference to Rosemary Condos on Page 6 should be revised to read "Rosemary Park Condos" VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issuej presented thât may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. Secretary Smith noted that this evening is PB Member Halflants last meeting as his appointment expires in December 2016, and thanked him for his service to the City, on behalf of the City Commission and Staff. PB Members also thanked PB Member Halflants for his service to the City. VII. PRESENTATION OF' TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented arei informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. School Planning Update (Kathie Ebaugh, School Planning Director and Planning Board Member) This item was eliminated under Changes to the Order of the Day. VIII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS PB Chair Lindsay asked if there is a nomination for PB Chair. Secretary Smith pointed out that PB Members Gallagher, Morriss, and Gannon are eligible to be Chairpersons next Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 18 year. PB Member Gallagher pointed out that his term is over in June, and therefore he would not be a good candidate for Chairman. PB Member Gannon nominated PB Member Morriss for PB Chair and PB Member Morriss nominated PB Gannon for Vice Chair. The nominations were accepted by consensus. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:18 PM. Note: The City's Website address is sarasotagov.com. Select the meeting under "Video on Demand". from the. Main Web Page to view agendas, videos of meetings, and minutes. 1 aucl / Spu a David Smith, General Manager David Morriss, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Boayd/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]