CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY November 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-Neighborhod & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 B. Quasl-judicial Public Hearings 1. 635 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE: Application 15-ADP-01 is a request for an adjustment from Section VII-206(8)(D) of the Zoning Code (2002 Edition) for property located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District with a street address of 635 South Orange Avenue and 1619 Alderman Street. An adjustment is requested to allow ingress to the site from Orange Avenue, a designated primary street. Two way access is also proposed from Alderman Street, with no access from Rawls Avenue. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) PB Chair Gallagher stated this is a Quasi-judicial Public Hearing. Attorney Connolly explained that there are parties in the Quasi-Judicial public hearing. The parties include the applicant, and the city, and anyone who, has applied for, and qualifies for "affected person's status" under the criteria set forth in the city's Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 21 Zoning Code. Parties have the opportunity to present evidence, in the form of testimony and documentary evidence, and in the form of expert testimony. Parties have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the opportunity to present a closing, or rebuttal. The decision of the Planning Board must be based on competent and substantial evidence on the record. At the beginning of the public hearing the members of the Board will indicate if they have had any "ex-parte" communications, that is contact outside of this public hearing process, and the purpose is SO that we. have right here on this table the criteria based on which the Planning Board will base its decision. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for the presentations: ten minutes for the City; ten minutes for the applicant; five minutes for "affected persons," " and each party is given five minute rebuttal, and three minutes for each citizen testimony. All Planning Board members agreed with the suggested time limits. Attorney Connolly called the affected person for the first Public Hearing, Application 15-ADP-01, 635 South Orange Ave, Ms. Denise Kowal. She was not present, therefore she was not granted effected person status. Attorney Connolly continued with a discussion of the criteria; stated that there is only one application in this public hearing and this is an application for an adjustment; and pointed out that the criteria for an adjustment are set forward in Section IV-1903, of the City's Zoning Code; as follows: The review body (in this case the Planning Board) shall hold buildings fronting the primary street grid to a higher standard in support of pedestrian activity than buildings fronting the secondary street grid. The adjustment will be denied if the applicant has not presented to the satisfaction of the review body that the criteria have been met, and the criteria are: a. granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be adjusted; b. the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the Downtown Neighborhood Edge, district; C. if more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone; d. City-designated historic resources (if applicable) are preserved; and e. any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the maximum extent practical. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath for all present who intended to speak at the public hearing. PB Chair Gallagher requested disclosures of "ex parte" communications. PB Vice-Chair Svekis disclosed that he drives on Orange Avenue a lot, and questioned if that should be considered "ex parte" information. Also, PB Chair Gallagher disclosed that the applicant is a client of his office, and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 21 could constitute a conflict of interest, therefore he passed the gavel to PB Vice- Chair Svekis. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting and Development, and Mark Sultana of DSDG, appeared. Mr. Freedman stated John Vandyk, owner of Vandyk, a Canadian company with Sarasota operations, as well as Dominique Zeta, President of the company, and Albert Luper, the Vice President of Construction, were in the audience. Pointing to the survey of the property, Mr. Freedman stated that they wished to talk about getting an adjustment on a property bound on the south by Alderman Street, on the east by Rawls Avenue, and on the west by Orange Avenue. There is an existing utility easement running through the property which is the subject for the adjustment. Pointing to the Preliminary Concept Overall Architectural Site Plan (p.18 of the packet), Mr. Freedman explained that they propose to use the easement as an ingress driveway, sO people driving northbound on Orange Avenue can enter the site; he stated that this enables the developers to avoid having a driveway on Rawls Ave;! he continued stating two driveways are required to service the site; explained that this would give the property ingress off Orange Avenue and an exit on Alderman Street; he pointed out that Alderman Street and Rawls Avenue are secondary streets, and according to City Code the property could have a driveway on Rawls Ave and a driveway on Alderman Street; he continued describing the site, indicating that on the front of the property (Orange Avenue) and north of the utility easement (ingress driveway) there is a four-story Mixed-Use building consisting of two small commercial spaces on the ground floor, and residential uses on the three floors above the retail space; stated there are two buildings on the back of the property, along Rawls Avenue, separated by the amenities and the pool; stated the small building has three town houses and the other building has six more townhouses; continued stating that the parking is on grade and it is contained on the property; and summarized by stating there are twenty four residential units and about 3,000 sq. ft. of commercial. Mr. Sultana, DSDG, pointed to a rendering/axonometric illustration showing the buildings on the site. Pointing to the building on the front of the property he explained there are two office/retail spaces on the ground floor and 15 residential units on the three floors above; pointing to the buildings on the back of the property, he explained the small building on the left (adjacent to Rawls Ave) has three three-story townhouses while the larger building to the right (at the intersection of Rawls Avenue and Alderman Street) has six three-story townhouses; stated that there is one entrance to the site on Orange Avenue, using the area of the twenty foot utility easement, and there is another entrance/exit on Alderman Street; pointed out that parking is between the buildings and away from view on the street level; stated that at the corner of Alderman Street and Orange Avenue there is a one story building with retail and office uses, which is not part of the proposed development under review; and he presented additional renderings showing the street level view of the proposed buildings. Mr. Freedman stated the staff report is excellent, outlines accurately the project, and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 21 explains the reasons for the request for adjustment; stated that a building cannot be placed over the utilities easement, it has to remain open; pointed out that this creates the opportunity to avoid having a driveway on Rawls Avenue; stated that there are letters of support for this proposal, and there are people in the audience to speak and to enter their letters into the record; stated that the neighborhood agrees with the idea of using the utilities easement as an ingress driveway, and having a two way exit on Alderman Street, so that Rawls Avenue is not impacted; and summarized, stating that a building cannot be placed over the utilities easement, and that all the Zoning Code requirements have been met in every other respect, such as setbacks, habitable space, and pedestrian interface; emphasized that allowing a driveway on the easement, removes impacts on Rawls Avenue, contributes to the preservation of a historic resource by reducing the traffic on Rawls Avenue, especially non-residential traffic, and on the whole, this is better site plan than what the City Code would have produced, following it to the letter. Mr. Sultana pointed out that this project does not generate vehicular traffic on Rawls Avenue, even the garages of the townhouses are accessed off the driveway internal to the project. Mr. Freedman pointed out that technically, the Code allows for an entrance for each garage on Rawls Avenue, but it is a better solution to turn the garages the opposite way; and added that the units along Rawls Avenue are three-story high, sO there is a step down in height because it is adjacent to Laurel Park. PB: member Siegel pointed out that of the five standards for review of adjustment requests, only two, a and b, apply to this proposal: a. granting the ndjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be adjusted b. the proposal wuill he consistent with the desired character of the Downtown Neighborhood Edge, district PB: member Siegel referred to Senior Planner Mendez's S closing statement relating to standard "a," on page7 of the staff report, stating that this is a good summary: However, based on existing conditions and limitations, as well as the desire to protect the condition of Rawls Avenue, the adjustment may be found to equally meet the purpose of the regulations to be adjusted. PB: member Lindsay asked if there is a staging plan for the project. Mr. Freedman confirmed that there is a staging plan; stated Mr. Sultana is very familiar with the City's procedures and is prepared accordingly. Mr. Luper will run the staging plan for the Vandyk Corp. who are currently building a project at 188 Golden Gate, and are also very familiar with the procedures of the City. PB: member Ahearn-Koch asked for clarification about a statement on page 9 and again on page10 of the applicant's S report saying that two vehicular entrances are required to service this property. She asked if this is required by City Code. Mr. Freedman responded that it is required for refuse collection and explained that there is a requirement that a refuse truck should not back-up more than fifty feet. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 21 PB: member Ahearn-Koch asked if the refuse truck could turn around. Mr. Freedman explained that the turning radius would not work. PB member Ahearn- Koch also asked what happens if someone driving northbound on Orange Avenue misses the entrance to this project. Mr. Sultana explained that in that situation, the driver should continue northbound to Oak Street, turn right on Rawls Avenue, travel southbound to Aldermen Street, turn right on Alderman Street and then access the property from the Aldermen Street entrance. PB: member Ahearn-Koch explained that she asked the question because the report states that there will be no traffic on Rawls Avenue, and she did not know how it would work; she did not know if there would be a sign blocking the traffic to Rawls Ave, saying "No Outlet." Mr. Sultana said that it cannot be blocked, because it is a public road, however there is a sign prohibiting commercial trucks from traveling on the brick road. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the parking on the site will service the retail units in the project. Mr. Freedman explained that there are no parking requirements for the retail units, however they have provided more parking than what is required for the residential units with the intent to serve the retail units. Mr. Sultana added that City Code requires one parking space per residential unit, but this project has two spaces per unit, and there is additional parking for the retail spaces. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the spaces will be designated retail VS. residential parking. Mr. Sultana explained that each residential unit will have one assigned parking space and the rest will be co-shared. Referencing the Site Plan, Mr. Freedman pointed out that the six parking spaces immediately adjacent to the retail units (two of which are designated handicapped spaces) most likely will be used by the retail units. The other units will have one assigned parking space in addition to their two-car garage. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the applicants knew what is going on to the east of the site. Mr. Freedman stated Homes of Laurel Park, a nineteen lot subdivision, was being developed. Mr. Sultana stated that they are just finishing the site work on that property, within the next month they will be re-platting, and then will begin construction as soon as the re-plat is completed. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez presented general comments; stated that of the standards for review of adjustments, the most pertinent to this project were Standards "a" and "b;" explained that in reviewing this property with criterion "a" in mind, "the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be adjusted;" stated that with the easement where it is located today, a building cannot be located on the easement, staff tried to determine what other possible uses that would be appropriate in the easement; concluded that one viable option is an access driveway, while another would be an open area with planters and tables, something that could be appropriate if the retail/office space on this site were to operate as a restaurant; further explained that the operation of a restaurant at the retail/office space is not guaranteed; in addition, the proximity of such an outdoor activity to single family residential areas also requires consideration of their needs; added that it was also important to balance the access points to the site; stated Rawls Avenue is unique, in addition to its historic brick paving, it is very narrow, trucks are prohibited on the road, and, in general, Rawls Avenue is not suitable for high traffic; added that examining and balancing all these factors Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 21 staff made the determination that it equally or better met the code to be adjusted; referred to standard "b" for review of adjustments, which states "the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the Downtown Neighborhood Edge district;" stated that staff reviewed the plans to fill in a "hole" along the street-front with a liner building, a mixed use building along the street-front, and reviewed the proposal in a larger context of block links and breaks; stated that the block face created by the proposed development is consistent with the patterns seen in other north/ south blocks, the pattern of breaks between a street and an alley, it is continued here with the access point; it is not as if the proposed cut by the driveway will create significant breaks, more than what you would see in other districts; referred to standard "C" for reviewing adjustments which sates, "ifmore than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulatize efèct of the adjustments results in a project zohich is still consistent with the overall purpose ofthe zone; "and pointed out that there is only one adjustment requested; referred to standard "d" for reviewing adjustments which states City-designated historic resources (fapplicable) are preserved" and stated that staff has identified the historic aspects of Rawls Avenue and the historic brick paving; and referred to standard "e" for reviewing adjustments which states "any impacts resulting. from the adjustment are mitigated to the maximum extent practical, and pointed out that staff does not recommend any mitigation; stated that staff has recommended approval with four conditions: 1. The applicants have not requested a formal site plan application; we have attempted to tie the adjustment to completing that liner building, because that is the most critical aspect in meeting the primary street standards and the intent; 2. The lots need to be consolidated because they are under two parcel ID numbers today; 3. Construction Staging Plan- this is required by the Code anyway, but the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association requested that staff emphasize this requirement, direct construction staging away from Rawls Avenue, and state this in all construction documents; and 4. The standard language on all development permits. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the City anticipated any traffic issues with adding that right turn, as far as the traffic coming north on Orange Avenue, and taking into consideration the speed limit, foot traffic, and pedestrians crossings. Senior Planner Mendez responded that staff had taken all this in consideration, however, this application: is about the adjustment, the applicants have yet to do their traffic analysis; stated that staff has looked at the numbers of trips generated, even at PM peak hour, the number of trips are not significant, especially with the right turn, which moves quickly because it does not have the "wait" of a left turn; explained that those are quick turning movements that should not impede traffic movement; and pointed out that the one-direction creates less conflict for pedestrians, because the traffic they have to watch for comes from one direction. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if there is going to be signage to prevent persons from making a left turn. Senior Planner Mendez explained that the Engineering Design Manual addresses that and indicates how to make the driveway flair, the width and other factors. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked for clarification as to the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 21 meaning of the word "shall" in the conditions specifically asking if "shall" means " must," she wanted to know that the statement where "shall" is used is a condition not a request. Senior planner Mendez confirmed that the word "shall" means "must" in the conditions. Vice Chair Svekis referred to a statement on page 5, Zoning Code Analysis, middle of the full paragraph: 1 however the scale oft the development is such that tuo means ofs site egress would be advisable, ifnot required. " and asked if staff knew at this time if it is required. Senior Planner Mendez responded that for a site of this size it is advisable, as mentioned earlier by the applicants, to accommodate the collection of refuse, sO it is necessary for that natural flow, as well as for fire circulation, and for access.. in multifamily residential people prefer two accesses, in case one: is blocked. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that it appears two accesses are not necessarily required. Senior Planner Mendez responded that it is not specifically required by the Zoning Code but it may be required by the Fire Department. PB Vice-Chair Svekis concluded that, at this point we do not know. Senior Planner Mendez agreed. PB Vice- Chair Svekis asked if staff knows what percentage of traffic comes from the south and what percentage of traffic will come from the north. Senior Planner Mendez responded "No." General Manager Smith explained that staff will do a traffic concurrency initial review, and if there is a traffic study required, the traffic engineers will allocate trips to each direction. That has not been done at this early stage.. . the applicant is requesting the adjustment. PB Vice-Chair Svekis referred to the following statement on p. 5 of the staff analysis, starting, on the 6th line of the full paragraph: "For drivers heading southbound, they would pass the retail, see the driveway that they cannot enter, and then logically make the next available turn, which would be a left onto Alderman Street. He stated that there has been no discussion about the impact at the intersection north of this property, where Pineapple Avenue joins Orange Avenue; stated at that point the southbound lanes become two; stated that a median cannot be built at that location to stop traffic from crossing over to the southbound lane making a left turn, or making a "U-Turn;" stated that all those possibilities are ominous if they should happen, and asked if they have been considered. Senior Planner Mendez responded that she prefers not to regulate for people who drive and make illegal maneuvers; pointing out that it is a separate issue. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked if that possibility has been considered or discussed in the text. Senior Planner Mendez responded that she had not discussed people who would be driving illegally in her staff report. PB Vice-Chair Svekis mentioned that illegal driving is discussed in the text, when referring to trucks on Rawis Avenue; pointed out the Homes of Laurel Park has two exit possibilities, one on Alderman Street and the other on Rawls Avenue; further stated that the Hlomes of Laurel Park does not interface with Orange Avenue; and asked if the Homes of Laurel Park's traffic needs have been imposed upon as a result of what is happening on the property subject to the adjustment. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the Homes of Laurel Park has been approved, their traffic analysis is done and they are vested. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that he is aware of it, however he questioned if Laurel Park can handle their traffic without coming out to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 21 Orange, why the property reviewed for adjustment cannot do the same. Senior Planner Mendez pointed out that Laurel Park did not have frontage on Orange Avenue, and therefore, they could not have access off of Orange Avenue. Citizen Testimony: Kate Lowman, a board member of Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA) stated that the Association has submitted a letter for the record, and she would read only the last part of that letter: The Laurel Park Neighborhood Association supports the request to use Alderman Road and Orange Avenue for access to the project. Not only this will reduce the traffic load on the neighborhood, but it will reduce the traffic on the portion of Rawls Avenue that is a brick street. The City ofs Sarasota and the Laurel Park Neighborhood worked together to put re- brick this block, and it is in the interests ofeveryone to keep the street in good condition. Tracks are already prohibited on Rawls Avenue. Provided the submitted project is consistent with what voas presented at the community meeting, and that is what you sazo tonight, the LPNA requests that the city approve this request. We also request that no trucks use Rawls during the construction oft the project. Ms. Lowman pointed out that Laurel Park is a National Historic District, the street grid and the brick streets are part of that District, and therefore this proposal fulfills the mandate [adjustment review standard] to preserve historic items; stated that Laurel Park is appreciative to the developer for coming forward to explain what is being planned, and feels it is wonderful when the developer and the neighborhood can hold hands and come forward together; in closing she expressed her hope for the Planning Board to approve this proposal. Vice Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB member Siegel made a motion to find adjustment 15-ADP-01 consistent with Section VII-206(8)(D) of the Zoning Code and approve the adjustment subject to the conditions set forth under paragraphs 1 through 4. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB Siegel stated that he believes the applicant has met the review standards for the adjustment; stated that any traffic concerns relating to the site will be addressed when the application is reviewed for site approval, and he does not think that traffic concerns are a relevant issue to consider while reviewing an application for an adjustment. PB member Lindsey had no comment. PB member Ahearn-Koch expressed her support for the adjustment and agreed with Ms. Lowman, LPNA, in that it is great when the developer and the existing neighborhoods work together, present a project that everyone agrees on, protect historic pieces of the City, that we value sO much, and everyone is happy at the end of the day, the applicant, the neighborhood and the City. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that five years have lapsed since the last proposal on this site, and in that time Orange Avenue became a primary street; the purpose of the primary street is to have a pedestrian network rather than have cuts along the street, because each one of them takes the plan apart; expressed concerns about the fact that at this point it is not known if the two Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 21 egresses are needed, therefore he cannot support this application for adjustment; suggested that real efforts should be made to address these Issues especially when the roads have changed to primary streets; pointed out that Orange Avenue is a really busy street and more traffic will create problems; and stated that he cannot support this application. The motion carried 3/1 with PB Vice-Chair Svekis voting no. PB Chair Gallagher re-entered the Chambers. 2. RENAISSANCE PHASE II TOWNHOMES: Applications 14-SP-10, 14-SUB-02, 14-ADP- 07, and 15-SV-01 is a proposal requesting to re-plat the existing Renaissance Phase II Subdivision located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District at the northwest corner of Cocoanut Avenue and Boulevard of The Arts from the currently approved 16 lots for residential and mixed-use development to 30 residential townhome lots. The applicant has also requested approval of an adjustment to the Downtown Code (application 14-ADP-07) to reduce the minimum zoning lot size for several of the individual proposed lots which are below the minimum 1,800 square feet required. Easement Vacation application 15-SV-01 is a request to vacate existing public utility easements within the subject property. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) PB Chair Gallagher asked Attorney Connolly if there is a different set of criteria/standards for the review of the second application on the agenda. Attorney Connolly responded "Yes;" and stated he would check the status of the affected persons before reading the standards. Attorney Connolly called Time Tyrell/ Sarasota Housing Authority, Charles Seamens, and James Manson. These persons were not present, therefore they were not granted affected persons status. Attorney Connolly stated that there are four applications in the next public hearing and he would read the review standard for each: 1. Easement Vacation - Zoning Code, Article IV- Division 1306. The Planning Board shall consider: A. The benefit to the general public of the existing street, right-of-way, easement or non-fee interest; B. The rearrangement of streets, rights-of way, easements or non-fee interests which will be required to secure a regular and harmonious system for traffic circulation if the vacation is granted; C. Whether the street, right-of-way, easement or non-fee interest has just been improved, and the extent to which it is currently, or in the future will be, utilized by the public; D. Whether the vacation is proposed in conjunction with an application for development approval for adjacent property; and E. Whether the proposed vacation is in the public interest. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 21 Attorney Connolly stated that based on these criteria, the Planning Board will be making a recommendation to the City Commission. 2. Subdivision Zoning Code, Article IV-1004, which states: The Planning Board shall conduct a public hearing to review the proposed final plat and the site development plan required by Part3 of the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM). The Planning Board shall consider the written staff analysis and the testimony at the public hearing, and make a recommendation upon the proposed site development plan and on the final subdivision plat, including any modification or condition to the site development plan or the final subdivision plat and the reasons therefore. 3. Adjustment - Zoning Code, Article IV, 1903 which states: (The adjustment is in relation to the square footage of 18 of the 32 lots) The review body (in this case the Planning Board) shall hold buildings fronting the primary street grid to a higher standard in support of pedestrian activity than buildings fronting the secondary street grid. The adjustment will be denied if the applicant has not presented to the satisfaction of the review body that the criteria have been met, and the criteria are: a. granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be adjusted; b. the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the Downtown Edge zone district; C. if more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone; d. City-designated historic resources (if applicable) are preserved; and e. any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the maximum extent practical. 4. Site Plan - Zoning Code - Article IV-506, which states: In reaching a decision as to whether or not the site plan, as submitted, should be approved, approved with changes, approved with conditions, or disapproved, the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services, Planning Board and the City Commission shall consider the extent to which the application is consistent with these regulations, any conditions imposed by approval of a rezoning or conditional use, generally accepted site design principles and the extent to which the development furthers the goals and purposes of these regulations. In the event of an appeal, the Planning Board or the City Commission may impose conditions on approval of a proposed development. A. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department, Planning Board and City Commission shall use and be guided by the following criteria in the exercise of their discretion when evaluating a site plan submission: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 21 1. Whether the proposed development, design and layout are in keeping with the intent and specific standards and criteria prescribed in pertinent sections of the Land Development Regulations; 2. Whether, on balance, the proposed development, design and layout are compatible with the Sarasota City Plan, as amended; 3. Whether the required information has been furnished in sufficiently complete and understandable form to allow an accurate description of the proposed use(s) and structure(s) in terms of density, location, area, height, bulk, placement, setbacks, architectural design, performance characteristics, parking - and traffic circulation; 4. Whether there are ways in which the configuration of the development (e.g. location of use(s); intensity; density; scale; building size, mass, bulk, height, and orientation; lot coverage; lot size configuration; architecture; screening, buffers; setbacks; signage; lighting; traffic circulation patterns; loading area locations; operating hours; noise; odor; and other factors of compatibility) can be changed which would mitigate or improve the effect of the development on adjoining and nearby properties and on the community; 5. Whether the proposed development, design and layout has made adequate provisions for vehicular and pedestrian access, safety and traffic circulation (both internal and external to the project), in addition to the requirements of Section IV-203 pertaining to concurrency certificates; 6. Whether proposed development, design and layout has made adequate provision for parking and loading and unloading areas; and 7. Whether the proposed development, design and layout has preserved the natural features and characteristics of the land; including but not limited to the regard given to existing large trees, natural groves, watercourses, and similar natural features that would add attractiveness to the property and environs if they were preserved, natural drainage systems, natural buffering, and the use of other techniques for the preservation and enhancement of the physical environment. PB Chair Gallagher opened the public hearing for Renaissance Phase II Townhomes, Re-plat, and called the applicants to make their presentation: Applicant Presentation: Ryan Studzinski, Manager of Icon Real Estate Ventures, LLC, the developer for this project; Gregory Glenn, the architect for the project; and Mark Adler, the Civil Engineer for the project introduced themselves. Mr. Studzinski stated that he has prepared a PowerPoint presentation for the purposes of discussing these items with the PB. He pointed out that the project is in the Rosemary District, the project is included in a Master Association that also includes the Alinari and Renaissance Condominiums as well as Hotel Indigo; stated that Icon Real Estate is a Tampa based Real Estate Agency currently exclusively focused on for-sale, infill townhome projects like the one under review today; pointed out the agency is currently also working on some other projects in St. Petersburg, Dunedin, and South Tampa; stated the project team is BDG Architects, Place Maker Design Studio, and George F. Young, Inc.; stated Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 21 that project under review is a 30 unit infill townhome development; stated the site is 1.5 acres, and based on the regulations applicable to the Downtown Edge Zoning District, the allowable density for the site, excluding the parking lot area in the calculations, is 32 units; pointed out that they are proposing 30 units; the project is a total of four buildings, a mix of two and three- story townhomes, approximately 64,000 sq. ft. of heated area, and six floor plans are available; presented the existing Site Plan indicating the areas that need to be modified; explained that the reason for the modification is that he is a fee-simple townhome developer and is interested in creating individual lots for sale, and doing a subdivision; presented the proposed Re- Plat, with color coded units, showing the green units, mostly facing Cocoanut Avenue are over 1800 sq. ft., the blue units facing Boulevard of the Arts are at the intersection of Boulevard of the Arts and Cocoanut Avenue and are 1350-1800 sq. ft., and the May Lane yellow units, which are below 1350 sq. ft., and are subject to review tonight; pointed out that they are on a site that was already master planned, they are working within the constraints of an already configured site, and there is only SO much that can be done with layouts and configurations in order to accomplish this project; pointed out that eleven of the thirty lots are smaller than the 1350 sq. ft. requirement, partly because they are along May Lane, which has a narrow throat based on the existing layout from the previous master development; explained that they go through all this trouble because they feel that fee-simple ownership is very important for the agency and is critical for their strategy as a for-sale developer; further explained that fee- simple is essential in order to offer potential buyers the full suite of mortgage options that would be available to anyone who would be looking to buy a single family home; stated that unlike a condominium, where you perhaps have to put down 30%-50% in order to acquire a new construction unit, a fee-simple town home is treated like a home and you can acquire it with as little as 5% down, and they feel this dramatically opens up the potential buyer pool, and increases the opportunities for some persons who may not have that kind of money set aside to make those very large deposits in order to buy a new condominium unit. For affordability, a $400,000 unit, with 5% down, results in an affordable monthly payment for a household earning an annual income of $100,000; presented the Public Utility Easement Vacation Plan showing the utility easement and stated that there is nothing there now, offering no benefit either to the public or the project under review, that is the reason for the request for the easement vacation; presented a brief background on the project itself stating it is new construction of spacious homes with luxury finishes, focusing on architectural details and targeting couples and working professionals, all in an attainable price range; the design is a contemporary Mediterranean Revival, which we feel is respectful to our existing neighbors the Hotel Indigo, Alinari, and Renaissance; finishes will be granite countertops, hardwood flooring, cabinetry, stainless steel appliances, amenities, rooftop decks on selected units, private courtyards on selected units, high units, plenty of sunlight, plenty of space, the building will be in blocks and accented with wood, and plush landscaping; continued with the presentation of the project Site Plan, pointing out the location of the parking garage for the Renaissance Condominiums; stated that the two story units have a private open space over their garage; the units fronting along Cocoanut Avenue are two-story and have detached garages which allows the opportunity to create private courtyards; and the units on May Lane are three-story due to the constraints of the site depth; continued with the presentation of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m, in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 21 renderings of proposed building elevations; explained that in addition to the individual units having two car garages, which appropriately meet the parking requirements, the site has additional parking spaces, also the possible location of the mail kiosk, and possibly other landscape elements for aesthetic purposes; and finally he presented additional visuals of the courtyard concept, proposed for the units along Cocoanut Avenue. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked about the set-back of the units along The Boulevard of the Arts, if the buildings are right up to the sidewalk or are they set back. Architect Glenn stated they are set back, approximately three feet on an average. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if there has been any consideration to potential flooding. Civil Engineer Adler stated that the Engineering Team is in the process of doing this now, and pointed out that the site is sitting on a hill, and the natural drainage flows westerly towards US 41; stated that there is a storm-water pond that was created at the time of the original construction, 10 years ago, and the proposed project will be a tributary to it; we will work with the grading of the units, collect the storm water and send it to that pond; and stated that this area was master planned ten years ago, we do not anticipate any flooding problems. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if any consideration has been given to flooding to the north of the site; stated that, now that the lots are empty, she has noticed that the Players Theater to the north was flooded; Engineer Adler stated that some of that flooding may be generated on those lots, because this site flows naturally to the west; stated that any rainfall on the site should drain to the west, but does not know about off site drainage issues. PB member Ahearn-Koch was satisfied with the information regarding the drainage being designed to flow westerly; observed that originally this project was designed as a mixed use but now it is purely residential; asked about the urban experience and pedestrian experience and that takes in consideration the stores and commercial uses on the ground level, and she wondered why these elements were removed from the project, or had they been considered. Architect Glenn stated that it is a challenge to occupy those units; the idea that occupants will operate their business on the ground floor of their housing unit is a great concept but requires more critical mass and more traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, in order to work effectively. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked for clarification about the sizes of the lot and the square footage of the homes. Architect Glenn explained that the smaller lots have three-story units while the larger lots have two-story unit therefore, the square footage of the housing units is approximately the same, around the 2000 sq. ft. mark. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked if the size of the lot would have any impact on the price of the units. Mr. Studzinski explained that the prices will be proportionate to what comes with each unit. StaffPresentation Senior Planner Mendez explained that there are four applications in a project of a relatively simple scope; stated the applicants are looking at replacing the previous plat, and pointed out that, unlike other projects, there is a slight reduction on the intensity and density of development with the change to single family; stated that staff requested the developer do a site plan application to go with the subdivision to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 21 replace the previous approval, and staff felt it was critical in this case to demonstrate the viabhility/buildablity of the site, especially with the reduction in lot size; stated that the applicant made a good case for one of the criteria of having minimum lot size, which is to create a lot that is buildable and in character with the surrounding district; stated that the applicant's plans demonstrate that they have been able to create a reasonable if not generously sized unit given the lot size, while still remaining below the maximum height limitations for the district, stopping at three stories where they could go up to five; stated the applicants held their required Community Workshop for the vacation of the easement and noted no-one attended the workshop; the easement was put on the plat for utilities within in the project, there is nothing there now and it will serve no interests in the future; stated that staff analysis was based on the perspective review standards and criteria of the City's Zoning Code for site plans, adjustments, subdivision, and easement vacations, and found the proposed consistent with those; stated that staff recommends approval of the site plan with two conditions, one being the City's standard language; stated that staff recommended approval of the subdivision and the easement vacation with the condition that it becomes effective on final recording of the Subdivision Re-plat; stated staff recommends approval of the adjustment and it is tied to the subdivision plat. PB: member Lindsay asked if the easement is not currently serving any purpose, why is the vacation of the easement tied to this plat, why can it not be approved on its own, sO as to avoid going through this exercise again should this plat not go forward. Senior Planner Mendez explained that the easement is there because of the recorded plat, and it is the replacement of the plat that removes it from the record. PB member Lindsay stated that it is empty now. Senior Planner Mendez deferred the question to Attorney Connolly, who stated that this is an option should the Planning Board want to recommend it; clarified that should the vacation of the easement occur and the re-plat did not occur, one would have the existing plat, which provides for the mixed uses, but you would not have all of the easements that were intended to serve the mixed uses, which could potentially be a problem; added that likewise, if the easement vacation were not vacated, we will have the same problem, to come forward and vacate it. PB member Lindsay asked what would happen if this small lot adjustment is approved, and one of the townhouse owners decides in the future to tear down his townhouse and rebuild. Attorney Connolly explained this adjustment is unique to this project, he would have to come in to get regulatory approvals, or they would have a property of 1120 sq. ft. with no economically beneficial use. PB member Lindsay asked what happens if the owner wants to rebuild another townhouse on the lot; explained that he is cautious because he does not know if allowing the adjustment and individual land ownership will create a "future monster," wondered if this is a suitable ownership structure for the circumstances; asked if there is any other agreement or way to tie the buildings together, for example there is no mention about al homeowner's association, with any sort of binding power. Attorney Connolly agreed, and stated that the most recent townhouse development is the Q, on Ringling Blvd., which is currently under construction, and they did the same thing we are doing here, they platted the property in fee simple lots; and suggested the question be addressed to the developer to explain how this works. PB member Lindsay stated he understands this type of development and that it furthers the City's goal for affordable Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 21 housing, but creates some puzzling issues, because the owner bought the land but what can he do with it; stated when the City creates lots they must have some economic beneficial use. Attorney Connolly explained that the proposed use is an economically beneficial use; stated if they tear down the townhouse and want to re- build they have to go through regulatory review and approvals. There were no more questions for staff. Rebuttal The applicant, Mr. Studzinski, responding to PB member Lindsay's earlier questions, explained that there will be a homeowner's association which would have a declaration with all sorts of restrictions, and an architectural review board on the top of that, sO there is really no way that one can tear down an individual unit or modify it in any significant way, or modify the exterior of the residence. PB: member Lindsay stated this is like a condominium and there is someone to oversee the exterior maintenance of the structure. Mr. Studzinski agreed, and stated a development like the proposed is treated like a subdivision, but there are very tight controls and restrictions and a homeowners association that governs what happens to the exterior and the common areas, sO there are no issues. PB member Lindsay reflected on what has been happening with condominiums that have been liquidated, or change their declarations over the years; asked what happens over the years, is it possible to dissolve this, similar to the provisions in condominium documents; and asked what happens if half of the buildings burn down. Mr. Studzinski explained that one of the advantages of homeownership in fee simple is that it is required to carry full insurance coverage, and the homeowner association dues are significantly lower than what you have in a condominium; explained that such a fee in a development like the proposed could be $100.00 - $200.00, to address the exterior, the common areas, and possibly trash, because the development is treated like a subdivision but the homeowner's association and the declaration restrictions dictate what one can do there. PB member Lindsay asked what happens after forty years, what is the end game of this type of development, when the building becomes economically and physically obsolete. Mr. Studzinski explained that it falls under the same purview as a condominium association; explained that there is a separate statue in Florida that specifically relates to homeowner associations and restrictions; and stated one would have to invest major efforts in order to modify the structure as it stands or change what the intent of the project was. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked for clarification about the construction, is it going to common walls. Mr. Studzinski responded there are going to be common walls. PB-Vice Chair Svekis stated that in that case it would be very difficult to tear units down. PB member Lindsay stated that it is possible to do it. PB members Siegel stated that he believed the documents would require one to get 80% approval of all owners before you can do something like that, similarly to condominiums. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked how the developer arrived at the 1,100 sq. ft. lot size for the lots along May Lane. Mr. Studzinski explained that it is purely the actual lot size, a function of the footprint; for a townhouse product with a two car garage, a width of 220-225 feet is required, and they were constrained by the depth due to the narrow strip of Iand along May Lane, SO that drove the calculations for lot size as well as their desire to get something close to the allowable density. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the developer considered using two lots for one unit. Mr. Studzinski explained that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 21 type of development would not fall under a subdivision fee-simple structure and noted that is the distinction between a condominium and a fee-simple subdivision. PB member Ahearn-Koch explained her question was about the reasons for which the developer selected 1,100 sq. ft. as opposed to 1,500 sq. ft. Mr. Studzinski responded that it was a function of the design of the units; stated that if they had chosen 1,500 sq. ft. size, the lots would be wider; further explained that they took under consideration pedestrian orientation, and vehicular orientation on site, and any other lot size choices run into other challenges. PB: member Ahearn-Koch asked if the developer was trying to reach thirty units. Mr. Studzinski stated they were trying to reach thirty two units, but there was a request from the neighbors to protect certain landscape features, which eliminated one unit at the end of the proposed structure on May Lane; and stated that they wanted thirty two units, because that is what is allowed, but ended up with the thirty units shown on the proposal. PB Vice Chair Svekis was puzzled about the fact that no one attended the public workshop, noted three persons completed the affected persons forms and did not show up in the meeting, and asked Senior Planner Mendez for clarification. Senior Planner Mendez responded that she does not know the reasons for which someone would complete an affected person's form and then does not come to the public hearing. One explanation is that when they get it in the mail they respond regardless if they plan to attend. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked if we know if these persons were from the condominiums. Attorney Connolly responded that one was from the Housing Authority, the second from 750 North Tamiami Trail, and the third from 800 North Tamiami Trail; he stated that often when people receive these in the mail they do not understand what they are, sO they fill it out and send it in; explained that what this form means is that one wants to partake in this public hearing, bring witnesses to challenge your witnesses and state his issues, but most people do not understand that. PB member Lindsay stated that if he were to receive one of these notices, he would fill it out and send it in to reserve his status as an affected person, and the opportunity to participate in the public hearing, even if he did not know at the time that he would have an issue with the proposal; he added that as the process moves along and the information presented by the developer, and City staff are satisfactory and he realizes he has no issues, he does not practice his right to speak as an affected person; and stated that is what people do with class action notices. Attorney Connolly pointed out that these notices were mailed two weeks prior to the meeting, the process was pretty much completed at that point, and if they were to have any interaction with the developer they had had it already. PB member Lindsay agreed and stated that at this point the persons who completed and returned these forms realized that they have no concerns with what is being proposed and they do not need to speak at the public hearing; stated he was glad to see that the notices go out, and pointed out that it is his impression that in the majority of the cases that are presented before the Planning Board the persons who have returned these forms do not show up in the public hearings, while in a few everyone shows up;he estimated that affected persons have appeared at approximately twenty five percent of the public hearings, because they have figured out they do not have a concern. PB member Siegel added that he believes Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 21 the City through different means (postings, notices) gives adequate notice to anyone who wishes to participate and speak. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB member Ahearn-Koch made the following motion: Adopt a motion to find Site Plan 14-SP-10 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. All development shall be constructed substantially in compliance with the Site plans labeled Renaissance Phase II Townhomes and submitted to the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on November 4, 2014. 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 Lindsay seconded the motion. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that the only concerns she has with the proposal is the eleven lots along May Lane which are adjusted by thirty nine percent, which she considers to be a large percentage, and the lot coverage; adding that these concerns were not enough to out-weight all the benefits this project provided, sO she will approve the site plan. PB member Lindsay stated that his concern was the end game, what happens down the road when the economics, or the buildings become physically deteriorated and today's circumstances are obsolete; added that we have heard what has been happening with condominiums overtime, but the law is gradually changing, and the people's contract requirements have gradually being modified to address these issues; stated that in order for this product to be marketable, the seller's attorneys will have to address these issues and put something in the documents; added this is an unusual circumstance and we will watch it to see what happens, even though we will not be around to deal with the back end of it, but he can see it being a concern for the attorney's of the buyers; and concluded that he is in favor of the proposal. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated he is optimistic that if we get down to it 1,100 sq. ft. housing units will cost less than 1,800 sq. ft. units; he is always looking for affordability; and he supports the proposal. PB member Siegel stated this is a good plan and he supports it. PB Chair Gallagher stated he supports the proposal; he believes the more variety of housing types available in the downtown area the better; he wondered if the authors of the Code were considering townhouses as an option, but this project clearly demonstrates that townhouses can work. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 21 The motion passed unanimously. PB: member Ahearn-Koch made the following motion: Adopt a motion to find Subdivision 14-SUB-04 consistent with Section IV-1700 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB: member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she was OK with the subdivision. PB member Lindsay had no further comments. The motion passed unanimously. PB member Ahearn-Koch made the following motion: Adopt a motion to find Street Vacation 15-SV-01 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to the following condition. 1. Vacation of the easement shall become effective on final recording of the Subdivision Replat. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB member Ahearn-Koch had no further comments. PB member Lindsay had no comments. PB Chair Gallagher questioned why the application was called a Street Vacation. Attorney Connolly explained this is the title of the Zoning Code Section that addresses vacation of utility easements. The motion passed unanimously. PB member Ahearn-Koch made the following motion: Adopt a motion to find Adjustment 14-ADP-07 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to the following condition: 1. All development shall be constructed substantially in compliance with the Site Plans labeled Renaissance Phase II townhomes and submitted to the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on November 4, 2014. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she already spoke to this issue. PB member Lindsay had no further comments. The motion passed unanimously. 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 s input. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 21 V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. October 8, 2014 By consensus the minutes of the October 8, 2014 meeting were approved as presented. 2. October 22, 2014 PB member Ahearn-Koch requested the following revisions to the minutes of the October 22, 2014 meeting: Page 9, 2nd paragraph, line 5, delete the word "it" between "this" and "is" Page 9,3rd paragraph, line 3, add the word "why" between "asked" and "they" Page 10, last paragraph, line 5, delete "(49:53)" Page 13, 1st paragraph, line 4, change hypothectic" to "hypothetical a PB member Lindsay requested the following revisions to the minutes of the October 22, 2014 meeting: Page 9, 5th paragraph, first line should be amended to clarify he was discussing gas as an alternative rather than an alternative gas Page 9, last paragraph, first line should be amended to reflect that PB Vice-Chair Svekis made the statement rather than PB: member Lindsay. By consensus the Planning Board approved the October 22, 2014 minutes with the requested revisions. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were none. 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 Vice-Chair Svekis expressed concerns about the way quasi-judicial evidence is presented; stated if staff is in favor of something and the applicant is in favor of something the PB: members might not hear any adversities to the case; stated that in some sense, he feels that you are sitting here you really do not know what is really happening, because the PB does not have a defense attorney to ask those questions and give us a report; stated thatl he knows there is no solution to this but it bothers him when he reads sO many subjective statements like "logically, 1 or "reasonably," and "nicely, " which when you put them all together the chances of all of them happening is almost zero; he pointed out that there is nothing on the negative side, or the possibility of things happening. PB member Ahearn-Koch spoke to that comment stating that she understands where Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 21 PB Vice-Chair Svekis was coming from, and how he was feeling; stated that she thinks the only solution PB: members have when they feel that way is to consider proposing their third option "to continue;" she clarified that PB: members have three options "to approve," " "to deny," or "to continue" 'she stated you may propose to continue the public hearing because you do not have enough information; stated that if you feel the City is not giving you enough information, or something is missing that you want to see, you can propose a continuation of the public hearing based on lack ofi information. Attorney Connolly stated this comment is correct, and added that any Planning Board member can do that, and the end will be the will of the majority. PB: member Lindsay stated that it is possible that PB Vice-Chair Svekis assumes that this is an adversary position, and it is not; stated that in a true judicial case opposition is mandatory, for example you have a defendant on the stand the State is there to challenge him; he continued by stating that unlike the judicial cases, here there are multiple parties, not just two, including the surrounding property owners, and anyone from the City can come and talk; stated that even if City staff does not bring up negative recommendations, there are a lot of people who have been put on notice, and have the opportunity to oppose a proposal and bring up the negatives; pointed out that they choose not to, SO there is a message in that; he stated that he thinks PB members should not expect somebody to be out to piece together an oppositional case, even though we have all seen in the legal world, in criminal cases, where everyone is sure the defendant is guilty, but his defense attorney pieces together some kind of case to oppose that. He has to do that, but we do not have to do that because we. have lots of people who will do it if they want to. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked PB: member Siegel if he has an opinion on this topic. PB member Siegel said "yes," and stated that this is a quasi-judicial hearing, and PB members have a set of standards for review that governs the issues they are dealing with; he stated that if an applicant comes through and meets their burden of showing why they are entitled to something, the PB members are only a reviewing body; pointed out that if nobody comes in to challenge them, and give us a reason to disagree with the applicant's S position, the PB members vote on what we see, they do not sit here and make the case, or try to defeat the applicant's ability to get an application through; emphasized that the PB members are a reviewing body, not prosecutors. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that PB members have some level of responsibility with regard to the Comprehensive Plan and with regard to the well being of the people of Sarasota. PB member Siegel stated that is not the issue. PB Vice-Chair Svekis responded that there are side issues in almost all of the proposals, though they are not brought up; expressed that is an issue for him, especially if staff and the applicant are on the same page; and explained that if staff says we recommend "not to approve," then it is easier to see the difference. PB: member Siegel used the first public hearing on this evening's agenda as an example, the adjustment, and stated if he were an attorney he would have to tell PB Vice-Chair Svekis that he was out of order because the points he was bringing up were not relevant Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 21 on an adjustment, rather they would be relevant in a site plan review, where PB members can question connectivity, the traffic report, and things of that nature. PB: member Lindsay brought up an example from a previous public hearing where the discussion turned towards hospital procedures and all of that was irrelevant. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she shares PB Vice-Chair Svekis' view on this issue, she believes that PB members have a responsibility to consider the Comprehensive Plan and look out for the citizens of Sarasota but the review standards can restrict PB members from doing sO; she concluded the only option PB members have is to request the public hearing be continued when they feel that the issues have not been discussed thoroughly and you do not have enough on which to base an informed decision. PB: member Lindsay stated that people can challenge the information request and ask if: it is relevant or not, and suggested that when PB members request a continuation they must identify with specificity the additional information they need on which to base their decision. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M. 115-15 CGL Canol2S David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris GallagherChair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board] FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRSTI NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Gallagher Christopher G Planning Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 445 North Orange Avenue WHICHI SERVEN IS AL UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY Zcmy COUNTY OTHERI LOCAL AGENCY Sarasota NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIMISION: City of Sarasola DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: November 12, 2014 ELECTIVE E APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of ndependent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by: you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. Thef form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOUI MAKE NO. ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: Your must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Your must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST Chris Gallagher November 12 I, hereby disclose that on. 20 14 (a). A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or inured toi the special gain or loss of which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: RE: Orange Avenue Access Adjustment 15-ADP-01 The applicant is a client of a business in which I am a partner. CG. . - 11-24-2014 Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR. A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2