CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY September 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/Iintegration, Neighborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner Stevie Freeman-Montes, Sustainability Manager Karen McGowan, Deputy City Auditor & Clerk Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 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 1. Annual Update for Advisory Boards/Committees (Karen McGowan, City Auditor & Clerk's Office) Secretary Smith stated staff was requesting a change to the order of the day to allow Ms. McGowan to provide an annual review of Florida's public records law and the City's email policy for advisory board members. By consensus the PB approved the change to the order of the day. Ms. McGowan appeared and provided an overview of Florida's public records law and the City of Sarasota's 's email policy for advisory board members. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2of 12 III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct, and Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all who planned to speak in the following public hearings. B. Non-Quasl-udicia: Public Hearings 1. ZONING' TEXT AMENDMENT 16-ZTA-02: Proposal to amend Section V-108 of the Zoning Code, entitled Nonconforming Zoning Lots" to provide that if one- or two-family dwelling exists, or existed as of January 10, 1974, on each of the two or more nonconforming zoning lots which are described in section V-108(c), then the provision does not apply and the lots are each considered a buildable lot of record, unless at any time they were intentionally combined and providing for the authority to seek a minimum lot area variance. (Gretchen Schneider, General Manager) Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development, introduced herself; requested approval for a Zoning Text Amendment for Section V-108 of the Zoning Code regarding Nonconforming Zoning lots, also known as the joinder provision because itj joins the zoning designation of single family properties, usually without the property owners' knowledge. This provision takes into consideration the following four conditions: a lot is nonconforming due to insufficient lot width or lot area; the nonconforming lot at any time has been held in joint ownership with an adjacent parcel; the two parcels have continuous frontage; and the common ownership occurred any time since January 1974 If all four of these conditions exist, then the two lots are joined for zoning purposes, and cannot be split. General Manager Schneider presented examples of where this is happening; discussed the background of how the provision became part of the Code when the Code was re-written in 1973; noted that at that time there was a movement towards larger lots in the City, stated that this provision is useful in the cases where there is a vacant lot adjacent to the nonconforming property; pointed out that this provision is causing unnecessary hardships to owners who are unaware of this provision; added that she brought it to the attention of the City Commission in 2012 who authorized her to recommend a solution; noted that she worked with the City Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (CCNA), and stated CCNA and the City reached a compromise where the Board of Adjustments would review the circumstances and grant variances from the joinder provision. General Manager Schneider stated that since 2013, the Board of Adjustments has reviewed twelve such variances, and in all cases approved the variances returning the parcels to their original configurations; noted that the Board of Adjustments, seeing Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 12 that all proposed variances were granted, suggested that the Code be amended accordingly; pointed out that the provision creates problems for unknowing buyers; stated that, in February 2016, the City Commission authorized staff to prepare a zoning text amendment to address the problem; added that she has been working with CCNA since then, and they have reached a compromise to exclude from this provision lots that have had a single family home since January 1974, thus avoiding the process of going to the Board of Adjustments to request a variance; added that property owners would continue to go to the Board of Adjustments if the lots were split intentionally, if the structure was other than a single family home, or if there was no development on the lot. General Manager Schneider showed a map of Harmony Heights where the platted lots are 25 ft. wide; explained that there are several areas in the City that have historic platting, and noted the joinder provision needs to remain in the Code in case people want to return to the historic plats. PB Member Gannon asked how this relates to the movement for tiny houses (700 sq. ft.), the City's concerns about affordable housing, and reduction of traffic. General Manager Schneider explained that currently tiny house development is not consistent with the City Code. PB Chair Lindsay explained that the subdivision practices in the 1920s were different than today; small lots were popular because they gave options that accommodated buyers' budgets; it was common for buyers to purchase more than one platted lot for the construction of their house; added that small lots are not consistent with today's Zoning Code; and stated if the City is interested in allowing small lot development the Zoning Code would need to be amended accordingly, which is a different process than today's public hearing. Discussion ensued about the impact of the joinder provision under various development scenarios; interest in the City for small lots and the development of small houses to address affordable housing, housing for older persons, and general ways to intensify the development in the City. PB Member Gannon asked why the text amendment refers only to lot area and not to lot width, or depth, or both. General Manager Schneider stated that the Board of Adjustments already has the authority to address lot width, and it would be redundant to include it in this section. Public Input There was none. PB Chair Lindsay closed the public hearing, and asked for a motion. PB Member Morriss moved to find Zoning Text Amendment 16-ZTA-02 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2008) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval by the City Commission. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. There was no discussion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 12 The motion passed unanimously with a vote 5 to 0. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Florida Studio Theatre Actors/Student Housing (751 Cohen Way): Adjustment Application 15-ADP-08 and Street Vacation Application 16-SV-04 request approval of an adjustment from the Zoning Code (2002 ed.) for property located at 751 Cohen Way. The property is zoned Downtown Edge (DTE) and Florida Studio Theatre is seeking an adjustment from Table VI-1003, Zoning Code (2002 ed.) to allow the finished floor elevation for one unit to be less than two feet above sidewalk grade in a proposed two-story apartment style dormitory project with five units that will house actors and students of Florida Studio Theatre; the applicant is also requesting approval of the vacation of a two foot sidewalk easement located within the property at 751 Cohen Way. The applicant is proposing to vacate this easement and reconfigure the existing sidewalk to accommodate the proposed project. (Lucia Panica, Planner) Attorney Connolly described the process for Quasi-judicial Public Hearings, and recommended time limits for those who intend to speak at this hearing; and called Mr. Marcus Anast who had filed an application for affected person's status. Mr. Anast was not in the audience therefore Attorney Connolly recommended that he not be granted affected person's status. PB: members concurred by consensus. Applicant Presentation Mr. Alan Anderson, Architect, introduced for the record himself and Ms. Rebeca Hopkins, the Managing Director of Florida Studio Theatre; Mr. Anderson stated that they are requesting two things: an adjustment to the finished floor elevation requirements, and a sidewalk easement vacation; presented a rendering of the proposed building; stated that originally this was designed as a dormitory for the students and actors; added that this design creates five residential units with four bedrooms each; presented pictures of the sight, showing the green area along Cohen Way, the sidewalk, and the property limits. Responding to PB Chair Lindsay's question, Mr. Anderson stated that part of the sidewalk is within the existing easement, which the applicant is requesting to vacate; the property width is 23 ft. and the building is 20 ft. wide according to the standards at the time of development; presented the overall Site Plan, including the older dormitory development which had a lift and part of the building was in the air rights over Planned Parenthood; there were two entrances in and out of the building, however on the second floor they had to adhere to the air-rights; noted that they redesigned the building; explained that they worked with the City's Engineering Department on the design of the proposed sidewalk in order to obtain approval of a Technical Deviation; explained that the City's Engineering Department suggested the applicant provide an 8 ft. sidewalk, to request an administrative adjustment to lower the north property below the required two Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 12 foot elevation, sO as to be able to provide ADA accessibility to one of the units per the Fair Housing requirements for a residential dwelling without additional ramps or lift; and to construct the level sidewalk along the side; noted that the standards at the time of original construction required that Cohen Way be 27 ft. wide, however today's requirement is 24 ft.; added that the Code requirements for the width of the road, landscape, and sidewalk width are different now; stated that the applicant is proposing a 61 ft. sidewalk with a 3 ft. buffer along the building; and presented elevations of the building. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked why the Technical Deviation was necessary. Mr. Anderson explained that it was to deviate from the grass area and sidewalk width requirements in the Code; added that a compromise was reached, according to which the applicant is to provide an 8: ft. sidewalk, and 3 ft. landscaped space, placing the structure 11 ft. from the curb, SO that people on the sidewalk would not be walking right next to the living room areas of the units. Discussion ensued. Responding to PB Member Halflants' question, Mr. Anderson explained that in 2007, when Planned Parenthood constructed the building, they were required to build a liner building; SO they partnered with the Florida Studio Theatre for the construction of the building; explained that this structure falls under the "dormitory style apartment building" requirements of the City Code, and they are to provide 5% ADA accessible units, which is the reason that the corner unit is designed differently. PB Member Halflants asked if the back flow preventer equipment could be moved to another location on the site sO that it is not visible from the street. Discussion ensued about creating a balance between engineering requirements, aesthetics, and cost impacts on a small project. Mr. Anderson agreed to look into relocating the backflow equipment. PB Member Gannon noted that in the rendering there are steps in front of the ADA unit. Mr. Anderson stated that was an earlier artistic rendering, and at the time they were considering locating the ADA unit on the other end of the structure. PB Member Gannon asked why the applicants used the 1984 FEMA Maps, and not more recent maps. Mr. Anderson stated that he will further investigate the requirements of the latest FEMA maps, SO as to ensure that the ADA unit will not flood. PB Member Gannon expressed concerns about the tree grates on the sidewalk, because they reduce the effective walkable width of the sidewalk to 4 ft. Mr. Anderson noted that the three tree grates create only three pinch" points along the 120ft. sidewalk of a non-commercial development. PB Member Gannon asked if the applicants have considered to plant hardwoods, as opposed to the palm trees, along the right of way, and asked if the City decides the type of trees to be planted on the right of way. Responding to PB Member Gannon's question about resident parking, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Hopkins stated that the residents would park on the street, where parking is available in the neighborhood, however, they pointed out that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 12 the residents of this facility are visiting students, who in most cases do not have cars. PB Member Morriss stated that he has no concerns about the two items the applicants are requesting, however he is concerned about the other issues that are surfacing, such as the trees, and the relocation of backflow equipment. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked if the zoning personnel of the City were involved in the Technical Deviation process. Mr. Anderson stated they worked with the Engineering Department. PB Vice Chair Gallagher noted that a strip of grass along the curb helps the trees that are planted in it to grow healthier and to develop a better canopy; suggested that there are other alternatives to enhance sidewalk walkability, and described such scenarios. Ms. Hopkins stated that their original proposal was very much like one of the scenarios PB Vice Chair Gallagher just described, however, City personnel denied the applicants' proposal, and told them exactly what the City would approve, SO the applicant redesigned the proposal accordingly. She stated that, as the person attempting to develop this property, she is getting mixed signals from City personnel. Staff Presentation Ms. Lucia Panica, Planner, introduced herself for the record; stated the project is located on Cohen Way, a primary street, it is zoned Downtown Edge (DTE) and is also located in the Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD); noted that the lot is 23 ft. by 130 ft. long; pointed out that the liner building was Phase II of the Planned Parenthood building, and due to the economy they built a fence until they would be able to develop the structure; stated that the proposed building will house visiting actors; explained that the first request is for an adjustment from the required two-foot elevation above adjacent sidewalk grade, for the first floor requirement for one dwelling unit, sO as to comply with the requirements of the Fair Housing provisions of ADA; added that the second request is for the vacation of a 2 ft. sidewalk easement on the side of the lot adjacent to Cohen Way, SO as to be able to construct a sidewalk according to the criteria of the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM); pointed out that a Technical Deviation from the EDCM sidewalk requirements was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and approved by the City Manager; and concluded that both of the requests meet the review standards of the Zoning Code and staff recommends their approval. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked what is the reason for the 2ft. elevation. Planner Panica stated that the intent is to provide privacy to the residents. Responding to PB Vice Chair Gallagher: S question, Planner Panica confirmed that the Technical Deviation was reviewed by Engineering staff and the City Manager, according to the established process. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked Planner Panica if she has an opinion about his earlier comments on the design of the sidewalk. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page7 of 12 PB Member Gannon asked who decides on the types of trees that are planted on the right-of-way. Planner Panica stated that they have to be approved by Public Works during the building permit process. PB Member Gannon expressed concern about the parking situation, stating that, based on earlier Zoning Code requirements, the approved development of the office building on the property facing Central Avenue would provide forty parking spaces to serve the offices and the residents of the liner building facing Cohen Way. Planner Panica stated that the liner building is less than 10,000 sq. ft. and does not require any parking, therefore the existing parking, located adjacent to the liner building, is for the offices of Planned Parenthood. PB Member Gannon stated that the adopting ordinance for the development of the office building, which also requires the landowner to build the liner building on Cohen Way, includes a description of the parking requirements on the property, located between the office and the liner building, and nothing in the ordinance states that the parking is only for the office spaces and not the residential liner building; and asked if that parking was intended to serve both the office and the liner buildings. PB Member Gannon expressed concern about future use and the potential of 20 residents living in the building and having no parking on site or on the surrounding streets, asked what the impact be on future use would be; and asked if there was a way to include a condition to the effect that this situation is allowed only sO long as the Florida Studio Theatre is using the facility. Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, introduced herself for the record, stated that the intent of the reduction in, or the elimination of, parking requirements for certain buildings was that the residents/occupants: of those buildings would share parking or use the available parking in the area, parking structures, etc. PB Member Gannon continued to express concerns over parking at this location, in view of other uses in the area, and the lack of on-street parking spaces. PB Member Gannon asked what happens if the developer breaks down the sidewalk, and does not develop the liner building, is the City losing a sidewalk? PB Member Halflants explained that they will do the sidewalk once the building is up. PB Member Morriss stated that the lot would be unbuildable if there were parking requirements for its development; added that he agrees with the alternative sidewalk design PB Vice Chair Gallagher described earlier, because it was a good compromise, and asked how it could be memorialized. PB Vice Chair Gallagher suggested that this compromise be presented to the City Commission or to the City Manager for consideration. Attorney Connolly expressed concerns over the fact that the PB discussion has gotten away from what PB Members should be discussing this evening, which is the vacation of the sidewalk easement; added that this evening's discussion seems to be addressing building permit issues, over which the Planning Board has no jurisdiction; suggested that staff may consider the opinions shared in this Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 12 academic discussion, however the Planning Board does not have the authority to make a recommendation; and pointed out that the questions to be discussed on the sidewalk easement are: the benefit to the general public of the existing easement, and it has nothing to do with where the trees are going to be in the future; the rearrangement of streets required to secure a safe and harmonious system for traffic circulation, if the vacation is granted, and noted that the proposed development is not impacting traffic circulation; whether the easement has been improved to the extent the easement is used or will be utilized by the general public, and noted that the easement is improved and used by the general public; whether the vacation is proposed in conjunction with an application of development approval for adjacent property; and whether the vacation is in the public interest. Discussion ensued. Citizen Input There was none. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Hopkins stated that she is trying to develop a property in the Rosemary District, which really needs help, and she is surprised that there is all this discussion about a sidewalk that goes nowhere. She added that she wants to provide a sidewalk, she will provide any type of sidewalk the City wants, but it is important to move forward. Mr. Anderson stated that it is necessary to get approval SO that they can break ground and move forward. PB Chair Lindsay closed the public hearing, and asked for a motion. PB Vice Chair Gallagher moved to find Adjustment 15-ADP-08 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to the following condition: 1. 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 Morriss seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Motion for the Adjustment passed with a vote of 5 to 0. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 12 PB Member Morriss moved to find Easement Vacation 16-SV-04 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Easement Vacation subject to the following condition: 1. Vacation of the easement shall become effective on issuance of the building permit for the project. If the project does not move forward, then the subject existing sidewalk easement should remain in order to provide public access from 8th Street to the southern portion of the subject lot. PB Vice Chair Gallagher seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Motion for the Easement Vacation passed with a vote of 5 to 0. PB Member Gannon made a motion to recommend City staff consider planting the maximum number of hardwood shade trees, in the place of palm trees, in the right-of-way along the front of this property. PB Vice Chair Gallagher seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Gannon stated that this would improve the walkability of the street, and the intent is to improve the walkability of the entire Rosemary District. Speaking to his second, PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that as the proposal is reviewed, City staff will ask for canopy trees, but it does not hurt for the Planning Board to also support this idea. PB Member Halflants made a motion to amend the motion to include a requirement of a continuous strip of grass along the street. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion to amend. No further discussion on the amendment. PB Chair Lindsay asked for a vote on the amendment. The motion to amend the earlier motion is approved by a vote of 5 to 0. The amended motion is to recommend City Staff consider planting the maximum number of hardwood shade trees, in the place of palm trees, in the right of way along the front of this property, and have a continuous strip of grass along the street. PB Chair Lindsay asked for a vote to the amended motion. The motion passed with a vote of 5 to 0. PB Member Halflants moved to recommend City Staff in the building process require that the backflow equipment be hidden from view. The motion died for lack of second. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 12 PB Vice Chair Gallagher recommended that the applicants speak with the appropriate City staff and the City Manager about acquiring a Technical Deviation that relates to parking on the street. IV. 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. 1. PAPER REDUCTION PILOT PROJECT: All City Departments have been asked to identify paper reduction opportunities. The goal of this presentation is to receive feedback from Board members regarding a pilot project idea for the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency. This pilot idea is a collaboration between the NDS and IT Departments and Sustainability program. (Stevie Freeman-Montes, Sustainability Manager) Ms. Stevie Freeman-Montes, Sustainability Manager, discussed a proposed pilot project that would allow for a large portion of the information in the Planning Board's packets to be disseminated electronically versus in hard copy form. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss and PB Chair Lindsay expressed interest in a hybrid approach where some items are provided in pdf format, and other items in hard copy, such as the staff report, the motion pages, and the site plans. PB Member Gannon expressed concerns about using personal computers. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated he would prefer everything in pdf format. PB Chair Lindsay suggested that staff review some typical packets and suggest what items should be in pdf format and which items should continue to be shared on paper. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that there is a lot of literature addressing the benefits of using paper, and suggested that, in an effort to educate the staff, all sides of the story must be presented, as well as the local, national and international environmental and economic benefits. Ms. Freeman Montes stated that she will include in her sustainability presentations to staff the social, public health, and economic benefits that result from this project. PB members agreed by consensus that a sample would be provided and discussed at the October meeting with possible implementation at the December meeting. 2. ALCOHOL RELATED CONDITIONAL USE/DEFINITIONS REPORT: As requested by the Planning Board, staff will provide a report on the existing alcohol-related Conditional Use applications and their monitoring in regards to police activity. Information will also be provided regarding the definitions and Zoning Code requirements related to this uses, and other related information as may be appropriate. (COURTNEY MENDEZ, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER) Ms. Courtney Mendez, Senior Planner, introduced herself for the record; stated that after the discussion of the Cask and Ale project, the Planning Board asked staff to return for a separate discussion on beverage related conditional uses and definitions; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 12 added that she has pulled together some general background information to support this discussion; and noted that she has included: pertinent sections of the Zoning Code, such as sections relating to alcohol beverage stores, nightclubs, bars, restaurants, etc.; Section VII 602, which provides the standards for sale of alcoholic beverages and includes the four additional review criteria, such as hours of operation, law enforcement activities, parking, noise and music; the section of the Code that discusses separation of these uses from one another and from certain other uses; and explained that there is a set of criteria specific to the downtown area; and past text amendments to the Zoning Code relating to this topic, representing the history in the past 10 years. Senior Planner Mendez explained that the definition of a nightclub depends on the type of the liquor license the State has issued to the establishment; provided information about the different types of State licenses, including the 2 COP license for bars, which is discussed often in public hearings, and its subsection on 4 COP-SRX licenses, the beer and wine licenses that are accessory to restaurants, which is exempted from the definition of nightclubs. Senior Planner Mendez explained that in the packet there is a list of all the conditional uses that have been approved related to these uses and a summary of the conditions that were approved to mitigate adverse impacts; added that the conditional uses run with the property and are transferable; and noted there are ways to be revoked. PB Vice Chair Gallagher noted that there are about eleven establishments that have conditional uses, and asked how many liquor licenses there are in the City. PB Chair Lindsay stated the Planning Board was interested in ways to differentiate these sO as to be able to determine what is more compatible with the downtown area. Senior Planner Mendez explained that in the downtown area where the spaces are smaller it is difficult for an establishment to meet the criteria for a 4 COP-SRX license and be considered a restaurant, SO it falls under the category of bars. PB Chair Lindsay noted the Code now has definitions for bars, nightclubs, and restaurants, and that the Planning Board was looking for information to help them further differentiate these establishments; and suggested that staff research how other communities are addressing this concern. Senior Planner Mendez stated that other communities have different definitions in their Codes, or, for simplicity purposes, they categorize the establishments based on the state licenses the establishments have, and match the State statutes where ever possible. PB Chair Lindsay suggested that staff should be working on refining definitions sO that the Planning Board can easily allow the things that they want to see in the City, especially in the downtown area; and stated the need to figure out the characteristics of the establishments that have problems. Senior Planner Mendez stated that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 12 reviewing the reports, one can see tangible violations, but also notice that a lot depend on the management of the establishment and how much they are willing to tolerate. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss asked if there is a threshold that triggers the review by the City Manager. PB Chair Lindsay asked if there is a way for periodic reviews of the conditional uses. Discussion ensued about unintended consequences. PB Member Morriss suggested that the periodic review could be tied to the lease, and just like the lease gives the option to renew, the establishment would have the opportunity to extend its conditional use if it received a favorable review. Discussion ensued about the overlap of police functions and zoning functions, concentration of uses, compatibility, legislative functions, zoning code dispersal requirements, definitions of a night club, etc. General Manager Schneider clarified that the latest FEMA Flood Zone Maps will be in effect in November 2016, which is the reason older FEMA Flood Zone Maps were used in the Florida Studio Theatre project. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 8, 2016 The June 8, 2016 minutes were approved as presented. VI. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO: THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no citizen' S input. 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. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:33 P.M. ancl 2Smuk David Smith, General Manager - Integration Robert Lindsay, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]