CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Vald Svekis, Chair Members Present: Robert Lindsay, Vice Chair Members Chris Gallagher and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: Jennifer Ahearn-Koch City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Neghborhod & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP,Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLN MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Svekis 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 of Mayor Shaw's Letter and the Pledge of Conduct General Manager Smith, in his capacity as Secretary of the Planning Board, read into the record Mayor Shaw's memorandum to City Commissioners and City of Sarasota Advisory Boards, dated February 13, 2015, regarding City Commission and Advisory Board Meeting Protocols and Pledge of Civility; and read the City's Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath. B. Non Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. 635 S. ORANGE AVENUE EASEMENT VACATION (635 S. ORANGE AVENUE & 1619 ALDERMAN STREET): Application 15-SV-06 requests vacation of two 10' wide drainage easements along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site located at 635 S. Orange Avenue and 1619 Alderman Street in relation to a proposed mixed use project. The applicant is requesting vacation of these easements and is proposing to reroute a new storm drain pipe within another existing public easement that runs east/west along the center of the property. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of19 Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez introduced herself; stated application 15-SV-06 was a request for an easement vacation; stated that this site was reviewed by the Planning Board last November regarding some adjustments; explained that, subsequent to approval of the adjustments, and as part of final preparation of development plans for the site, an additional 10 ft. easement was discovered which runs along the north and the east edges of the property; stated the easement contains stormwater pipes, however it has been verified by Sarasota County that the pipes are not in use; added that the site also contains a 20 ft. wide drainage easement that runs east-west across the central portion of the property, and contains a 36" stormwater line and no changes are proposed to that; pointed out that the vacation application has been reviewed by the DRC, meets all the review standards for easement vacations listed in Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code; concluded that staff finds the application consistent with Zoning Code and staff recommends approval with one condition that relates to the manhole that exists in the easement along the north edge of the property, near Orange Avenue; noted that the pipe has been blocked at the location of the manhole; and added that the condition requires that the easement vacation continue west to Orange Avenue, sO as to insure access to the manhole should it become necessary in the future. PB: member Siegel asked how long the easement had been abandoned and if there were alternative means of taking care of the drainage of the site. Senior Planner Mendez stated that drainage issues have been addressed, and referred to the 20 ft. drainage easement with a 36" pipe that runs through the property. PB member Lindsay asked if there are any City responsibilities after the easement vacation, and Senior Planner Mendez responded "No." PB Chair Svekis asked when the drainage system was transferred from the County to the City. Attorney Connolly stated that it happened in 1995 or 1996 through an Interlocal Agreement. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Planner, Freedman Consulting and Development LLC, and Mark Sultana, DSDG Architects, representing Vandyke Sarasota-Orange Avenue, Inc., the owners of the property appeared. Mr. Freedman stated that they were under the impression that the drainage easement was vacated in the past; added that now they need to vacate this easement; pointed out the 20 ft. drainage easement bisecting the property, which will handle the drainage of the future development on the site; added that their design provided full access to that easement and everything around it is removable; and explained that the abandoned pipes currently found in the abandoned drainage easements would be removed, noting they plan to put buildings on top of them. Responding to PB member Gallagher's question, Mr. Freedman stated that the applicant had no concerns about the staff recommendation and the staff condition. PB Chair Svekis asked who in the County is responsible for the maintenance of stormwater management, and questioned the lack of certification from the County that these pipes were abandoned. Mr. Freedman explained the procedures they followed to confirm this information, and explained that they would not be before the PB this evening if that had not been confirmed. Discussion ensued between PB members, Attorney Connolly, and Senior Planner Mendez, regarding the process that was followed to confirm the pipes were abandoned. Attorney Connolly clarified that under the Interlocal Agreement, the County is responsible to maintain the stormwater system, but the development review process is not part of the county staff responsibilities, it is City staff's S responsibility; and stated the application would not be before the PB this evening if City staff had not signed off on this as part of the DRC process. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 19 PB member Siegel made a motion to find Street Vacation 15-SV-06 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. Prior to or concurrent with the issuance of a building permit for construction on the subject property, the pipe within Orange Ave right-of-way shall be removed or properly abandoned by means acceptable to the City Engineer to insure no future safety issues come from the abandon corrugated pipe within the right-of-way. Certification of completion and acceptance of this work by the City Engineer shall be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit or structure onsite. PB: member Gallagher seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB: member Siegel stated that it is straight forward, it has been vacated since 1995; added that he does not see any public safety concerns, thinks it will be a benefit to the community as a whole, and supports it. Speaking to his second, PB member Gallagher stated that the application meets the standards for review of easement vacations and therefore he supports it. PB Chair Svekis stated he also supports the motion after the clarification. The motion passed unanimously. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings Attorney Connolly explained that the remaining public hearings were quasi-judicial; stated they are more formal that the non-quasi-judicial public hearings; the parties to the quasi- judicial public hearings are the applicant, the city, and persons who have qualified and have received the affected person status; pointed out that parties may present evidence, can cross examine witnesses, and present closings or a rebuttal; added the Planning Board's decision must be based on competent and substantial evidence on the record; stated that the PB members, at the beginning of the meeting, declare if they had any "ex-parte" communications relating to the subject of the public hearings; and recommended the following time limits for presentations: For the first three public hearings: Applicant: 10 min.; City: 10 min.; Affected Person: 5: min.; Rebuttal: 5 min.; and Citizen: 3 min. Attorney Connolly stated that the attorney for the last public hearing, The Woman's Exchange, requested 20 min. for their presentation. PB members agreed to the time limits. There were no "ex-parte" communications regarding the first three public hearings. PB: member Gallagher stated that The Woman's Exchange was a client of his firm and he would be recusing himself from that public hearing. 1. RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE SARASOTA NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY (2890 RINGLING BLVD): Application 15-SP-06 requests site plan approval for an addition to the existing maintenance building located within the Sarasota National Guard Armory complex on property located in the Governmental (G) Zone District with a street address of 2890 Ringling Blvd. The applicant is also proposing renovations to the existing building. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 19 Applicant Presentation: Paul Palmer, Architect, RA -Renker Elch Parks Architects, and Lucas Carlo, PE - Hamilton Engineering and Surveying, Inc., introduced themselves for the record. Mr. Palmer stated that they were representing the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) for renovations to the field maintenance shop that sits behind the existing National Guard Armory in Sarasota; explained that this is part of DMA's efforts to upgrade their aging facilities across the state of Florida; referring to the Site Plan, noted that the Armory building was renovated two years ago, and pointed to the maintenance shop where they are proposing an 1,000 sq. ft. addition for restrooms and office space to enhance the functionality of the space; added that they propose to enclose a 3,000 sq. foot area located adjacent to the masonry building; explained that this area is currently open on three sides, SO the enclosure is called an addition; pointed on the floor plan the small area that will be demolished and replaced with the new plan for restrooms and offices; pointed out the two open bays that will be enclosed; and explained that the proposed renovations would improve the view of the property from the neighboring properties since the view of tools, storage area, etc. that the neighbors can see now will no longer be visible. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez stated that the applicant did a great job presenting their plans, and she will offer some additional information; showed the property on an aerial photograph to better illustrate the subject area; stated that the property is zoned Governmental; added the * application is basic, the renovations are totally internal; the proposed enclosures will bring the building in compliance with the Code; and concluded by stating that staff has reviewed the application and recommends approval with two conditions that call for consistency with the submitted site plan. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB member Gallagher made a motion to find Site Plan 15-SP-06 consistent with Section IV- 506 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the G-zone Site Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled National Guard Armory Sarasota, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on January 30, 2015. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. 2. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB member Gallagher stated that the application satisfies the site plan review standards in the Zoning Code and therefore he approves it. PB member Siegel agreed with those comments and stated he supports the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 19 2. SARASOTA 301 SELF STORAGE (1027 WASHINGTON BLVD): Applications 15-RE-01 & 15-SP-03 request rezoning real property at 1027 N. Washington Blvd. from the Industrial General District (IGD) Zone District to the Intensive Commercial District (ICD) Zone District along with site plan approval for construction of a 24 hour self-storage facility consisting of a three story building and a separate one story building along with 33 parking spaces on approximately 1.54 acres. (Lucia Panica, Planner) Applicant Presentation: William E. Burkett, Burkett Engineering, Inc., agent for the applicant, stated the application was for a rezoning form IGD to ICD; stated that the property was approved in 2008 for the construction of a 85,000 sq. ft. self-storage facility and a 4,000 sq. ft. of office space; noted that the property in 2008 was zoned CI; explained that the property was never developed because of the downturn in the economy, and the site plan expired in 2010; added that the City rezoned the properties since then, and all properties along US 301 in the vicinity of this parcel are zoned ICD, with the exception of this property, which is IGD, because the property was used for automotive sales at the time and IGD was a better suited zoning category for the use on the property at the time; otherwise the property would have also been zone ICD which is the compatible zone for CI; added that he went to the Board of Adjustments and had received variances on two items relating to parking; regarding the rezoning, agreed with staff that the ICD district on the subject property is a logical and appropriate application of the Production Intensive Commercial Future Land Use classification; explained that the proposed use is appropriate for both IGD and ICD, however they are interested in the setback requirements of the ICD district, because they allow them to develop the property as it was approved several years ago; stated the seven site plan approval standards for review had been met; and requested approval. PB member Siegel noted there was a neighborhood meeting and no one showed up, and asked if the applicant had any contact with the people in the area. Mr. Burkett responded "no," however after the variance hearing a person spoke to us and expressed support for our proposal. PB member Siegel stated that there are several similar facilities in the area. Mr. Burkett stated that being the Civil Engineer on the project he has not conducted a market analysis, however his client has; and added that his client proposes to build a quality product with air conditioned storage spaces. Staff Presentation: Planner Lucia Panica, introduced herself for the record; stated that the applicant presented the application well, and she would add a few comments; explained that all property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property had been notified about the application and she had not received any communication from anyone; stated that the project consists of a 56,600 sq. ft., three-story building that includes office space, a separate 9,900 sq. ft., one-story building, 33 parking spaces and three bicycle spaces, and has a single access from Washington Blvd; pointed out that a landscape buffer type A surrounds the parking area as well as the mitigation trees; noted that ground floor windows standards and the pedestrian standards had been met; stated that refuse collection would be available for the employees only and would be collected in a roll-out bin that would be staged on Washington Blvd.; added that Condition No. 3 addresses refuse collection and removal, and stated that it will be the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of19 owner's/ operator's S responsibility to ensure that all refuse is properly removed from the facility; pointed out that the main intention of the rezone is the set-back requirements, because the applicant wants to keep the same footprint as the one approved in 2008; stated that staff supports the rezone request; added that staff finds the Site Plan has demonstrated compliance with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, including the ICD district standards; and concluded that staff recommends approval of the Site Plan, subject to four conditions, of which three are standard for all applications and one relates to refuse collection. PB: member Gallagher asked if there was a fence along the street or surrounding the property. Planner Panica stated that there was no fence along the street, however, further back into the property there is an access gate. PB Chair Svekis asked if the sign meets code requirements. Planner Panica stated that the existing sign will be demolished and the applicant does not know at this time what type of a sign he will use, when the applicant makes a choice, then it will be reviewed and will be required to meet the Zoning Code. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB member Siegel made a motion to find Rezone 15-RE-01 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code, find Site Plan 15-SP-03 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code, and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions subject to the following conditions: 1. Development shall be completed in compliance with Site Plan 15-SP-03 and the associated plans labeled Sarasota 301 Self-Storage Site Development Plans, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on February 9, 2015. 2. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for any development associated with Site Plan 15-SP- 03, the applicant shall combine the properties with the Sarasota County Property Appraiser under a single tax parcel and provide evidence of such consolidation to the Neighborhood and Development Services Department. 3. The owner/operator of the storage facility shall ensure that all refuse is properly removed from the property by tenants or 3rd party contractors as described in the application materials for Site Plan 15-SP-03. Should the model change in the future to require additional on-site refuse collection, the applicant shall request written approval of the change in writing pursuant to Section IV-508 of the Zoning Code. 4. 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 Gallagher seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB member Siegel stated that the application for rezoning and the application for the Site Plan have met the standards for review in the Zoning Code, and there was no public input in opposition for the proposals sO he supports the applications. PB member Gallagher stated that review standards have been satisfied therefore he supports the applications. PB Chair Svekis stated Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 19 that the review standards had been met, it is a good use for the area and helps stabilize the neighborhood, and he supports it. The motion passed unanimously. 3. SUNSET CHEVROLET (3930 BROWN AVENUE, 1800 & 1850 BAY ROAD AND 1705 NEBRASKA STREET): Applications 15-SP-10 & 15-CU-02 request to amend a previously approved Major Conditional Use and Site Plan (02-CU-14 & 02-SP-49) to permit vehicle storage ancillary to a motor vehicle sales agency upon a portion of the property previously designated to contain a separate office use, to develop as an accessory use to the motor vehicle sales agency the previously approved "Phase 2" office building and parking spaces as "Phase 3" and to construct a motor vehicle sales agency office on Bay Street all on property located in the Commercial Intensive (CI) and the Commercial General (CG) Zone Districts with street addresses of 3930 Brown Avenue 1800 & 1850 Bay Road and 1705 Nebraska Street. (Lucia Panica, Planner) Attorney Connolly stated that there is an application for affected person status submitted by Don and Nancy Claridge. Mr. Claridge was present and therefore he was given affected person' S status. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Charles D. ("Dan") Bailey, Jr., of Williams Parker, introduced himself, Ms. Jackson of the Sunset Auto Group, and Mr. Weber, Weber Engineering. Mr. Bailey stated that the applicants were requesting approval of two amendments, one amendment to a Major Conditional Use approved years ago, and the other amendment to the site plan; pointing to the aerial map showed the two areas that are subject to the petition: a vacant parcel at the south border of the property along Hansen Street, and the location of the proposed addition on the north side of the existing building, facing Bay Road; stated that the parcel on Hansen Street would be developed in the future as an office, but until then it will be used for vehicle storage; stated it would be totally enclosed on the south and west sides by a 51 ft. wall, and there would be no access onto Hansen Street; noted that the additional office space would have minimum impact on traffic; explained that the applicants would provide required buffering; pointed out that the homes along Hansen Street are managed by the Geyer family, the people who have the Sunset Auto Group, who is working with local non-profit organizations and has made those units available for children who are being phased out from foster care; added that the Geyer family coordinated with neighbors, spearheaded the effort and had received approval from the City for traffic calming devices to be installed on Hansen Street at the Geyer family's expense; noted that a neighborhood workshop was held and two persons showed upi explained that the standards have been met regarding unloading vehicles, it will all happen on site, not on the rights-of-way; stated there will be no change in noise. levels; discussed the business's' good neighbor policy', / and concluded by saying the applicants agree with the staff conditions. PB Chair Svekis asked if loud speakers were used for communications. Ms. Jackson responded that the only loud speaker is located on the Bay Street side of the business, and she does not believe it is in use, as employees have other means of communication now. Staff Presentation: Planner Lucia Panica introduced herself for the record and stated the applicant's presentation was thorough and she would add a few comments; noted that the property had a long history Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 19 of being a car dealership; added that the property was annexed by the City in 1996; stated the amendment to the site plan relates to a 960 sq. ft. office addition on the portion of the building with frontage on Bay Street, and approximately 18,350 sq. ft. of vehicle storage/d display area is proposed on a portion of the lot with frontage on Hansen Street; added that a 10 ft. landscape buffer is proposed for the perimeter of the proposed vehicle storage area that abuts adjacent residential property; and a Landscape Buffer A is proposed along the perimeter of the proposed vehicle storage that abuts Hansen Street. PB: member Gallagher inquired about the involvement of the City in the good neighbor" policy. Planner Panica stated that it was the applicant who took this initiative a few years ago, in an effort to resolve tensions between the nearby residents and the commercial activities. Affected Person Testimony: Chair Svekis called Mr. Claridge, who was granted affected person status earlier in the meeting. Don Claridge, introduced himself for the record; stated that the Sunset Auto Group had been a good neighbor to the residents of Hansen Street; expressed opposition to the rezoning of the parcel along Hansen Street from office uses to the proposed car storage/ display uses, because he is concerned about light pollution. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Bailey stated that he had not heard this concern before. Ms. Jackson explained that the proposed area along Hansen Street will be used for storage, not for display, and as such it will be litj just like the existing storage area on Hansen Street, not as the display area along Bay Street; added that the storage area is not used for cars for other dealerships; argued that this is a more passive use than the previously approved office use; explained that the good neighbor policy" was adopted by the Sunset Auto Group twelve years ago, and they apply it in all of their locations in the area. PB: member Gallagher stated that even though lighting will be addressed at a later time, he asked if the applicant can speak today about the lighting for the storage parcel. Mr. Weber stated that the plans presented today do: not address lighting. Discussion ensued. PB member Lindsay asked where additional lighting could be located should it become necessary in the future. Mr. Bailey responded it would be installed on the property line facing in. PB Chair Svekis asked if there would be all night lighting. Ms. Jackson responded that they intend to meet security lighting requirements but they will not install display lighting because this is a storage area. Affected Person Rebuttal: Mr. Claridge stated that he did not make comments at the neighborhood meeting because he needed to think about it; stated the current storage areas are not as well lit as the display areas however, they are very well lit, and encouraged the PB: members to visit the area at night; concluded that if there is not going to be lighting he would accept the proposed zoning change, however he continues to be concerned if the future lighting will be consistent with the existing lighting on storage areas. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 19 Staff Rebuttal: Senior Planner Mendez stated that the City's Lighting Code regulates the lighting based on the use; there is a different lighting level for display car areas than the lighting level of storage car areas; there are devices used to keep the light from spilling outside the intended area, and timers could be used to bring the lighting down to the security level lighting after operation hours. PB: member Siegel asked for additional information about the different levels of lighting permitted. Senior Planner Mendez indicated that the Building Code has very specific requirements. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB member Lindsay made a motion to find Conditional Use 15-CU-02 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code, find Site Plan 15-SP-10 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall implement and enforce the updated Good Neighbor Policy dated February 9, 2015 with the applicant's Human Resources Director or other designee as administrator. 2. Prior Conditional Use (02-CU-14 and 04-CU-08) and Site Plan (02-SP-49 and 04-SP-27) approvals remain enforced and in effect except as otherwise modified by 15-CU-02 and 15-SP-10. 3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit implementing Site Plan 15-SP-10, permanent easements and covenants shall be recorded in the public records proving for the joint use and maintenance of such items as parking, utilities, access, etc., amongst the different ownership entities for the parcels. 4. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Sunset Chevrolet, Buick & GMC Vehicle Storage and Building Addition, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on February 9, 2015. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. 5. 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. AIl other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 6. Prior to construction of the "Phase 3" office building, Site Plan approval will be required. PB member Gallagher seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB member Lindsay stated the dealership had been there for a long time, the petition represented a minor addition to the existing development on the site, lighting is addressed in the building code, the use of directional fixtures will minimize the impact of light to the neighborhood, he thinks this change on a large site will not have a big impact and supports the applications. PB member Gallagher stated that the applications have satisfied the review standards for both rezoning and the site plan reviews, and he supports the applications. PB member Siegel agreed. PB Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 19 Chair Svekis stated that he had concerns about over lit dealership lots, however he will support the applications in hopes that the applicant will address the lighting concerns. The motion passed unanimously. PB member Gallagher left the chambers. PB member Lindsay questioned if the Planning Board should ask the applicant if they want to move forward this evening because there are only three voting PB: members present. Attorney Connolly stated with only three members present, and the requirement to have three affirmative votes for a final action (either approval or denial), all three present members must agree for a final option to occur this evening and discussed other options, such as: continue the public hearing to the next meeting, have the public hearing this evening, and if there is not a 3/0 vote, continue the vote to the next meeting. PB member Ahearn-Koch would be required to watch the public hearing video SO she is prepared to vote at the next meeting; and even then, there is the possibility of having a vote of 2/2 at the next meeting which would constitute denial. Attorney Connolly stated there were several people who had applied for affected person status, he needs to find out if they are in the audience, and if they qualify to be granted that status; added that there were two concurrent pending applications at this time, and he needed to talk about them SO the PB understood what was being considered this evening. Affected status was granted to: Ann Newland; Kate Lowman, representing the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA); Jodi John; Daniel Harris; and David Welle representing the Kanaya Condominium Association. Attorney Connolly repeated the time limits for presentations and administered the oath to newly arrived citizens who wished to speak. Attorney Connolly continued with his presentation: Referring to the Site Plan for The Woman's Exchange, (Sheet 2 of 6: in the PB packet) Attorney Connolly pointed out the existing building, the abutting parcel on the southeast, the location of the proposed 2,886 sq. ft. addition along Rawls Avenue, the parcel abutting the existing building on the northeast, and the location of a proposed 3,524 sq. ft. building and a 12-ft. X 30-ft. loading space; explained that the parcel containing the existing building and all the land to its south, bounded by Orange Avenue, Oak Street, and Rawls Avenue, including the parcel of the proposed south wing addition to the existing building, (539 Orange Avenue parcel), are one property at the Sarasota County Property Appraiser's Office; added that the parcel for the proposed building and loading space north of the existing building (526 Rawls Avenue parcel) is a different parcel at the Property Appraiser's Office; pointed out that this evening the Planning Board is considering only adjustments relating to the south wing addition and the 539 Orange Avenue parcel; and listed the proposed adjustments relating to setbacks (building height and amount of glass facing the Orange Avenue and Oak Street). Attorney Connolly explained that he is having this discussion because there is another application at the administrative level for a Site Plan and Building Permit approval, which involves the Rawls property and the proposed loading dock on that property; stated that application might come before the Planning Board in the near future as a quasi-judicial public Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 19 hearing; pointed out that if the Planning Board discusses the criteria that relate to that application at this meeting, then they are risking interfering with the due process of the parties, which include the City, the applicant, the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), and anyone within 500-ft. of that property; reminded the Planning Board that the City recently adopted the Laurel Park Overlay District (LPOD) which includes the Woman's Exchange property; added that pursuant to the LPOD, the application for a building permit is no longer totally an administrative process, the LPNA and citizens within 500-ft. have the right to petition for a public hearing; explained that he is concerned about the due process; strongly cautioned both the Planning Board and the public to only talk about the adjustments related to the proposed south wing addition; and added that the criteria based on which the Planning Board should base their decision for the adjustment are listed in the staff report. Attorney Connolly directed the attention of the Planning Board to the staff conditions on the pink hand out" before them; stated that these conditions are requested by planning staff and have been accepted by the applicant; specifically spoke about the new condition #1, which mentions the loading dock; stated that if the Planning Board approved the adjustments this evening, they would be subject to the issuance of a building permit with approved adjustments for the work proposed on 539 South Orange Avenue, subject to the applicant providing an off-street loading space as required by Code or receiving approval of an adjustment for the off-street loading space; explained that the reason for that is the following: the Downtown Code applies to this expansion, and the property needs to comply with the Downtown Code, which means that there must be a loading dock somewhere, or there must be another adjustment from the Planning Board in the future to do away with the requirement of the loading dock; added that even though there may be reference to the loading dock tonight, it will relate to the fact that either there will be a loading dock in the future, or that there will be an adjustment for the requirement of the loading dock in the future; emphasized that the Planning Board is not discussing the loading dock tonight; continued reading the remaining seven conditions on the pink hand out; stated that Condition #7: means that if the Rawls Avenue property becomes part of the project then it should be consolidated with the other parcels south of it, otherwise it should remain as an independent parcel; and asked if the Planning Board had any questions about these conditions. PB: member Siegel asked if anything has been filed yet. Attorney Connolly stated that the application had been filed and was being reviewed at the administrative level, however there is no final decision at this time. PB member Siegel asked how the PB members could apply the Adjustment review standards, i.e., which include "b. Proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of downtown neighborhood zoned districts.. and how the Planning Board could get a full understanding of what the issues were for the interests of the community as well as what the business aspects of what is being proposed; and stated this is a difficult situation. Attorney Connolly agreed with PB member Siegel, stating that is the reason he wanted to have this discussion prior to the public hearing, because any discussion relating to the activities on the Rawls Avenue parcel could be considered "ex-parte" communications for the potential future quasi-judicial public hearing, plus it could be a ticket to circuit court for violating the due process. PB Chair Svekis asked what happens if the testimony crosses back and forth. Attorney Connolly stated that there is no reason for anyone to provide testimony relating to the Rawls Avenue property, because it is not relevant to the adjustments, and suggested PB Chair Svekis not allowit. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 19 4. WOMAN'S EXCHANGE (539 S. ORANGE AVENUE & 526 RAWLS AVENUE): Application 15- ADP-03 requests approval for adjustment from the zoning code for property located at 539 S. Orange Avenue and 526 Rawls Avenue in relation to partial demolition and reconstruction of a proposed new south wing to the existing building. The property is zoned Downtown Core (DTC) with adjustments requested to exceed maximum setback requirements from a primary street for Oak Street and Orange Avenue, requesting a reduction in minimum number of stories and ceiling height for the loggia portion of the building, and reduction of the minimum window requirements along the Oak Street and Orange Avenue facades. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting and Development, LLC; Brenda Patten, Attorney, Berlin/Patten Attorneys at Law; and Jack Meredith, Hoyt Architects, introduced themselves, and stated they were representing The Woman's Exchange. PB Chair Svekis asked them not to discuss the other site, and they agreed. Mr. Freedman gave a brief description of the non- profit organization, its activities and its community contributions since 1962; stated that renovations are necessary because the existing facility has operational and safety problems; added the south wing is obsolete as it does not have sufficient room for staff to operate; pointed out consigners do not have a safe covered area to stand while waiting to consign merchandise; explained they are proposing to increase the size of the south wing to make it more efficient; added that the addition to the building will be approximately 400 sq. ft. of enclosed area and a 650 sq. ft. covered loggia; stated the covered area is wider to facilitate a more efficient intake process for the merchandise; stated the new south wing would provide adequate space for a conveyer belt and for the volunteers and consigners to work and move comfortably; added that The Woman's Exchange Building was built in 1926, with later additions, and is a legal non-conforming structure in the Downtown Core (DTC) Zone district; stated that the DTC standards only apply to new construction on the site, the remaining areas of the site stay as is; pointed out that Orange Avenue and Oak Street were both designated as primary streets in the Downtown Master Plan and Zoning Code and have established minimum and maximum setback requirements; explained that the goals are to rebuild the south wing in its current location while retaining the original 1926 building; and listed the requested adjustments, as follows: Adjustment from Table VI-1003 to increase the maximum building setback along Orange Avenue from 5ft. to 166.67ft.; Adjustment from Table VI-1003 to increase the maximum building setback along Oak Street from required 5 ft. to 39.25 ft.; Adjustment from Table VI-1003 to decrease the minimum building height along a Primary Street from the required two stories to one story in order to maintain the look of the historic building; Adjustment from Table VI-1003 to reduce the minimum finished floor to finished ceiling height for the ground floor on a Primary Street from the required 12ft. to 10 ft., to facilitate the placement of air condition equipment; Adjustment from Table VI-1004 to eliminate the required 30% window area from the first story façade along Oak Street to provide openings without glass and to allow placement of security grilles not located behind glass; and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 19 Adjustment from Table VI-1004 to reduce the required window area for the first story façade along Orange Avenue from 30% to 0.06% and to allow placement of security grilles not located behind glass. Attorney Patten discussed how the proposed adjustments met the criteria of Section IV- 1903(e)(2); stated that staff had reviewed the proposed adjustments, found they satisfy the review criteria, and recommend approval of them; continued with an overview of how the proposed adjustments meet the review criteria; thanked Attorney Connolly for his explanation of procedural issues; stated that The Woman's Exchange has the right to due process; added they have a lot of testimony they would like to submit to the record relating to the Rawls Avenue parcel, but this evening is not the proceeding for that discussion; and concluded that she objects to any testimony given today regarding the Rawls Avenue property or the possibility of that property being used as a furniture pick up area. PB Chair Svekis inquired about the business model of The Woman's Exchange, and specifically asked about the life expectancy of the building before it is overrun by product. Attorney Patten responded that it has been there since 1962. PB Member Lindsay stated that The Woman's Exchange was established in 1962, but its original location was by the Bijou, and it moved to its current location in the 1970s. Attorney Patten continued that The Woman's Exchange estimates that they can continue operating at the same location for 20 to 30 more years, and if they need further expansions they will consider other locations. PB Chair Svekis stated that The Woman': S Exchange would be interested in more space sO that they can store more merchandise, increase their revenues, and be able to give more scholarships. Attorney Patten explained that donated items that cannot be used by The Woman's Exchange are not kept at the store, rather they are donated to other local charities for their use or sale. PB: member Siegel stated that according to the information in the packet, The Woman's Exchange was doing a greatj job, they are successful, they need more space, were considering relocating, they have been contemplating this for a year, and decided to follow this route. Attorney Patten stated that this also has to do with lack of efficiency in the south wing; added the proposed plan will streamline the operation of taking in merchandise, it is going to have a conveyer belt and more room to work; and explained that in addition to efficiency, it is also a matter of the safety of consigners who had to wait in the parking lot. PB member Siegel stated that he understands all the wonderful things The Woman's Exchange does, but what it will come down to is the impact of the proposed plan on the residential community that surrounds it, sO he hopes Attorney Patten does not object to their input. Attorney Patten stated that in the future Laurel Park can appeal the building permit. PB member Siegel stated he wants to see they are able to provide testimony first. Attorney Patten acknowledged these awkward circumstances however they became necessary due to the City Codes. PB member Siegel asked Attorney Patten if she believes that public input is not important. Attorney Patten disagreed. Mr. Freedman stated the proposed south wing is similar to what is there today, only three feet wider, with additional covered area to protect the people waiting; added that the width is necessary for the installation of the conveyer belt which will move the process faster and the people will be out of there faster. Attorney Patten stated that the new building would be three feet wider than the existing building, and that triggers the adjustments; and explained that they are concerned about the impact to the neighborhood and public input however they cannot discuss it in tonight's proceedings. PB Chair Svekis asked about the noise of the mechanical equipment behind the parapet, ifi it is going to be open. Architect Meredith stated they will use the existing air condition systems Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 19 and they expect no change to the noise level from what is presently there; explained that the unit is concealed; pointed out that currently the units are not screened, and by screening them on all four sides they are reducing the sound. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez reviewed the six proposed adjustments; stated that there is a different section on applicability and non-conformities at the beginning of the Downtown Code, which is used here; pointed out that it is Section VI. 1002, and it deals with expansion and exterior remodeling, and operates under the scenario "if you are touching it must be brought into compliance," explained that the intent of the section is to bring things into compliance slowly as development and redevelopment of existing properties occur, and gradually reach the ultimate goal of achieving excellent frontages that provide a high level of stimulus and interaction with the pedestrian; added that the setbacks maintain existing conditions; stated the building was constructed in 1922, is one of the first in the City to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places (1984), and is a contributing structure to the Laurel Park Historic District; noted that the applicant has sought to follow the Secretary of Interior Standards in regards to the proposed additions, impacting height (scale) and placement of the additions in relation to the historic portions of the structure; stated that in making recommendations staff took into account the balance between achieving full compliance with the Zoning Code and the benefits of allowing incremental compliance and minimizing impacts to a nationally designated historic structure; explained that in this case, the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the south wing essentially maintains 'status quo" in terms of the relationship between the building and the street facades; added that the changes are subject to adjustments that do not further detract from the general livability or appearance of the district, and seeks to enhance screening along Rawls Avenue with the enclosure of the refuse collection areas and installation of a streetwall along this façade; stated the proposal is consistent with the Downtown Core District; pointed out the conditions remain status quo and it is a reconstruction on the same footprint; stated that there is little change to the character of the building in relation to the Downtown Core District; added that impacts from the adjustments are mitigated to the maximum extent possible; pointed out that the impacts of construction will be minimized on Rawls Ave which is paved but has brick underneath the pavement; and concluded that the proposed adjustments meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. PB member Lindsay asked if staff knew what it meant to have a newspaper operation next door. Senior Planner Mendez responded it would be a noisy, toxic operation, twenty four hours a day. PB: member Lindsay stated that there was a newspaper operation in that building, and after it moved out, this building transitioned to a different industrial use, it was a warehouse for parts for large aircraft through the 1960s; the building in question was built in the 1950s, and served as the circulation department of the newspaper, which operated from 3:00 am to 10:00am; and asked if the proposal is considered an appropriate adoptive use of a historic building. Senior Planner Mendez stated that it is a continuous use consistent with the Downtown Code District. PB member Lindsay stated that if they were to move the addition to Orange Avenue it would remove a lot of the historic value of the building. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the Secretary of Interior Standards encourage new additions to historic buildings to be setback. PB member Lindsay added that the proposeal preserves the south façade of the building; it is protected as a historic place and it operates during normal business hours as opposed to 24/7. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 19 Affected Person Testimony: 1. Ann Newland recommends not to make a decision on the adjustments today and wait to consider the impacts of the entire proposal. PB member Lindsay asked what would be an acceptable use. Ms. Newland stated that what is there today is acceptable, but she opposes the expansion, and would recommend the relocation of additional operations. 2. Kate Lowman, Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), opposes PB action on the adjustments in a vacuum, without consideration to the entire project. PB Chair Svekis stated he was confused by the LPNA's comments because the Woman's Exchange is part of the LPNA. Ms. Lowman stated that it is part of the Historic District however it is not part of the RSM-9 Zone. PB Chair Svekis asked why the Women's Exchange, and previous uses of the building, were omitted from the "Walking Tour." Ms. Lowman responded that the map of the walking tour is not all inclusive. 3. Jodi John, property owner of adjacent property, recommends no action on the adjustments until the entire project can be considered based on congestion and pedestrian safety; also she is unclear and concerned about the construction period impacts on the neighborhood because of the one-way Rawls Avenue. 4. Daniel Harris, questioned PB member Lindsay, if his relationship to Elizabeth Lindsay (mother of PB member Lindsay and founder of the Woman's Exchange) will impact his vote on the proposal; PB member Lindsay stated that he has no financial relationship with the Woman's Exchange. Mr. Harris stated that the two parts of the proposal cannot be considered independently; pointed out that the applicant has requested an adjustment for the construction of a loggia, which is a loading dock for the 200-300 daily consignees, but the application has not asked for an adjustment from Section VII.206(8), which prohibits loading docks along frontage lines of primary streets; suggested if the loggia is built, then all deliveries should be required to take place there; also he opposes the construction of the solid wall that is proposed between the Woman's Exchange and the LPNA; expressed traffic and parking concerns; and suggested The Woman's Exchange should investigate technological alternatives to reduce their intake processing time. 5. David Welle had no comment. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A FIVE MINUTE RECESS Citizen Testimony: 1. Jude Levy opposes the adjustments; suggested the loading dock be grandfathered where it is now, or require loading on Oak Street; and stated that maintaining status quo means containing the business in the area it currently occupies. 2. Paul O Keith, resident of Laurel Park, opposes the adjustments due to traffic and parking concerns, and pedestrian safety on Oak, Rawls, and Cherry Lane. 3. Jolie McInnis opposes the adjustments; expressed concerns about the location where the large trucks will bring the large furniture. PB member Siegel asked about the topics discussed in the neighborhood meetings. Ms. McInnis said the topics of discussion were the loading dock, and the south addition. 4. James Miller, owner of Spanish Oaks Apartments and other properties on Oak Street and Cherry Lane, opposes the adjustments because of traffic, parking, noise, etc. which will impact his tenants. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 19 5. Mike Taylor, former City employee, stated he authored the Downtown Code, he opposes the adjustments because they do not meet the intent of the Downtown Code, and submitted extensive comments in writing. 6. Shelley Siskin, part time Laurel Park resident, opposes the adjustments based on parking concerns. 7. Nancy Richardson showed pictures of the 23 12-inch sidewalk that has been destroyed by automobiles; and suggested that The Woman's Exchange remove the poles now blocking its parking area on Oak Street, and receive deliveries there. 8. Kelly Frank, LPNA, stated that the administration of The Woman's Exchange had not demonstrated good neighbor behavior from the beginning of this project; they have not responded to LPNA's repeated letters outlining concerns and extending invitations to discuss them; and noted that they have not personally attended any neighborhood workshops, rather they have sent their attorney and architects. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman stated that The Woman's Exchange is using barcodes and updated technology; added that Rawls Ave, according to the EDCM, is a 20-ft wide street with no sidewalk, it is not supposed to have parking on either side of the street; and pointed out that if the expansion were to be built along Orange Avenue, it would interfere with the access to the parking lot, and move all the access to Rawls Avenue. Mr. Meredith explained that the air conditioning unit is currently located on the roof and it is exposed in all sides; the same unit will be used, it is like a residential unit, and omits very little noise, and the screening on four sides will reduce the noise; added that in the design of the building, they tried to replicate the architectural features of Spanish Oaks and Laurel Park to enhance the appearance of the neighborhood, and the grill work on the loggia is a copy of the 1926 building. Ms. Patten stated that the location of the loading area is still under staff review, and was not included in this hearing; added that the CEO of The Women's Exchange is considering off site locations to accommodate future growth; added that The Woman's Exchange will grow and continue to operate in that location regardless of the approval of the adjustments, the difference will be that they will be operating in a deteriorated building; and pointed out that the adjustments address the safety issues of the consigners. Mr. Freedman repeated that the expansion to the existing building is minor, a three feet addition to the width of the existing building to increase efficiency. Affected Party Rebuttal: 1. Ms. Lowman addressed Rawls Avenue, stating that although the Code does not require a sidewalk, it does not prevent it, and The Woman's Exchange could provide one; added that the additional intensity of the proposal is affecting the downtown residential neighborhood, iti is inconsistent with several regulations found in various City of Sarasota plans and regulations, and requests denial of the adjustments. 2. Mr. Harris stated that the proposal does not resolve traffic and security concerns, they are extended to the neighborhood, and negatively affect property values. Attorney Connolly explained that an application for a site plan had been filed and the City's review agencies cannot approve or deny it before action on the proposed adjustments; responding to PB: member Siegel's 's question about the reasons for not discussing the site plan, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 19 Attorney Connolly explained that the reason the Downtown Code was developed fifteen years ago was to allow for administrative approvals, and you cannot take that away from The Woman's Exchange, and move directly to public hearing today, we must give the administrative process a chance. Since then, the City Plan and City Code have been amended to create the Laurel Park Overlay District to protect Laurel Park by giving them the opportunity to turn the administrative process to a quasi-judicial process, something we cannot do for them, they have to exercise that opportunity. PB member Siegel asked what will happen if this hearing is continued. Attorney Connolly responded nothing would happen, and the building permit would have to be denied because it would be found inconsistent with the Code. Discussion ensued. PB member Siegel stated concerns about not taking a look at the entire project, added the adjustments seem to him as a means of "getting the foot in the door;" added that he sees a proposal that has impacts on a major neighborhood, and the Planning Board has to get it right, or more problems will develop in the future; agrees with the comments mentioned about the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed impacts to a historic district and a historic building, and concluded that this is not the way to go; repeated that the only thing he wants is the entire story in front of him, SO that he can reach a conclusion, and asked if there is a way to do that. Attorney Connolly explained what PB member Siegel was asking for is that instead of having an administrative decision, to have a quasi-judicial hearing for The Woman's Exchange Site Plan. Discussion ensued. PB member Siegel made a motion to find the petition inconsistent with the applicable sections of the Zoning Code and deny the request. The motion died for lack of second. PB: member Lindsay made a motion to find Adjustment 15-ADP-03 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to the following conditions 1. Issuance of a building permit with approved adjustments for the work proposed on 539 South Orange Avenue shall be subject to the applicant providing an off-street loading space as required by Code or receiving approval of an adjustment for the off-street loading space. 2. The proposed grillwork on the loggia openings shall maintain a minimum fifty percent transparency. 3. The proposed streetwall shall be lowered to the maximum allowable height of eight feet (nine feet is currently shown or an administrative adjustment obtained to permit the additional height. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for landscape and architectural enhancements to the Rawls Avenue façade that, at minimum, match those provided at the February 24, 2015 Community Workshop. Final acceptance shall be made by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. 5. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a construction staging plan to the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services. As a part of the staging plan, the applicant shall ensure that Rawls Avenue is not used as a primary route for construction related traffic and deliveries, except as expressly necessary to serve the 526 Rawls avenue site. Final acceptance of the staging plan shall be made by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide verification that the proposed addition meets Secretary of Interior Standards for addition to a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 19 structure on the National Register of Historic Places. Final acceptance shall be made by the Director or Neighborhood and Development Services. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any onsite construction which includes 526 Rawls Avenue, the applicant shall submit evidence of consolidation of the two tax parcels into a single zoning lot. 8. 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 fulfil 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 Chair Svekis seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB: member Lindsay stated that this is a classic problem. The Woman's Exchange is the last use that can operate in that size, and some compromises could happen, or the property will be recycled in the real estate market and be redeveloped according to uses currently allowed by the Code, something similar to what happened in the area around Jungle Gardens; added that even if the proposed activity to the north of the existing building is denied, the renovation to the south will improve the current building; explained it is possible The Woman's Exchange will find solutions to the neighborhood concerns; and pointed it out that there is no reason to stop now, because we are sending a message that there is nothing to be done. PB Chair Svekis stated in his opinion, this is an incomplete process, and the adjustments by themselves are reasonable. The next step will be more difficult. The Woman's Exchange may want to go somewhere else, or revise their business plan for this location; added it would be sad, because the people who come to The Woman's Exchange spend a lot of money downtown; stated that the alternative is worse for the neighborhood; and added he appreciates the comments provided by the neighbors, but he believes this business needs to reach the next level of discussion. PB member Siegel stated he disagreed with the due process concerns discussed earlier, because in this situation it prevented these people from saying the things they wanted to say about the proposal; added that these people have a lot at stake, and these eighteen homes are unique, and their value will disappear if the Planning Board does not do the right thing; pointed out that businesses reach a point that they need to relocate, just like the car dealerships that have ended up on Clark Road; explained that his position is that the people who came in should be able to say what is in their mind, because it is no secret, it has been in the papers. Vote: 2 to 1 for approval with PB member Siegel voting no. Attorney Connolly stated the hearing would be continued to the April 8, 2015 regular PB public meeting to allow PB member Ahearn-Koch to vote on the motion, noting the Zoning Code requires three affirmative votes. PB member Gallagher re-entered the chambers. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 19 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.) V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Note: Due to technical difficulties the February 11, 2015 minutes are not available at this time. The minutes will be presented for review/approval at the April 8th Planning Board meeting. 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. General Manager Smith stated that the City's Future Land Use Map (February2015) has been distributed to the PB members noting it had been updated to include annexations effective through the end of December 2014. 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 9:57 PM. - ad25mtl David Smith, General Manager - Integration Vald Svekis, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/1 Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board] FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LASTI NAME-FIRSTI NAME-MIDDLEI NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Chris Gallagher Planning Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 445 North Orange Avenus #205 WHICHI SERVE IS AL UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY Eciy COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Sarasota NAME OF POLITICAL: SUBDIVISION: City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MYF POSITION IS: ELECTIVE V 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 independent 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. Thei form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU 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. You 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 mmediately 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 hereby disclose that on March 11 20 15 (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 to 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: A quasi-judicial hearing for adustments to the downtown code (15-ADP-03) for Woman's Exchange. The applicant is a client of my firm, Hoyt Architects, and we worked on thsi project. 3:30-25 CG. 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