CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY October 14, 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, Patrick Gannon, and David Morriss Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Negnborhod & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL 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 the Pledge of Conduct General Manager Smith, (as Secretary of the Planning Board), recited the pledge of conduct. B. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings Mr. Connolly, City Attorney explained the procedures for Quasi-judicial public hearings and established the time limits for presentations. PB Member Gannon disclosed that he had a meeting with a member of the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Board, and stated their discussions did not include the site plan application on this evening's agenda (Item #2 on this evening' S agenda); also stated that he received a notice regarding the Hyatt Regency Hotel Sign Adjustment (Item #3 on this evening's agenda) and he met the requirements for "affècted person's" status, however, following a discussion with counsel, decided that may not be appropriate. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 17 PB Member Morriss disclosed that he was on the Board of Adjustments when Item #2 came up the first time, noting it was a different project now, but he wanted this to be on the record. Attorney Connolly explained that this does not create any conflicts. Attorney Connolly administered the oath for all who intended to speak this evening. 1. BAY ROAD RESIDENTIAL (1620 BAY ROAD): Application 15-REA-01 proposes to rezone an approximately 1 acre parcel of property to the Residential Single Family-4 (RSF-4) zone district. Application 15-ANX-01 proposes to annex the property, currently located in unincorporated Sarasota County, into the city limits of the City of Sarasota and is being processed concurrently. (COURTNEY MENDEZ, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bruce Franklin, Land Resource Strategies, Agent for property owners Mr. and Mrs. Baychock and Larry Hathy, introduced himself and Mr. Baychock; stated the property is located immediately south of Bay Road and to the east of South Osprey Avenue, to the immediate west of the current City Limits, and they wish to annex it to the City; explained that the subject parcel consists of two lots, the first is right on Bay Road and is owned by the Baychocks, and the parcel immediately behind it, which also has a 20 foot access easement along the east side of the first parcel, is owned by Mr. Hathy; added that to the east of the subject parcel there is a dentist office, and next to it an automobile dealership, while across the street from the subject parcel there is a multifamily development; pointed out that the property is currently zoned Residential Single Family-2 (3.5 units per acre) under Sarasota County; stated that this application requests to change the zoning to Residential Single Family- 4 (8.7 units per acre) to be consistent with the City Zoning Code; referring to an architectural rendering, he illustrated that the applicants planned to create four lots, two of which are flag lots; and explained that they have gone to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to provide a single access off Bay Road to service all four lots. PB Member Gannon asked the reasons for which the applicants want to annex into the City. Mr. Baychock explained that the subject parcel was split about 20 years ago when he and Mr. Hathy purchased it, and the county will not allow them to split it twice. Mr. Franklin added that in order to create four lots if they bring it in the City, they can use "meets and bounds" descriptions to create two lots on each of the existing parcels. PB Vice Chair Lindsay asked if the access will be a dedicated road or by easement. Mr. Franklin stated it will not be a dedicated road, it will be a private drive with a Cross access easement; conversation ensued and Mr. Franklin described the property lines of the flag lots, agreeing with PB Vice Chair Lindsay that the lots closer to Bay Street will be smaller than the other two lots. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez introduced herself; stated that the applicant described the application well, and her comments will be brief; stated based on the rezoning standards outlined in the staff report, staff has found the proposal to be consistent Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 17 with the comprehensive plan; added that in terms of compatibility, this is an area of transition from the more intense commercial uses to residential uses, SO this provides a step down in the intensity pattern consistent with what is seen in the area; pointed out that it is adjacent to residential SO it does not create an isolated single family district; added it is a potentially four unit development sO it is consistent with concurrency requirements in terms of utilities, traffic, etc.; and concluded that the proposal has been found consistent with all the other criteria listed in the staff report. PB Vice Chair Lindsay stated that the two north lots will be using the access of the two south lots, and asked if staff will require an access easement. Senior Planner Mendez stated the access easement would be considered when staff reviews the draft Lot Split, and the easement would have to be recorded prior to pulling any permits. PB Vice Chair Lindsay stated that he would not like to see the two north lots to try to get their own curb cuts. Senior Planner Mendez agreed, and stated that staff recommendations address the access issue to avoid future undesirable results. Senior Planner Mendez added that in order to protect the existing oak trees, staff requested a tree survey, which shows that most of the existing trees are in the perimeter of the lots and therefore will be located in the setbacks, except one tree, which they can protect because they can work around it with appropriate design. PB Member Gallagher asked about the logic behind the 13th standard of Section IV- 1106 Standard for Review. Senior Planner Mendez stated she does not know the logic behind it, however she feels comfortable with the staff response because it is an honest response (p. 8 of staff report) PB. Member Gannon stated that in the rendering, shown earlier, the structure on lot 2 seemed to be on top of one of the trees to be protected. Senior Planner Mendez stated that they adjusted that; added that the concept plan was done before staff required the tree survey, and drafted that condition, but staff has discussed the condition with the applicant and the applicant has indicated that they are comfortable with it. PB Member Gannon pointed out that the referenced codes in the conditions refer to an entire section, and within that section there are subsections providing for the removal of trees if they interfere with a proposed building, others say remove only if the tree is diseased or hazardous. Senior Planner Mendez responded that this is the reason both sections are referenced, one applies to grand trees which has tougher standards and relates to the tree making a certain percentage of the lot unusable, versus the other section for other trees which is more general. PB Vice Chair Lindsay asked at which stage the applicant is required to submit that easement. Senior Planner Mendez responded that staff would need to see the easement prior to the Lot Split. PB Vice Chair Lindsay explained his concerns, stating that he does not want to see approved split lots and approved rezoning and then the owners of the south lots saying that they do not want the owners of the north lots to drive on their drive way. Senior Planner Mendez agreed with these concerns and stated that the easements are addressed at the Lot Split stage because that is when the need for it is being created. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 17 PB Chair Svekis stated that the County is undertaking the sanitation services, and asked how that worked, and if it is happening in other locations in the City. Senior Planner Mendez stated that this is happening in other parts of the City, and that there are areas within the County serviced by the City. PB Chair Svekis asked about the steps the City needs to take to implement sanitation. Senior Planner Mendez stated that if the County already provides service, the City is not required to run pipes to it. PB Chair Svekis asked what species are considered 'grand trees." Senior Planner Mendez stated that grand trees" are live oaks. PB Chair Svekis asked if the tree that will be removed is a live oak. Senior Planner Mendez responded that no tree is being removed, and explained that the conceptual plan, presented earlier, has not been reviewed or approved by staff. There were: no "affected persons" in the audience. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Baychock stated that he has contacted the county and they have a sewer system in place; added that for some reason the county never contacted Mr. Baychock to connect to the sewer system, and he is currently on septic, but he has engineering and an approval from the county to tie into their system. PB Chair Svekis stated that now the four lots will get a water bill from the City and sanitary sewer bill from the county. Mr. Baychock agreed, and added that the county will also add a $19.00 monthly surcharge to each one. Mr. Franklin explained that the concept plan he used earlier was drawn before the tree survey, he used it only for illustration purposes, and any future building permit will be tied to staff condition [Condition #2, relating to the protection of the existing oak trees); added that they have already done all the survey work and the legal descriptions and what they will be submitting to staff for the Lot Split will actually preclude the property owners from building a driveway on Bay Road. Senior Planner Mendez clarified for the record that Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning and Development, has mentioned to Senior Planner Mendez that the easement is already drafted; added that the easement is also a condition of approval for the variance, and it must be recorded prior to the approval of the variance. There was no public input. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB Member Gallagher made the following motion: Move to find Rezone 15-REA-01 consistent with Section IV-1106 ofthe Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Rezone subject to the following proffers and conditions: 1. Prior to application for building permit, the property oner/developer shall make application for a zoning Lot Split creating up to four zoning lots for single-family development, including shared access, as generally depicted on the exhibit labeled "City Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 17 ofs Sarasota Lots' " and consistent wuith the Resolution oft the Board of Adjustment granting 15-VAR-07. 2. AII future buildings and improvements shall be located to avoid impacts to the existing oak trees unless it can clearly be demonstrated that such tree is in an advanced state of decline such that it creates a significant safety hazard to people, buildings, or other improvements, as determined by a city-approved certified arborist or state registered landscape architect and to the satisfaction oft the Director of Neighborhood an Development Services. All trees proposed for removal shall be reviewed consistent with Section VII-310 or Section VII-320, as applicable. 3. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part ofan applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part or the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit ift the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by the 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. PB Member Gallagher, speaking to his motion, stated that the applicant meets twelve of the thirteen review standards for rezoning, and he supports the motion. PB Member Morriss stated that he was serving on the Board of Adjustments when the applicant applied for an adjustment for the flag lots; added that the review standards have been met and he supports the motion. PB Member Gannon referred to the second sentence of Condition #2: 1 All trees proposed for removal shall be reviewved consistent with Section VII-310 or Section VII-320, as applicable. PB Member Gannon pointed out that this sentence refers to two Sections of the Zoning Code that are less restrictive than the first sentence of Condition #2, and he proposed to either delete the second sentence of Condition #2, or revise it so that it refers to Sections VII-310 (b) (1), and Section VII-320 (1) (c) or (d). PB Chair Svekis noted that this would have to be an amendment to the motion, and asked PB Member Gallagher, the motion maker, to comment. PB Member Gallagher stated that based on the way this is worded he believes all three apply, and asked counsel's S advice. Attorney Connolly reviewed Condition #2 and stated that all three have to be met. PB Member Gallagher stated that he preferred not to amend his motion, because as much as the others appear to be broader, it does not say that one precludes the other; added that even if the two Sections referenced in the second sentence are more general, the applicant still must meet the stricter requirements of the first sentence of Condition #2. Attorney Connolly agreed with PB Member Gallagher. PB Chair Svekis stated that the motion stands. PB Member Lindsay suggested that someone has to resolve the motion for an amendment to the original motion. PB Member Gannon stated that he did not make a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 17 motion, just a comment; added that he understands from the comments of Attorney Connolly, that if the second sentence remains as is, the applicant is still subject to the restrictive requirements of the first sentence. Attorney Connolly further explained that the Zoning Code applies, and the second sentence is not necessary, which means that the applicant agrees to the restrictions of the first sentence of Condition #2. PB Member Gannon stated that the explanation satisfies his concern. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay had no comment at this time. PB Chair Svekis called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously. 2. SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ORGENT CARE FACILITY (500] JOHN RINGLING BOULEVARD): Application 15-SP-13 requests Site Plan approval to construct an Urgent Care Facility on property located in the Office Professional Business (OPB) zone district. The proposal is for a 5,476 square foot building, including one full floor over parking and limited second floor elevator lobby and mechanical space. (COURTNEY MENDEZ, AICP,SENIOR PLANNER) Attorney Connolly stated that a person had filed a request for 'affected person's" status, when this application was scheduled for the June meeting, but he is uncertain if that person continues to be interested, because things have changed since then; asked if Dr. Salisbury was present, but there was no response. Attorney Connolly explained that Dr. Salisbury lives next door and expressed in a meeting before the Board of Adjustment that he was concerned with the number of parking spaces for this development; added that the doctor came to a second meeting before the Board of Adjustment and stated that he is no longer concerned, because the revisions to the plan satisfied his concerns. Attorney Connolly concluded that since Dr. Salisbury is not present in this meeting, he cannot receive that status, and therefore there are no "affected persons." " Applicant Presentation: Mr. Charles (Dan) Bailey, Jr., Esq., of Williams Parker, et. al., agent for Sarasota Memorial Hospital, introduced himself, Mr. Don Lawson, the Project Architect, Mr. Frank Morgan, the Executive Director of Outpatient Services, and Mr. Millard Yoder of Stantec, the Project Engineer; stated this is a site plan approval for a property located at the south east corner of the intersection of John Ringling Blvd. and South Adams Drive; noted that the property is approximately one third of an acre, and the existing building is a medical office of 5400 sq. ft., and the zoning is Office Professional (OPB); referring to an architectural rendering of the building of the replacement facility, he indicated that it has been downsized to comply with feedback from the Board of Adjustments; explained that the original design of the replacement building included an additional floor, to be used for imaging, which is no longer there because it required many variances relating to parking requirements; pointed out that the building is downsized, but it still requires three variances, which the applicant has already secured, relating to lot coverage, parking spaces, and the SO called "front yard," which is on South Adams Drive, and a two-and-a-half foot landscape buffer to the east which is non-consequential because it was within the wall, no one will be able Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 17 to see it; and noted that the hours of operation will be 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, seven days a week, and there is stipulation to ensure that. Mr. Morgan stated that the Urgent Care Program has been here for nine years, during which they built five Urgent Care Centers and have seen 80,000 patients; added that there is a strong demand for high quality, cost effective, convenient health care to fill the gap between primary physicians' offices and emergency care centers; noted that they have been exploring this area for several years because in their experience location is very important for the success of the project; pointed out that this project will be able to serve patients from Longboat Key, Bird Key, Lido Key, and Plymouth Harbor; stated that some of the benefits of this project include the fact that this would allow the ambulances to serve the patients that are experiencing true emergencies and bring them to the main campus, where there is an emergency care center as well as a trauma center; added that this project will help reduce some of the congestion on the bridge; explained that the urgent care centers offer a variety of services, from care for minor injuries and illnesses to care for common colds, earaches, flu shots and annual physicals; stated that they are open 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, a strategy that they used at all Urgent Care Facilities in the last five years, SO they are all operating in a consistent manner for the sake of both employees and the community alike. Mr. Bailey added that there was extensive community outreach for this project; explained that hospital officials have met, in separate meetings, with residents' associations from St. Armand Key, of Lido Key, Bird Key; and added that at the Board of Adjustments level there were letters of support from the Long Boat Key Foundation, Lido Key Residents Association, Bird Key Homeowners' Association, and St. Armand's Residents' Association. Mr. Lawson stated that the access will be on South Adams Drive and the building will be elevated one story above the parking; added all twenty four parking spaces will be on the ground level; explained that there are two sets of stairs and an elevator that would take patients and everyone else to the second floor, which will house the Urgent Care Center; noted that this project meets all the review criteria and standards for a site plan review as outlined in the code, meets all the requirements of the zoning code; and received DRC sign off on August 28, 2015. PB Vice Chair Lindsay asked if there is a requirement to have an elevator to take a gurney up. Mr. Lawson responded that a gurney fits in the elevator of the building. Responding to PB Member Gannon's question, Mr. Morgan confirmed that all Urgent Care facilities operate 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. PB Member Gannon asked if there are counts of the number of patients seen at an Urgent Care facility. Mr. Morgan responded that the numbers fluctuate depending on the season, but some of the busiest facilities will see 75 to 80 patients per day, while others will see 40 patients a day; and added that in this particular facility they expect to see between 35 and 40 patients a day. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 17 PB Member Gallagher asked if, at the other Urgent Care facilities, they have zoning limitations on the hours of operation, and asked what prompted the need for the proffer relating to hours of operation. Mr. Bailey explained that staff requested this information as they were developing the recommendations for this application; he also added that they presented these hours of operation in their meetings with the residents; added that should the PB want to remove this recommendation, the applicant has no problem with it, however they wish to remain true to the commitment they have made to the residents. PB Member Gallagher asked about the required process the applicants must follow, should they find the need to change the hours of operation in the future. Attorney Connolly explained that they will need to follow the process for a Site Plan Amendment, requiring a Planning Board public hearing. PB Member Gallagher asked if removing the proffer relating to hours of operation from the recommended staff conditions creates problems based on the wording of the public notice for this public hearing. Attorney Connelly responded there is no problem, because there is no reference to thel hours of operation in the public notice, therefore the Planning Board can remove that condition relating to hours of operation, should they choose to do SO. PB Member Gallagher asked about the people from the public who want these operating hours. Mr. Bailey stated that he suspects they are the neighbors closest to the facility that would not want cars there late at night, while those more removed from the facility may want the hours expanded; added that Dr. Salisbury was concerned if there were enough parking spaces, and making sure they are kept on site, issues that were resolved as the building was downsized; and noted that Mr. Richey, the nearest resident, has expressed support for this application. PB Member Morriss asked the reason for the 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM hours of operation. Mr. Morgan stated that, based on their experience, people want the facility open at 8:00 AM, to serve those who wake up and not feel well; added that the facilities get a second wave of patients in the afternoon after they people leave work; and concluded that the decision about the hours of operation is based on need. Mr. Morriss questioned how late can a facility can stay open on St Armand's Key noting he is concerned about potentially having late hour traffic at the facility, should the condition about hours of operation be removed. PB Member Gannon asked about the extent of planned services at this Urgent Care facility. Mr. Morgan stated that it will be staffed with a Board certified physician, emergency care and family practice, they are there to take care of minor injuries or illnesses, colds, eye infections, minor strains, fractures, etc., there will be an X-Ray machine on site, and there will be a lab in service; and noted that the services will be consistent with those provided in all other Urgent Care facilities. PB Member Gannon asked how many parking spaces are serving the existing walk-in clinic now. Mr. Lawson stated approximately the same number (24 spaces). PB Member Gannon asked about the reason for removing the trees. Mr. Lawson explained that they have to elevate the site to avoid flooding; added that due to site constraints, they have to provide underground stormwater management, SO the majority of the trees will be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 17 affected by construction; and noted that none of the existing trees is of a protected tree species. PB Member Gannon asked if the facility will be able to take care of a serious emergency as a heart attack. Mr. Lawson explained that, in the case of a heart attack, the protocol in place is that Urgent Care staff call 911 to transport the patient to an appropriate facility, and in the meantime they provide care for the patient until the ambulance arrives noting it is not an emergency care center. PB Member Gannon asked if the facility can be serviced by a helicopter in case there is too much traffic on the bridge. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that these are medical concerns that Sarasota Memorial Hospital needs to address, and that today ambulances have better capabilities than any field facility. PB Member Gallagher asked if ambulances would bring patients to the Urgent Care Facility. Mr. Lawson answered "No." PB Chair Svekis asked what happens with patients that arrive close to 8:00 PM. Mr. Lawson explained that if the patient arrives before 8:00 PM, the staff will stay after 8:00 PM to provide care for the patient. PB Chair Svekis asked what happens if someone feels too sick to come out of the car to come upstairs, is there a way to monitor what happens in the parking lot. Mr. Lawson stated that there will be cameras, however staff will not be able to monitor the cameras all the time. PB Chair Svekis talked about "urgent care" and "emergency services," and noted that the planned services for urgent care are not emergency services. Mr. Lawton explained that Urgent Care Facilities do not provide emergency services, and this is stated on the signs for the Urgent Care facilities. Staff Presentation: Ms. Courtney Mendez, Senior Planner, introduced herself; explained that the condition relating to the operating hours of the facility intends to satisfy site plan review criterion #4 which addresses compatibility issues, including the hours of operation of a facility; and added that the initial packet submitted by the applicant indicated a 24-hour operation, which was problematic considering the adjacent residential uses. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay noted that there are businesses on St. Armand's Circle that close later than 8:00 PM. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the bars close at 2:00 AM, and, in season, certain stores may remain open until 11:00 PM. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay noted that the condition about operating hours requires this facility to close earlier than the other businesses in the area. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the real hours of concern, in her opinion would between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. PB Member Gallagher asked if the facility currently on this site has conditions relating to hours of operation. Senior Planner Mendez stated that they were operating strictly during daytime hours. PB Member Gannon asked about the way parking space requirements are determined. Senior Planner Mendez explained the number of parking spaces is the result of calculations relating to the square footage of the facility. PB Member Gannon asked if staff considered the city parking facility located nearby. Senior Planner Mendez stated that in the first variance public hearing the neighbors expressed concern for the overwhelming unmet parking need in the area, and wanted Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 17 on site parking. Referring to page 6 of the staff report, PB Member Gannon asked for clarification for the statement there are no natural features on the property... " Senior Planner Mendez explained that natural features are water courses, groves, wetlands, etc. PB Member Gannon questioned the removal of trees from the southeast part of the property. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the existing parking is substandard, and the space is needed to construct the redesigned parking spaces. Discussion ensued about the trees marked for removal and mediation actions. PB Member Morriss asked how much fill will have to be brought to the site to protect it from flooding. Senior Planner Mendez said this information is not provided in the document, but Mr. Miller, City Arborist may be able to provide this information; explained that the real finished floor is the second floor, and the applicant will fill the site SO as to facilitate drainage on the ground floor. PB Chair Svekis stated that he would recommend there is no reference to the closing time, let the hospital decide that. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Bailey stated that the City Arborist has signed off on the removal of trees and the landscape plans. Mr. Millard Yoder, Engineer, introduced himself. Mr. Yoder explained that some of the trees are in the right-of-way, and their roots are pushing the sidewalk up; showed pictures of a tree that has been trimmed back to half its size in order to avoid the power lines; explained that the roots of some of these trees on Ringling Blvd. are wrapped around the sanitary force main and present a hazard, because if they are blown down, the roots could pull the force main out of the ground, and create a big spill; noted that today the City would not allow a tree like that to be planted sO close to the sanitary force main, therefore it is not possible to put a replacement tree there; explained that the grade of the sidewalk will remain the same, but they plan to slope the site up to the elevator, which they will try to put as high as possible due to the low elevation of St. Armand's Key; stated there is a limit to what can be done;and clarified that the two mahogany trees along Ringling Blvd. will not be removed, as indicated on the landscape plan, because they are further away from the building. PB Member Gallagher asked Attorney Connolly if it is appropriate to ask the applicants, prior to motions, how they feel about alternative hours of operation, other than those indicated in the staff recommended conditions. Attorney Connolly stated this question is appropriate, stating that Senior Planner Mendez explained earlier that the recommended condition addresses site review criterion #4, regarding compatibility, which is a concern considering that the area surrounding the subject parcel is residential. PB Member Gallagher stated that Mr. David Smith included in this evening's PB packet the following definition of"compatibility." Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes - Community Planning act; definitions. As used in this act: (9) "Compatibility" means a condition in which land uses or conditions ca coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 17 PB Member Gallagher stated that he is unclear about the meaning of the word "unduly" in the above definition; noted that he researched the meaning of the word in the dictionary and found two definitions of the word "unduly," one is "excessively," and the second is "inappropriate, unjustifiable, or improper manner;" added that when he thinks of the term "excessively; - as he understands the plan, there is a wall, a landscape buffer, with cars are pulling in there, this is not a bar with young kids, sO he cannot imagine what is the problem with operation hours being extended to 10:00 PM. PB Member Gallagher asked the applicants if there are any other times that they would be able to operate. Mr. Morgan stated that 6:00 AM to midnight probably would be good operating hours. PB Member Morriss asked about the community response relating to the hours of operation. Mr. Morgan stated that neighbors have expressed support for building the facility at this location, but they did not express any concerns about the hours of operation. PB Member Morriss asked if any one asked for extended hours of operation, beyond the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Mr. Morgan said that no one made such a request. Mr. Bailey noted that there are other establishments in the vicinity, also located adjacent to residential, that have extended hours of operation. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that the City of Sarasota has established that the operation hours from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM, for reasonable (not excessively noisy) activities, are compatible operation hours with residential uses, throughout the City. PB Chair Svekis stated that Sarasota is a green city with an impressive canopy that is being enjoyed by residents and visitors alike, and it should be everyone's priority to maintain and improve that canopy, SO that it does not disappear, because as density increases and uses intensify, they leave less and less space for trees; and concluded that there should be an overall effort to make sure that when we do trade-offs, and a grand tree is removed, it is replaced with more canopy. There were no affected person' S and there was no citizen testimony. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. Mr. Gallagher made a motion to approve the site-plan with the four staff recommendations with a minor change in recommendation 2 regarding the hours of operation, as follows: Move to find Site Plan 15-SP-13 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the zoning Code and approve the petition, 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 "SMH - St. Armand's Urgent Care Facility, received by the Department ofNeighborhood. and Development Services on September 11, 2015. AIl 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. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 17 2. Maximum operating hours shall be limited to between the hours 8:00 6:00AM and 8:00PA4 midnight, seven days a week. 3. Prior to issuance ofa Tree Removal Permit, a complete condition report, narrative response to Section VII-320, and photo catalog ofall trees proposed for removal shall be provided. 4. The issuance ofthis development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of fan 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 ofthe permit ifthe 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. AII other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Morriss offered to make a friendly amendment. PB Chair Svekis stated that a second for the motion is needed. The motion failed due to lack of second. PB Chair Svekis asked for a new motion. Mr. Morriss made a motion to approve the site-plan with the four staff recommendations with a minor change in recommendation 2 regarding the hours of operation, as follows: Move to adopt a motion to find Site Plan 15-SP-13 consistent wuith the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the zoning Code and approve the petition, 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 SMH - St. Armand's Urgent Care Facility, received by the Department of1 Neighborhood and Development Services on September 11, 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. Maximum operating hours shall be limited to betzueen the hours 8:00 7:00AM and 8:00-11:00 PM, seven days a week. 3. Prior to issuance ofa Tree Removal Permit, a complete condition report, narrative response to Section VII-320, and photo catalog of all trees proposed for removal shall be provided. 4. The issuance oft 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 ofthe City of Sarasota for issuance ofthe 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 ofstate or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss explained that he would have recommended the time range in PB Member Gallagher's motion (6:00 AM to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 17 10:00PM), however he believes that what PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated earlier makes sense, because we have a pre-established range of time between 7:00 AM and 11:00 PM, that is comfortable for the neighborhoods, and it has been in place for a long time, sO that would be a more appropriate range of time. PB Vice Chair Lindsay seconded the motion. Speaking to his second, he stated that this is not engraved in stone, there is a procedure whereby they can come back for hours beyond these, to go to midnight or 2:00 AM, if it is justified at the time, and as conditions change; stated that he would not want to lock the applicants in the 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM time range when it would be perfectly acceptable to have longer hours at that location, and if as a matter of policy the applicants decided to do that later, this would be one less step they have to jump through, at least in this location; added that the PB should not always try to give the tightest restrictions in everything we do and ration everything, rather just say, given what is going on around there, and the nature of the area, the normal residential hours of things being closed from 11:00PM to 7:00AM should be reasonable if they ever want to do it. PB Member Gannon had no comment. PB Member Gallagher stated he supports the motion; added that he wanted to mention that it may appear that we are eliminating trees, however he does not think the staff does that, they work hard to enforce the ordinance; added that the earlier discussion was good because it pointed out the real practical issues that have be taken into consideration in the development of the site, (such as right-of-way, utilities, sidewalks), and mitigation is there to offset the future. PB Chair Svekis stated that he thinks the noise of this facility is minimum; added no noise from the inside would be loud enough to disturb the neighbors; pointed out that a light window shading could be done to not disturb the surrounding neighbors; added that he would rather get rid of condition #2, and avoid additional bureaucratic efforts should the applicant chose to expand beyond 11:00PM; and concluded that he supports that motion however he objects to recommendation #2. The motion passed unanimously. 3. HYATT REGENCY HOTEL SIGN ADJUSTMENT (1000 BLVD OF THE ARTS): Application 15-ADP-07 is a request for approval of an adjustment from the Zoning Code (2002 edition). The property is zoned Downtown Bayfront (DTB) and the applicant is seeking an adjustment from Section VII-110(5)(d) to allow placement of a building identification sign exceeding the three feet maximum allowable height on the east elevation of the building. (LUCIA PANICA, PLANNER) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Mark Brenchley, consultant, representing the property owner and Walton Sign Company who will be the installers of the sign at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, introduced Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 17 himself. Mr. Brenchley showed pictures of the new signs that have been installed on the north and south side of the building; also showed illustrations of the way the proposed stacked building identification sign is to be placed on the east side of the building; explained that they are seeking an adjustment from the dimensional requirements of signs, as stated in Section VII-110(5)(d) of the Zoning Code, because the height of the proposed sign exceeds the 36" maximum height requirement; noted that all standards of review requirements have been met; added that he focused on the design guidelines which are to accent the shape of the building, and to bring attention to the ratios and proportions of the building; noted that this is the reason the proposed sign is located at the top of the east side of the building, the area where the elevators are located, which is narrow, and the stacked sign fits better. PB Member Morriss asked for additional information about the level of brightness of the sign. Mr. Brenchley stated that the proposed sign's brightness is within the maximum allowed in the City's Zoning Code; stated the lighting method is LED, and noted that everything is LED these days due to electricity costs and to the longevity of the LED lights. PB Member Gallagher asked for clarification of the height of the existing sign and that of the proposed sign. PB Chair Svekis commented that the east side of the building reminds him of a silo, and asked if the applicants plan to add any art work to enhance the appearance of the east side of the Hyatt (facing US 41). Mr. Brenchley stated that there is no such proposal at this time. Mr. Brenchley commended City staff for their quick and accurate responses during the process of this petition, and for the way they worked with the applicant to foster the request as opposed to disprove it. Staff Presentation: Lucia Panica, Planner, introduced herself for the record; stated the site is located at 1000 Boulevard of the Arts, there is vacant land between the building and US 41; added the area is zoned Downtown Bayfront (DTB) which has an allowance of 18 stories in height; noted that the Hyatt hotel has been in existence since 1975, the last permit for the existing sign was acquired in 1999, and it was conforming to the required standards at that time; stated that staff supports the adjustment due to the unique factors of the property and the building that would prohibit the proposed building identification sign to be easily read at the proposed location if the standards were met, including the distance between the hotel and North Tamiami Trail; added the location of the sign in the center of the façade is the most logical location and the most visibly pleasing; noted that the proposed sign will meet the need for which the adjustment is requested, and would not detract from the appearance of the DTB district; and concluded that staff recommends approval of the application with one staff condition, as stated in the staff report. Mr. Gallagher requested information about the dimensions of vertical and horizontal signs. Planner Panica explained that a vertical sign would have to be located at the corner of the building, three feet wide and three stories tall, while a horizontal sign is required to have3 ft. height. PB Member Gannon commended Planner Panica for the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 17 information in the staff report; and asked for clarification about the history of the sign. Planner Panica stated that the building was built in 1975, however the earliest sign permit on the records is dated 1999, and was conforming to the regulations at the time; noted that the site was zoned CCBD at the time and was subject to different sign requirements. PB Member Gannon requested the following correction on page6 of the staff report, subparagraph "a. Granting the adjustment wuill equally or better meet the purpose ofthe regulation to be adjusted, - Staff Response, last sentence: "The proposed sign is only 0.3 inches feet higher that the existing sign and will equally meet the purpose of Section VII-101(5)(d) of the Zoning Code. Affected Person Testimony: There was no affected person's S or citizen testimony. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB Member Gannon made the following motion: Move to find Adjustment 15-ADP-07 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to the following condition: 1. The issuance oft this development permit by the City ofSarasota does not in any way create any right on the part ofan applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City ofSarasota for issuance ofthe permit ift 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. PB Member Gallagher seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Gannon stated that, given the circumstances, the applicant has chosen the best alternative for the sign; and noted that he is pleased with the fact that the proposed sign has less square footage than the horizontal 3-ft. tall signs placed on the north and south side of the building. PB Member Gannon made the comment that one way to make the east side of the building more interesting at night is to project messages on it. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay said those should be messages that do not promote one's business, SO as to not be considered signs. PB Member Morriss supported Mr. Gannon'si idea about projecting a message on the otherwise glum east side of the building. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 17 IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizens input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 9, 2015 PB Member Gannon proposed the following corrections to the September 9, 2015 minutes: Page 6 of 17, second paragraph, beginning of seventh line should read: I about great grand trees being larger than 24." Page 15 of 17, second full paragraph, second line should read: 1 the City will create an Economic Development Chapter by 2013 2014, 1 Page 15 of 17, second full paragraph, fourth line should read: noted that if he the Comprehensive Plan Page 15 of 17, last paragraph, eighth line should read: a future date 2013 2014t to try to do it by; The minutes, with the recommended revisions, were approved unanimously. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There was no topics by staff. VII. PRESENTATION OF' TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Morriss asked when the materials for the November 10, 2015 Joint CC/PB meeting will become available. Secretary Smith stated approximately one week prior to the meeting; added that it will be a Power Pointe Presentation; explained that this will not be a voluminous packet because the discussion will be about policies; and noted that the volumes of text will come later at the adoption stages or at workshops that most likely will take place in the next calendar year. PB Vice Chair Lindsay shared a story about a tree issue in his neighborhood. There was an old laurel oak in the neighborhood that needed to come down. The neighborhood association agreed to bring the tree down, and contacted an arborist to remove the tree. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 17 The arborist came to the city for a permit and was told by City personnel that the City will remove the tree within two weeks. After two weeks, the tree was still standing, and PB Member Lindsay contacted the City to find out what is going on. He found out that a resident of the neighborhood, who at the time was in California, called the City stating that the neighborhood association did not want the tree removed, which was not true. During this process, PB Vice Chair Lindsay researched the topic and discovered that laurel oaks are the most dangerous trees to structures and people in Florida, which is the reason the City removes the laurel oak trees when they are old. It took a lot of effort, however, to convince the neighbor from California that this tree needed to be removed. PB Member Lindsay stated the point is that there are certain trees that need to be removed when they are old because their limbs are brittle and on windy days they can break, fall, and cause damage or hurt someone; it is a good idea to look at the healthy forest concept; people do not know about the different species of oaks, some of which can be dangerous, such as laurel oaks and water oaks; that there are good reasons for removing certain trees SO that other trees can do better; and noted the life span of a live oak is 150 to 200 years. Discussion ensued about the life span of live oaks. PB Chair Svekis asked if PB Member Gannon had a chance to follow up on the Comprehensive Plan issues discussed in the last meeting. PB Member Gannon stated that he met with General Manager David Smith, and they have begun to review the Comprehensive plan. They have scheduled a follow up: meeting, however they do not have anything to submit to the PB at this time. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:57 PM. arid 2 Smik Deer David Smith, General Manager - Integration Vald Svekis, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]