CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY October 22, 2014, 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board None Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Neghborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager-Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Miles Larsen, Manager-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were: no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading the Pledge of Contact Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. B. Quasi-judicial Public Hearing 1. LIFT STATION 87: Application 14-SP-09 is a proposal to construct City of Sarasota Lift Station No. 87 to be located on the northeast corner of the southern half of Luke Wood Park, near the intersection of US 41 and US 301 at 1900 Mound Street, located in the Governmental (G) Zone District. The project is subject to the requirements of the most restrictive adjacent zone district, in this case the RMF-4 Zone District. The Lift Station is proposed to be housed in a two story building. (Lucia Panica, Planner) Chair Gallagher stated this is a Quasi-udicial Public Hearing. Attorney Michael Connolly explained that this is a public hearing regarding a site plan application, which, according to both the criteria in the Zoning Code as well as State law, is a Quasi-judicial public hearing. This is slightly more formal than a Legislative public Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 15 hearing. There are parties in the Quasi-judicial public hearing. The parties include the applicant, and the city, and anyone who, has applied for, and qualifies for affected person's status under the criteria set forth in the City's Zoning Code. Parties have the opportunity to present evidence, in the form of testimony and documentary evidence, and in the form of expert testimony. Parties have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the opportunity to present a closing, or rebuttal. The decision of the Planning Board must be based on competent and substantial evidence on the record. At the beginning of the meeting the members of the Board will indicate if they have had any ex-parte communications, that is contact outside of this public hearing process, and the purpose is so that we have right here on this table the criteria based on which the Planning Board will base its decision. Attorney Connolly pointed out that the Applicant" and the "City" are both the City of Sarasota; he stated that the City's Utilities Department is the - Applicant," and is requesting ten minutes for its presentation; suggested the Planning Board (PB) also give ten minutes to the Planning Department personnel, the "City"; / stated that there are a couple applications for affected persons, sO, when the PB: is ready, he would find out if these individuals are in the public hearing, and recommended they be given five minutes each to present their case, each party is given five minute rebuttal, and three minutes for each citizen testimony; and asked Chair Gallagher if he should read the criteria based on which the PB will make a decision when he identifies the affected persons; Chair Gallagher agreed. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to the individuals in the audience who intended to speak at the public hearing; Chair Gallagher asked the PB members if they agreed with the time limits suggested by Attorney Connolly; all PB Members agreed with the suggested time limits. Chair Gallagher asked Attorney Connolly to read the names of the affected persons. Attorney Connolly read the names on the applications: Renee Vickery and Ellis Finkelstein; and James A. Carroll; as these persons were not present in the audience, and not part of the public hearing, Attorney Connolly suggested that they not be given affected person status. Chair Gallagher asked the PB members if they agreed with that. All PB members agreed. Attorney Connolly continued reading the criteria for review of site plans in the City's Zoning Code IV-506; pointed out that they are included in the packet that was recently compiled by Ms. Grassett; he continued that the PB should consider at this meeting the extent to which this application is consistent with these regulations (meaning the Zoning Code); any conditions imposed by approval of a rezoning or conditional use, and there are none applicable here, generally accepted site design principles and the extent to which he development furthers the goals and purposes of the Zoning Code. A. The PB shall use: and be guided by the following criteria in the exercise of their discretion when evaluating a site plan submission: 1. Whether the proposed development, design and layout are in keeping with the intent and specific standards and criteria prescribed in pertinent sections of the Land Development Regulations; Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of15 2. Whether, on balance, the proposed development, design and layout are compatible with the Sarasota City Plan, as amended; 3. Whether the required information has been furnished in sufficiently complete and understandable form to allow an accurate description of the proposed use(s) and structure(s) in terms of density, location, area, height, bulk, placement, setbacks, architectural design, performance characteristics, parking, and traffic circulation; 4. Whether there are ways in which the configuration of the development (e.g. location of use(s); intensity; density; scale; building size, mass, bulk, height and orientation; lot coverage; lot size/configuration; architecture; screening; buffers; setbacks; signage; lighting; traffic circulation patterns; loading area locations; operating hours; noise; odor; and other factors of compatibility) can be changed which would mitigate or improve the effect of the development on adjoining and nearby properties and on the community. 5. Whether the proposed development, design and layout has made adequate provisions for vehicular and pedestrian access, safety, and traffic circulation (both internal and external to the project), in addition to the requirements of Section IV-203 pertaining to concurrency certificates; 6. Whether the proposed development, design and layout has made adequate provision for parking and loading and unloading areas; and 7. Whether the proposed development, design and layout has preserved the natural features and characteristics of the land; including but not limited to the regard given to existing large trees, natural groves, watercourses, and similar natural features that would add attractiveness to the property and environs if they were preserved, natural drainage systems, natural buffering, and the use of other techniques for the preservation and enhancement of the physical environment. 8. The City Commission shall have sole discretion in determining whether the development standards proposed in association with any site plan for an attainable housing project located on G zoned property are consistent with the Sarasota City Plan, will be beneficial to and compatible with surrounding uses, and shall make such findings as a part of any site plan approval. However, attainable housing projects may not be located in existing parks. Chair Gallagher asked PB members if there were any ex-parte communications to be declared. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that she had communicated via email earlier, and is disclosing now, that she did additional research about Lift Station 87 to supplement the information received in the packet for tonight's public hearing; she explained that her additional research was limited to the website for Lift Station 87 and the City of Sarasota's website; she pointed out that the items she reviewed are referenced, and partially included, in the packet for tonight's public hearing; she added that she viewed almost all the information on the site, including some of the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 15 videos. Vice Chair Svekis disclosed that he attended and spoke at the team's meetings. Chair Gallagher disclosed that he attended two meetings; he added that the architect of the team has done work for PB Chair Gallagher's firm, and during the design process, he and the architect had several conversations about the style of Lift Station 87; he explained that those conversations took place very early in the design process, SO the information in the packet was new to him, but he wanted to mention that they had about half a dozen conversations. PB: member Lindsay asked if the conversations took place prior to 2012. Chair Gallagher stated they were after 2012. Applicant Presentation: The "applicant" was represented by Mr. Crumpton, City of Sarasota Utilities Engineering Manager. He introduced Mr. Robert Garland, of McKim &Creed, Inc., Engineer of-record for the project, who will make the presentation. Mr. Garland begun his presentation with the site plan (drawing CE-01); he noted that Lift Station 87 will replace Lift Station 7; pointed out that the site will be accessed from US 41 and traffic will go around the building; added that the building will be accessed from the garage, and other points of access located on north, south, east and west sides of the structure; explained that the intent is when the City is doing operation maintenance on the facility the crew goes inside the building and the activities are contained inside, SO the residents will not see the activities that they would normally see; he noted that there is landscaping buffer using native species; explained that there will be limited access because this is not intended to be available for public access, and as such, no parking spaces are required. Mr. Garland continued by presenting Drawing C-03, the Lower Floor Plan; pointing to the west side of the floor plan, he said that inside the building on the first floor, there is an open area two stories high, this is the location of the wet well; he explained that the wet well is associated with submersible pumps; there will be a concrete vault 30 - 35 feet below ground where the sewage falls, and the pumps will move it to the treatment plant; he explained that the intent is to keep all activity inside the building and contained; he noted that there are odor control systems that vacuum and keep the air clean in this room as well, because the intent is not only to control odors, but to improve on the existing Lift Station 7 scenario; he emphasized that the intent is to keep all activity contained inside, and to control and reduce any related noise and odor impacts inside; he noted the equipment will be hospital grade equipment SO the net impact noise will be inherently low. Pointing to the east side of the floor plan of the 1st Floor, Mr. Garland indicated that there is an open area for the trucks to come in, storage areas, and there are two transtormer vaults; he explained that critical equipment, such as generators and electrical equipment, need to be protected from a Category 3 storm surge, which means they must be at elevations of 26 ft. or higher; he pointed out that the generators are on the second floor, along with all the electrical control equipment and the electrical panel, at elevations of 26 ft or higher; he reminded all that this facility serves one third of the City's wastewater flow and it would be devastating if it did not pump or continue running after a catastrophic event; he commended the City for Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 15 doing now what many cities in New Jersey wish they had done ten or fifteen years ago; he explained that there are two transformers on the first floor, to be easily accessed by FPL during normal operations, but in an emergency situation, the back- up generators will take over, and they are located on the second floor. Mr. Garland continued by presenting Drawing C-04, the Upper Floor Plan. He pointed to the west side of the floor plan for the 2nd floor, and explained that this is a contained area open to the second floor. Pointing to the center of the floor plan he explained that was the location of the control panels, the switchgear, and the electrical rooms; he emphasized that the heart of this operation is the electrical equipment and it needs to be kept dry during a Category 3 storm surge; he added that this area of the second floor will also be climate controlled SO as to protect the city's investment. Pointing to the east side of the floor plan of the 2nd floor Mr. Garland talked about the two generators on either side, at an elevation of 26 ft. or higher, to protect them from the storm surge;he added that in order to facilitate generator maintenance or potential moving of them, there is a bridge crane that traverses across the "Open to Below" area; the crane can pick up a generator, lower it through the "Open-to-Below" area, and place the it on a flatbed truck parked underneath on the first floor; he added that there are two odor control units on this floor to control the odor inside the building; if one does not work or is being maintained, the other one can be used as the backup; he noted that even though the generators will be hospital grade, and they will have lower noise levels, there are noise attenuation units in the structure to control the noise, and therefore avoid noise impacts to the neighborhood. Next Mr. Garland presented Drawing C-06, the Section Thru Odor Control, looking through the wet well; he explained that the odor control units are the vertical units on either side; he added that there is a bridge crane that goes across to facilitate access for monthly maintenance by staff; he pointed out that the building is designed to enable maintenance vehicles to drive through on off-flow days for maintenance; all related activities will be located inside the facility. Pointing to Drawing C-07, the Section thru the Generator Room, Mr. Garland continued by showing the location of the generators, and the bridge crane that would enable staff to move the generators as needed for maintenance or other reasons. The height of the building is 35 ft and the set back is 30 ft, as required by the Zoning Code. Showing Drawing A1.NE.b, the North Elevation, Mr. Garland explained that there were several iterations of this elevation because of public input; he noted that the public was extensively involved in this project because his agency held monthly public meetings to receive public comments; he mentioned that they are trying to contain their efforts in the portion of the site that was already disturbed by the previous contractor, and that they are trying to protect the trees and other vegetation on the site as well. Mr. Garland continued by showing drawings of the south, east, Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 15 and west elevations. Concluding his presentation he asked to hear PB member questions. PB: member Siegel stated that he wants to better understand how this project came about. He wanted to know the problem with Lift Station 7. Utilities Engineer Crumpton explained that there was a problem with the automatic transfer switch resulting in overflows. Mr. Garland added that Lift Station 7 was built in the 1950s, the equipment is at the end of its useful life, and the City's action is under the Consent Order with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, whereby the city is to operate the west water system including this station. PB member Siegel asked why they selected to locate Lift Station 87 in this beautiful park, on a prominent location in the City in terms of traffic. Mr. Garland explained that approximately ten years ago studies were conducted to determine the best location for Lift Station 87, and there had been efforts to put the lift station underground at this site. When work started on this proposal, the site was already identified for the lift station. PB member Siegel commended Mr. Garland for his extraordinary efforts to receive public input from the residents in the area; asked what happened in the last effort, when the Lift Station was to be placed underground at this site. Utilities Engineer Crumpton explained that there is some information that cannot be discussed because the case is in litigation, however certain issues should have been considered by the design engineer at that time. PB member Siegel asked if they were public health issues. Utilities Engineer Crumpton stated that he would like to just say there were a lot of concerns, with the survivability of the structure and the safety of City personnel. PB member Siegel stated that it took two years since then (2012-2014) to return to the project. Utilities Engineer Crumpton explained that that the lift station was virtually completed but what stopped that project was the micro-tunneling. PB member Siegel asked the applicants to discuss, based on the history of this type of lift stations which are located in close proximity to well established residential neighborhoods, what problems they have on an on-going basis, and how far the problems go beyond the project and the facility itself. Engineer Crumpton explained that lift stations, just like anything else that contains many mechanical and electrical components, break down at some point. It does not matter if they are large or small, the problems are proportionate. They require a lot of maintenance and care. Mr. Garland explained that the submergible pumps (30 feet below ground) are designed SO that they can be brought up for routine maintenance so as to prevent a catastrophic failure; he also pointed out that there is built-in redundancy in the design of this structure, SO if one train of pumps is not working another will take over (back up pumps). Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 15 PB: member Ahearn-Koch thanked the applicant for their efforts to reach the community and for the great information on the website. She requested clarification regarding the final decision on the storm surge and hurricane category the lift station is designed to sustain. Mr. Garland explained that it was hurricane Category 3; added that the city conducted a vulnerability analysis of other City facilities, such as shelters and the hospital, and most of those are designed for Category 3 or Category 4. Sarasota Memorial Hospital is Category 4, which is a shelter; noted the wastewater plant is a Category 3; stated that the Sarasota City Commission decided to upgrade Lift Station 87 to Category 3 SO that, in the event of a storm, the hospital would not have to be shut down; pointed out Lift Station 87 is a master Lift Station, other Lift Stations feed into it, sO the intent was for this lift station to sustain storms from Category 3 down. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked why Category 3 and not Category 4 like the hospital. Mr. Garland responded that at a certain point one must consider the return on one's investment; Engineer Crumpton stated that at Category 4 there are additional things to take in to consideration. Mr. Garland explained that is also a height issue; explained that based on storm surge level, the safety elevation for Category 3 is 26 ft., but for Category 4 is 33 ft., an additional 7 feet. PB: member Ahearn-Koch inquired about the way the odor controls work and if odors would be released to the exterior. Engineer Crumpton explained that they are designed with "negative pressure," 1 meaning, if the doors are open, the air pulls inwards instead of outwards, and no odor is expected to be released outdoors; and noted Lift Station 87 has built-in redundancy, SO it would require a major catastrophic event to cause failure of the mechanical and electrical equipment. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the applicant' S team felt they have adequately addressed the main concerns of the residents in the surrounding area, like the residents of Central Park. Engineer Crumpton responded that the majority of the neighbors are satisfied with the design, and the landscape efforts, which will continue, SO that the end product is a park like setting; added that they will continue to work closely with the public, and plan to hold more public meetings to receive input from the community, not only the surrounding neighborhoods, SO that this becomes a show piece for the neighborhood and the City. PB: member Ahearn-Koch asked for an update on earlier discussions about connectivity, and about this becoming a vertical park, etc. Mr. Garland responded that this is the responsibility of the City. Engineer Crumpton pointed out that they are working closely with the Urban Design Studio and other City agencies. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if there were any more discussions about connecting to the MURT. Mr. Garland and Engineer Crumpton were not aware of anything. PB Vice-Chair Svekis pointed to Drawing G-03, the Horizontal Control Plan and Key Sheet, an aerial map showing the direction of the alignment lines, and asked the applicants to help him understand it. Mr. Garland explained that this Drawing shows the piping from Lift Station 7 down and some of it shows resurfacing on Osprey. PB Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 15 Vice-Chair Svekis said that looking at the map and starting at the location of Lift station 87, it appears that the lines are going parallel to Osprey Avenue, under the bridge, and asked how long Osprey Avenue would be affected. Mr. Garland explained that they will start at Lift Station 87, shown at the bottom right hand corner of the map, bring the lines up to Osprey, continue on Osprey to Alta Vista Street, continue on Atla Vista Street to Pomelo Avenue, and then continue on Pomelo to the final destination which is the site of the present Lift Station 7. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked if this effort will be staged in parts or it will be done at once. Mr. Garland explained that it is supposed to be done by micro-tunneling: added that most of Osprey will be micro-tunneled except a small section at Lincoln Drive and Alta Vista Street where there will be open cut. PB Vice-Chair Svekis requested, when this happens, to hold public meetings to let the residents know what is coming up and to receive their input. Mr. Garland agreed, noting that the last time there was construction at that site for a lift station, both vehicular and pedestrian traffic were negatively impacted; stated he plans to work closely with the residents and get their input; pointed out the residents will be inconvenienced because it will be a construction zone, but he will work with them to develop a traffic plan, and include alerts and the traffic plan on the website. PB Vice-Chair Svekis suggested it is best to let the neighbors know and get them involved on a day to day basis because this will have a great impact; and asked if the building has recesses on the outside. Mr. Garland responded that there are no recesses on the outside, because they could be a public safety issue. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked how the odor is mitigated. Mr. Garland, looking at Drawing C-06, Lift Station No. 87 Section thru Odor Control, pointed out that the pipes going into the ground are creating a vacuum in the well, the submergible pump station, and the vapors/odors are vacuumed out, going in these vertical odor control units. They have a chemical medium inside that will absorb the modules. On the top of the odor control units there is a sensor that shows the odor level; if the sensor indicates an unacceptable odor level, then the air is re-circulated to reach the right level, SO that clean air is released to the environment; and noted this is a state-of-the- art system. PB Vice-Chair Svekis questioned the purpose of the windows. Mr. Garland explained that they provide lighting and make the facility energy efficient on the second floor, but on the lower level, the purpose is aesthetic value; added that the surrounding neighbors did not want an institutional look to the structure, and like the windows; and summarized the reasons are sustainability, efficiency, and aesthetics. PB Vice- Chair Svekis asked if they these are real windows, and if they have to be opened. Mr. Garland replied they do not have to open. PB Vice-Chair Svekis continued by pointing to Drawing C-02, Lift Station 87 Site Plan and asked about the purpose of the concrete overflow located east of the building. Mr. Tom Cross, task leader for the Lift Station with McKim & Creed, explained that the concrete overflow is for on- site stormwater management. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked for confirmation that this is not an overflow for when things go bad. Mr. Garland confirmed this. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked how close to the buildings the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 15 trees were located along Central Park II. Mr. Garland pointed out that these are the existing trees, they are not clearing out any trees, and they are about 110 ft. from the buildings. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked if they could topple over the building in a bad storm. Mr. Garland responded that they would not because they are not 110 ft. tall. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that there are many redundancies in the design of Lift Station 87, including redundancies in pumps, generators, odor control systems, and questioned the lack of redundancy in fuel types; asked why they did not consider natural gas as an alternative fuel. Utilities Engineer Crumpton explained that in their line of work, they deal with water pipes and other pipes, they see tree roots wrap around the line, and when a tree topples it takes the pipes with it; stated that the same can happen with gas pipes as well; noted natural gas is good, but it cannot always be reliable, explained that it is better to have something on site, for example diesel; referred to the floor plans for Lift Station 87 and pointed out that the tanks under the generators are double walled tanks, meeting federal requirements, for the purpose of storing diesel. PB member Svekis asked about the capacity of each tank. Task Leader Cross responded they each hold 3,000 gallons. PB: member Lindsay asked if the windows will have a solid wall behind them or are they going to be glass windows. Architect Jack Christie responded that the windows will be insulted, laminated glass. PB member Lindsay noted that they could be target for vandalism; and stated that a solid wall behind the windows would prevent someone from entering the building and vandalize the interior. Architect Christie replied that these windows are designed to withstand 110 mile per hour winds and will be thick; added that they can be vandalized but he does not think they would come open unless if someone tries very hard. PB member Lindsay talked about the possibility of gas as an alternative fuel for the generators and stated that it is his understanding that, during a storm, the gas companies cut off the supply of gas to prevent leaks during a storm, and for that reason natural gas did not appear to be a reliable alternative source. Mr. Garland stated that the tanks are double contained, and they meet the federal requirement on the design, but if there were a spill, it would be contained on the site; and pointed out that the building is designed with redundancy on spill protection, as well. PB member Svekis stated that the oil tanks have a 71 to 10 day operational capacity, and he questioned what happens after that, in the case of a hurricane. Task Leader Cross clarified 7 to 10 days is the operational capacity of each tank at peak, when working at peak level, which means extreme weather flow (9.92 MGDs) is two- weeks-worth running time at peak. Utilities Engineer Crumpton pointed out that with all the redundancies, this is two stations in one, and agreed with Task Leader Cross about the capacity to run at peak for two weeks. Mr. Garland added that the City will also have a plan for back-up fuel supplies; suggested that if he were the City, he would rather have back-up fuel supply plans within his control; stated that the industry standard for fuel is diesel for this type of generators; and he agreed with Task Leader Cross and Utilities Engineer Crumpton that in the event of a storm, even Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 15 if the system is running at 100% capacity, the system still would have back-up fuel to run for two weeks. Chair Gallagher stated that there is a restroom on the second floor, however there are no sewer lines to the building. Mr. Garland responded that the waste goes directly to the wet well. Chair Gallagher asked if that would also be true for sinks, where people can wash their hands. Mr. Garland explained that those will be protected with reduced pressure zone cross-connection control devices. Chair Gallagher asked if the windows are all real windows with glass. The applicants agreed. Chair Gallagher stated that living and working downtown, he sees vagrants near the shrubs, he is concerned, and questioned if that could happen with the vegetation surrounding the building. Mr. Garland stated he did not think SO, because most of the landscaping is at the periphery of the drive, and it is ground cover; added that landscaping will be addressed at a later time; stated that the applicants will make sure the area is safe for both the operators and the public. Chair Gallagher requested Mr. Garland make note of that for the landscape architect, especially in the back of the building. Chair Gallagher continued with a discussion about the lightning in the back of the building; he suspects that the neighbors want lighting to be kept at a minimum but it must be balanced sO as to put enough light in the back to prevent people from hanging out there. Mr. Garland stated that lighting has been a major issue in the public meetings; and added that he will solicit public input on this matter later in the process. Chair Gallagher asked if there will be a gate at the curb cut, which now is open and anyone can drive in. Mr. Crumpton stated that they have been directed to keep this totally open. Staff Presentation: City Planner Lucia Panica stated that the applicants did a great job with their presentation, and answered many questions, SO she will keep her presentation brief; stated that the site is located in an area zoned Governmental (G) and the development regulations of the most restrictive surrounding zoning district apply; added that in this case the most restrictive surrounding zoning district is Residential Multifamily (RMF -4); stated that in her analysis of the site plan application, she made sure all the applicable development standards were met, including set-backs, height, and all other standards; explained the site plan is required because of the proposed building on the site; added that City Commission approval is required because the site is located in the Governmental Zoning District; and stated the site plan meets the Site Plan Standards for Review found in Section IV -506 of the Zoning Code, therefore Planning staff recommends the Planning Board transmits this application to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval of the proposed site plan. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that on the blue sheet that is included in the Planning Boards' packet, Condition 1 seemed very odd. Attorney Connelly explained that this language is required by Florida Statutes. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of1 15 PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if City Planner Panica could make any comments about the site being a park connecting to the MURT. City Planner Panica stated that she has no information about that issue because it was not part of her review. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that she read somewhere that this site would need a Variance. City Planner Panica explained that at the first Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting, the site plan height exceeded the allowed 35 feet, sO the applicant filed a Variance application; added that during discussions they were asked to bring the height down to 35 feet, and as a result the applicant withdrew the Variance. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that she could not read the pages in her packet relating to the deed for the property and was wondering if they contained information that she should be aware of for tonight's meeting. City Planner Panica explained that it was the legal description of the property; agreed it was difficult to read the copy, and reassured PB member Ahearn-Koch that she had verified the legal description with Mr. Bob Heggan to make sure it describes the property under review, and he has confirmed that it does. PB member Siegel suggested that the staff report should be specific as to the ways a site plan meets the Site Plan Review Standards, particularly Standards #1 and #3; explained that rather than just stating "they do [meet the standards!" the report should include specific examples and evidentiary statements; added that instead of making a flat-out statement that sufficient information has been provided, the report should discuss the information that was provided; stated that then the report would be useful, and if questioned, the City would be in a stronger position. Chair Gallagher asked if there were restrictions on the deed of the property relating to types of buildings or types of uses that go on the property. City Planner Panica was not aware of any. Chair Gallagher asked for clarification on how staff determines 'most restrictive nearest zoning district. City Planner Panica explained staff considers the zoning districts of all abutting properties to the site, and look for the most restrictive zoning district, which is RMF-4 in this case. Chair Gallagher recommended revisions to the language in the Staff report, page 4, first complete paragraph, 7th line u Zoning Code, height limitations do not apply to the tzvo proposed steeples.. I He stated that the word steeples" is not in the language of the Zoning Code, and requested it be revised. Affected Person Testimony: There was none Citizen Testimony: 1. Ingrid T. Goulder, resident of Central Park II. Ms. Goulder was sworn in. She questioned how much of the waste will be hospital waste, what level is the hospital (Primary,secondary), will it include red bag waste, chemical waste, radioactive waste, cancer treatment waste, what type of waste will come from the hospital and how much ofit. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 15 Applicant Rebuttal: PB Vice-Chair Svekis requested clarification about the way negative flow is maintained. Mr. Garland explained that there are blowers or vacuum pumps that are specifically sucking the air out of the well. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked if that is going inside the building. Utilities Engineer Crumpton explained that it goes to the two large vessels (Odor control tanks) located on either side of the floor, then it goes through the chemical medium contained in these vessels, and comes back out clean air. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked if this process happens in emergency situations or all time. Otilities Engineer Crumpton responded all the time. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked if there is an alarm. Utilities Engineer Crumpton pointed at the at the north side of the upper floor plan (Drawing C-04) you will see the SCADA Room; explained that is where all the wires will be and the computers with the programs and the alarms that communicate back to the wastewater treatment plant; and pointed out this is a state of the art facility. PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked if the wastewater treatment plant is a 24-7 facility. Utilities Engineer Crumpton responded it is. PB: member Siegel stated that in response to Ms. Goulder's questions, can anyone provide an answer or will it be necessary to contact the hospital. Utilities Engineer Crumpton stated that bags do not go down the waterway system of the hospital, they are an incineration issue; added that the waste going down would be what typically goes down the toilets and sinks, it will go to the wastewater treatment system, which is treating whatever the hospitals and other medical centers are producing at the present time. PB Member Lindsay stated that the hospital must have methods and facilities approved as part of their own certification and they have to document all these things for the agencies that regulate them. So if we have any questions on that we should ask Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH). They are certified on their disposal methods and procedures; and suggested that the PB does not need to go any further on this project. PB Member Siegel asked if the applicant has started construction on this project. Utilities Engineer Garland explained that as indicated earlier, construction was started years ago by another contractor, and it was halted; added that they are in the process of redesigning the facility now. PB member Siegel asked if the things one can see now on the site are inherited. Mr. Garland agreed. PB member Siegel asked if the City has approved this plan. Attorney Connolly responded that the City Commission has approved it. PB member Siegel questioned why the PB was asked to look at the site plan. Attorney Connolly explained that the City Commission approved the site plan in their proprietary capacity as the agency that operates the wastewater utility; added that the City Commission has not approved it in their regulatory capacity of approving a site plan. PB member Siegel asked if, in a hypothetical scenario, the PB members were to recommend denial, the City Commission would not be able to do anything with the site. Attorney Connolly explained that the site is located in a Governmental (G). zone, SO the Planning Board (PB) does not have final approval of this site plan; added that the Planning Board would be making a recommendation to the City Commission either to approve or deny the Site Plan, but regardless which way the Planning Board votes, the City Commission will hold its own quasi-judicial public hearing. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 15 PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that human feces and Ebola waste must be burnt; added that he is not sure if that is the case: in the United States, but it is the case in Africa; stated that the County controls the hospital, not the City, but the impact on the City is huge should something happen; added that by now the County should have some tests run at the Hospital to check the systems, but didn't know that it has happened yet. PB member Lindsay clarified that the County does not run the hospital, rather the Hospital Board runs the hospital, which is an independent governmental agency with its own taxing authority. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that the hospital does not report to the City. PB member Lindsay added that the hospital does not report to the County, either; stated that the hospital and all the facilities they have must be certified for disposal, etc., and one can ask them questions. Chair Gallagher asked PB members if they have questions for city planning staff. Being none, Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. Chair asked for a motion: PB member Siegel made the following motion: Adopt a motion to find Site Plan 14-SP-09 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Site Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from the 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. 2. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Lift Station 87 Project II Design, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on October 14, 2014. 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. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB member Siegel stated that this Is a core issue for the City, it is a matter of public interest and public safety, the PB's responsibility is to do exactly what we are doing here, bringing up points that become part of the record; added that he would not be comfortable doing anything but approving this plan in terms of what is in the best interests of the City; noted that there is no one in the audience to talk, except the concerns of the neighbors which will be brought up to the City, and he will vote in support of approving this. PB: member Lindsay stated the applicants have done a great job in terms of the aesthetics which is important being that the site is located in a prominent area of the City; added that the hospital questions are not part of PB's purview, but the City Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 15 Commission may want to request a briefing from the hospital because it is in the interest of the entire community at this time. PB member Ahearn-Koch commended the applicants for their great job in involving the pubic and incorporating their ideas, the City for dealing with this application seriously and doing a great job, and the PB for posing excellent questions during this public hearing; and added that the questions raised by the couple in the audience will be addressed to the hospital. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that he was impressed with the evolution of the design from the early stages; and commended the applicant on their excellent job in creating something that will be a positive aspect in that area of the City. Chair Gallagher agreed that the team has done a great job and has ended up with an attractive design. Action: Motion carried unanimously (5/0) IV. CITIZEN's INPUT Notice to the Public: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may: not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen's S input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 17, 2014 PB member Lindsay had a correction on page 12, last paragraph, 4th line, replace the first word perspective" with the word "respective." The minutes as corrected were approved unanimously. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF General Manager Smith shared the contents of the October 21, 2014 e-mail he received from Mr. Marlon Brown, Deputy City Manager: Please inform the PC that the City Manager indicated to the City Commission that we would not be prepared/ready to bring back a discussion on the Mobility Plan/Comp. Plan revisions by the December 1 PC deadline or to the CC early next year and that we contemplate that we should be ready by late Spring/early June. Also, indicate that is our intent to work with constituent groups to better inform them about the Plan and that we will continue to work with UDS to ensure both efforts (complete streets, multi-modal transportation, etc.) are coordinated and in sync. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 15 VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD PB Vice-Chair Svekis asked how much lead time, how many days before a meeting, does staff need for materials from the applicant. General Manager Smith explained that it depends on what is being submitted. A minor change to a packet could be accepted a week in advance, but if: it has major changes that affect the report, staff would need more time. PB member Lindsay stated that the hospital is federally regulated by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and numerous other agencies; added radioactive waste has a protocol of how it is to be disposed, and they document and track it; explained that infectious waste has a different protocol; noted that the hospital knows what they are allowed to put into the municipal sewer system; and suggested that the PB ask the City Commission to talk with the hospital. Chair Gallagher announced that the next meeting is a regular meeting on November 12, 2014. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:18 PM. 1A CGLC 1/24)4 David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]