Vaid Svekis, Chair Robert Lindsay, Vice-Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Chris Gallagher, and Mort Siegel

Transcription

1 CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY Planning Board Members Present: Vaid Svekis, Chair Robert Lindsay, Vice-Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Chris Gallagher, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Gretchen Schneider, General Manager-Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Clifford Smith, Senior 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 Schneider [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 B. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. WOMAN'S EXCHANGE (539 S. ORANGE AVENUE & 526 RAWLS AVENUE) (Continued from 3/11/ 15): Application 15-ADP-03 requests approval for adjustment from the zoning code for property located at 539 S. Orange A venue and 526 Rawls A venue in relation to partial demolition and reconstruction of a proposed new south wing to the existing building. The property is zoned Downtown Core (DTC) with adjustments requested to exceed maximum setback requirements from a primary street for Oak Street and Orange A venue, requesting a reduction in minimum number of stories and ceiling height for the loggia portion of the building, and reduction of the minimum window requirements along the Oak Street and Orange A venue facades. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) City Attorney Connolly explained that this evening's public h earings are quasijudicial in nature; reviewed the appropriate procedures for the meetings, and

2 Page 2 of26 established time limits for each public hearing. PB Chair Svekis requested disclosure of any ex parte communications. PB Member Ahearn-Koch stated that she had communications relating to the Woman's Exchange application. City Attorney Connolly then explained that the public hearing for the Woman's Exchange application was closed, meaning there will be no more oral or written public input; added that the Rules of Procedure in the Sarasota Zoning Code require an affirmative vote of three members on the Planning Board on any motion; added that at last month's public hearing the vote on the Woman's Exchange application did not get to 3 votes; explained that under the Rules of Procedure in the Zoning Code, this evening the PB members need to review the record and the minutes from the previous public hearing, and acknowledge the review of the records prior to taking a vote; and asked PB Member Ahearn-Koch to state what she had done to prepare for this meeting. PB Member Ahearn-Koch explained that she watched and listened to the video of the last PB meeting, read the minutes, spoke with City Attorney Connolly, spoke with Senior Planner Mendez, made a site visit, spoke with General Manager Smith, had a phone call from a neighbor on this subject, and spoke to Kate Lowman before this meeting. Then, responding to City Attorney Connolly' s question, she stated that she wanted to ask staff some questions before she was ready to vote. Senior Planner Mendez and Senior Planner Smith appeared. PB Member Ahearn-Koch requested Senior Planner Smith describe, define, and differentiate the City local designation, the Laurel Park Historic District, and the National Register of Historic Places designation, especially as it related to the preservation of the structure, tax credits, and federal dollars. Senior Planner Smith stated that the Woman's Exchange is not locally designated, rather it is a nationally designated, individually listed resource on the National Register, and it is also on the Florida Master Site File as a resource, and it is a contributing resource to the Laurel Park Historic District. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked what the benefits and protections for a property that is a locally designated historic resource vs. a nationally designated historic resource were. Senior Planner Smith explained that if a property is locally designated, it is subject to the rules and regulations of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Sarasota City Zoning Code, Article IV, Division VIII, and changes to the building are addressed in sections 808 and 809; added that a national designation is the highest level of historic designation, however there is no "teeth" in such a designation, as it is subject to only one section of the Code, Section IV-822, which requires review when the property is to be demolished; explained that this building is also on the Florida Master Site File, which is a state registry; added that as such, it is subject to Section IV-824 (a) and (b); noted that as a contributing structure to the Laurel Park Historic District, it would be subject to Section b., if it were to come in for a demolition permit. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked about the benefits of having a national designation. Senior Planner Smith explained that a locally designated structure receives a number of incentives, such as: incentives under Chapter 11 of the Building Code, the Fire Code, Variances so that certain actions can be handled administratively, also if they go through the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) there is an ad valorem tax special exemption for ten years, etc.; added that the local designation provides the highest

3 Page 3 of 26 level of protection for the property, the owner, and future owners of the property, by which any changes to the structure, or moving the structure, will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board; stated that the national designation honors the property and recognizes the significance of the structure to the country as a historical resource, but there is no oversight, unless federal funds are involved; offered examples of projects in Laurel Park, a nationally designated historic district, that were subject to review; and added that a federally designated commercial structure receives federal tax incentives. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if the local designation is difficult to achieve. Senior Planner Smith listed all the steps in the process of filing a petition to the City for a local historic designation. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if Senior Planner Smith could speak about the Secretary of Interior Standards as they relate to this application. Senior Planner Smith stated that the Secretary of Interior Standards and criteria relating to additions to historic structures are very specific to the mass, size and scale of the addition, such as: the addition must keep to the historic structure, should not overpower the historic structure, it should be located on the side or on the back of the historic structure and away of the main view corridor of the building, the material should be compatible, etc., and offered several local examples where these standards were enforced. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if the Secretary of State Standards are required, recommended, or something we hope to do. Senior Planner Smith stated that one must follow the federal guidelines in order to maintain the integrity of the designation. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if there is any way to protect a historic structure from demolition. Senior Planner Smith indicated that certain provisions in the City's Zoning Code protect from demolition the locally designated structures, and, under certain circumstances, the nationally designated structures. PB Member Ahearn-Koch referred to page 10 in the packet, regarding the Standards in Section D; pointed out that the staff explanation states "the adjustment process is one mechanism to assist in the protection of historic buildings from inappropriate demolition, rehabilitation, renovation, use or alteration in a manner inappropriate to the historic nature of the structure," and asked if any of the adjustments under review have to do with the historic structure. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the setback adjustment and the adjustment for the height of the building relate to the historic structure. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if the City worked with the applicant to come up with other possibilities, or rebuilding another structure on the property that would be in compliance with the Zoning Code. Senior Planner Mendez stated that there were some preliminary discussions before the application was filed; added that when the applicants filed the application they stated that they could not achieve a building that would be in compliance with the Code that also meets their needs. PB Member Ahearn-Koch requested information about the concept of a "liner building". Senior Planner Mendez stated that if the applicants were interested in putting the loading zone on the primary property, it would have to be located behind a liner building along the side street so as to satisfy locational requirements. PB Member Ahearn-Koch pointed out that the staff report states compliance is supposed

4 Page4 of 26 to occur overtime, and asked if the appropriate time to ask for compliance is at demolition. Senior Planner Mendez clarified that it would be the appropriate time to ask for compliance only in the case of a full demolition; pointed out that in this application, the compliance component needs to be balanced with the portion of the building that is being preserved; added this is a partial demolition, so it falls under the Zoning Code section that addresses additions; stated that additions are required to comply with all the applicable sections of the Code; and explained that is the reason the applicant needed the adjustments. PB Chair Svekis, PB Vice-Chair Lindsay, and Attorney Connolly discussed the voting procedures for this application. Attorney Connolly stated that the motion that was on the table at the last meeting is still there, because there were only two affirmative votes, and the Zoning Code requires three for each application, so it is like the PB members have not voted; added that the motion is called again this evening, and everyone can vote, even the PB members who voted at the last meeting; and stated the motion was made by PB Vice-Chair Lindsay for approval with the eight conditions recommended by staff. Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning and Development, read the motion into the record. City Attorney Connolly explained that the members can discuss the motion; and pointed out that PB Member Gallagher abstained because he has a voting conflict of interest. PB Member Ahearn-Koch stated that The Woman's Exchange is local and personal favorite and she supports the role it plays in the community, however her analysis of the proposed adjustments was based on the standards for review, and the evidence and testimony on the record; spoke to the six adjustments, two of which she considers to be reasonable and acceptable: the building height, and the finished height to 10 feet; stated that the other four she does not consider as reasonable adjustments; added that the two setback adjustments and the glass coverage adjustment were not consistent with the Zoning Code; added that in her analysis of the standards for review, she felt that granting these adjustments will not encourage the creation of an urban pedestrian friendly street; pointed out that these are primary streets, and are held to a higher standard; added that "the parking lot" was called out as the "worst frontage" for a primary street, and two of these adjustments would allow the "worst" example to continue; stated that according to the Code, development that involves additions or expansions must comply with the Code; referred to Zoning Code Section IV-1903 band e., Ineligible Adjustments, where it states no adjustment is granted for parking on the primary grid; added that at least four of the adjustments are not consistent with the desired urban character and the livability aspect; pointed out that the Code requires compliance when a non-conforming structure is demolished; pointed out that Mr. Taylor submitted as evidence Section V-105, stating that any non-conforming structure that is destroyed may be restored only if the structure conforms to the standards of the regulations of the zoning district; explained that the cumulative effect of the adjustments makes the project even more noncompliant, as the cumulative effects do not meet the intent of the Code; added that the demolition

5 of a non-conforming structure and the construction of a larger non-conforming structure does not protect, or preserve, the life of that historic structure; and concluded that she will not support the motion. Page 5 of 26 PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that all the historic discussion is irrelevant because they already have a permit to demolish the whole structure; added that the applicant has a lot of flexibility, they can sell the property, and then have a ten-story condo with a restaurant on the first floor; added that the PB must consider the trade-offs, a choice between minor changes to the existing structure and what could possibly be built on the site according to the Code; noted that this is Downtown Core, and large condos are allowed, so if the operation of the business is not economic, and there is a market for high rise condos, then big changes will take place on this site in a short time. PB Member Siegel stated that if that were to happen, and a ten story condo were to be built in the middle of a historic district, then everyone would lose faith in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay responded that the Code allows for the construction of a high rise building at that site, and maybe the code needs to be changed, but anyone can come in now and do that, that is the reality of today. There was no further discussion. The vote was 2 to 2, motion fails (PB Member Gallagher abstained). City Attorney Connolly administered the oath for anyone who planned to speak at the following public hearings. PB Chair Svekis asked if there were any affected persons. Attorney Connolly stated there were no applications for affected person's status on CenterPlex. 2. CENTERPLEX (1936 RINGLING BLVD): Applications 14-ADP-08, 14-ENC-03, and 14-0SP-01- In conjunction with a proposed four story office building on property located in the Downtown Core (DTC) Zone District at the intersection of Ringling Blvd, Links A venue, and Golf Street, with a street address of 1936 Ringling Blvd., the applicant is requesting adjustments to the Downtown Code as follows: Adjustment to the maximum setback, parallel fa<;ade, drive-through location and egress to a primary street, and shape of openings. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Major Encroachment Agreement for below grade deep structural pile caps within the Golf Street right-of-way. In addition, an off-site parking agreement is requested to allow shared use of the existing parking across Golf Street. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Javier Suarez, Studio Suarez, Agent introduced himself and Dr. Mark Kauffman, the owner and developer of the property. Mr. Suarez stated that a similar project was approved by the Planning Board in 2008, but due to the recession, the project was never built and the lot remains vacant; added that the applicants believe this project will improve the character of the intersection, and the pedestrian character of the

6 Page 6 of 26 area, because it proposes to make a plaza in the corner; explained that this project is possible today because of a bank that wants to make its presence in downtown Sarasota; added that a financial institution needs a drive through; explained that the applicant is requesting a number of adjustments, some of which are of administrative character and have been handled by the DRC process, but three adjustments require Planning Board approval; stated that in addition to these three adjustments, the applicant this evening is requesting a Major Encroachment Permit; and discussed the three adjustments: Adjustment #1 is the reduction of the fa<;ade length on a primary street from 90% to 52% on the first floor, and 64% on the floors above; Adjustment #2 is to increase the maximum front setback from 5 ft. to a maximum of 17-ft. Mr. Suarez stated that he would discuss these two adjustments together, because they are intertwined; pointed out that the triangular shape of the site has unique characteristics and creates development hardships, due to the acuteness of the adjacent streets; added without the proposed adjustments the resulting structure would restrain the facility in an already dangerous intersection, would produce a lot of impractical, unusable space towards the tip of the triangle, and would create visibility issues at an already complicated intersection; noted that the applicant's proposed response to this hardship is to introduce a gentle curve on both sides of the building and accelerate the intersection; noted that this would improve the visibility of the intersection, would provide a public space at the location of the acute angle, an urban space that celebrates the corner, and it would significantly reduce the amount of impractical space mentioned earlier; added that this would result in a win-win situation, however it requires the approval of the two proposed adjustments; Adjustment #3 is the drive through. Mr. Suarez stated that Zoning Code Section IV, 1903 b.2.a. provides for an exception to financial institutions from the requirements of Table IV-1001 relating to ingress/ egress on a primary street, if the financial institutions can demonstrate that ingress/ egress from a secondary street in not possible; referred to Exhibit H in the packet, "Supporting Graphic of Non-Viability of Egress at Secondary Street," and pointed out that the minimum curve requirements for a drive through with ingress/ egress on Golf Street (a secondary street) is not possible with the setback requirements on Ringling Boulevard (a primary street); added that even if it were possible, it would use the east, wider area of the lot, leaving for development at the west end of the property, at the location of the acute angle; explained that the applicants propose to have egress on Ringling Blvd, reducing the opening to one lane, thus reducing the impact of the opening on Ringling Blvd. and the pedestrian quality of the street; added that the egress will be a right turn only onto Ringling which would allow approximately 200'ft. visibility for the on-coming traffic, and would provide safeguards to protect the pedestrians such as bars, mirrors, and an alarm; added that the ingress is located at the far most

7 Page 7 of 26 possible location on the western part of the property, and as far away as possible from the intersection of Ringling Blvd., Golf Street, and Links A venue to mitigate the impact of access on a primary street; pointed out that a traffic study was conducted during the DRC process; stated that the City consultant was concerned about the potential for cars to back up on Golf Street, and that the design had been revised to address that concern; added that the City has reviewed the revisions and has found them consistent with the traffic consultant's recommendations; and concluded that the cumulative effect of these adjustments, if granted, would result in a project that was consistent with the character of the DTC Zoning District, and would be a substantial improvement to the area because it will enhance the public space at this corner with the use of open space, the extensive glass on the ground floor, the widening of the sidewalk along Ringling Blvd., and the landscaping. Mr. Suarez explained that the Encroachment Permit has to do with the fact that the building comes all the way to the property line on Golf Street, and the foundations, piles, and pile caps are under the sidewalk, noting the encroachment occurs underground. PB Member Gallagher requested clarification on the size of the sidewalks on Ringling Blvd. and Golf Street, the on-street parallel parking on Ringling Blvd., and asked if the design and on-street parking had been approved by the City. Mr. Suarez explained that the project had been reviewed by the DRC, and the project had been revised accordingly, however the site plan had not been approved. PB Chair Svekis expressed concerns about blind spots, and the safety of the drive through after banking hours. Mr. Suarez stated that the area would be well lit at night for the safety of the customers. PB Chair Svekis questioned the use of the term "financial institution" and n ot the term "bank." Mr. Suarez explained that he is using the terminology in the Zoning Code. PB Chair Svekis asked why the applicant was dedicating the parking area across the street. Dr. Kaufman explained that he owns the property next to the Oncology Center, and he has long range plans to construct a parking garage on that site in the future. STAFF PRESENTATION: Senior Planner Mendez provided a brief overview of the proposal; stated that a nearidentical project was proposed for the properties under Site Plan 08-SP-07, Adjustment 5-ADP-02 and Off-Site Parking Agreement 08-SPA-01 approved by the Planning Board on May 14, 2008; added that those approvals have since expired, therefore new applications were required in order to proceed with the project; pointed out that the primary change on this proposal is the addition of a drivethrough, which n ecessitated one more adjustment request for access and also impacts the percentage of required fac;ade along the Ringling frontage (the subject of the second adjustment); noted that since the initial submittal, Golf Street h as been removed from the Primary Street grid, therefore previous adjustments required for Golf Street no longer apply; continued with a brief overview of the administrative requests relating to the proposal; and stated that the applications have been reviewed

8 Page 8 of 26 for consistency with the Zoning Code, the final approval, however, is predicated on the approval of the following remainder of applications by the Planning Board and/ or City Commission: Administrative Site Plan approval (14-ASP-02) is requested to permit the 32,000 sq. ft. office building including a bank with drive-through facilities. Administrative Adjustment to the Downtown Code (14-ADS-13) o Adjustment from Table VI-1004, Shape of Openings, to allow a building with opening that are not square or vertical in proportion based on building design with the syntax of the Sarasota School of Architecture. o Adjustment from Table VII-209 to reduce the required width of a singleloaded one directional traffic aisle dimension from 40 ft. to 36 ft. Off-Site Parking Agreement (14-0SP-01), allows for location of off-street parking spaces to be located on the 200 South Washington Blvd. property. Minor Encroachments are proposed for certain improvements within the Ringling Blvd. and Golf Street right-of-way, including the placement of royal palms with tree grates and flush-mounted lighting within the sidewalk area. Off-site Stormwater Retention Agreement, which must be approved by the City Commission but does not require action by the Planning Board. The agreement allows for shared stormwater facilities on the 200 South Washington Blvd., pending City Commission final approval. Senior Planner Mendez continued with a brief description of the three Adjustments requested by the applicant, and stated staff recommended approval with three conditions. PB Member Siegel asked if the traffic study expressed any safety concerns. Senior Planner Mendez stated that there were concerns about traffic backing up onto Golf Street, and about clear sight distances, both of which have been addressed. PB Member Siegel asked if there were any other properties with similar configurations in the city. Senior Planner Mendez indicated that there are several in the downtown area, the biggest one is at the end of Main Street (Five Points) where the City put a round-about to resolve the traffic issues. PB Member Gallagher expressed concerns regarding the possibility of someone, in the future, putting landscaping in the extended setback area. Senior Planner Mendez stated that would require an amendment to the Minor Encroachment Agreement, which would be handled administratively, and during the review, they would be told that it is not a permitted use. PB Member Gallagher asked for clarification regarding the need for the Minor Encroachment where the trees were located in the public right-of- way. Senior Planner Mendez explained that the Minor Encroachment was required because of the irrigation and electrical equipment that has to be located in the public right-of-way. PB Member Gallagher asked who owns the trees. Senior Planner Mendez responded that she will have to get clarification from Engineering, but she believes that the City owns the trees but the applicant will maintain them. There were no affected parties or citizens input.

9 Page 9 of 26 APPLICANT REBUITAL Dr. Kaufman stated that this corner begs for a statue and they would like to pre-pay the art fees for the property on US-301 so that they can get a substantial statue at this location; he pointed out that this was originally designed for six stories and they are proposing to only do four stories because they want it to look nice; and concluded by stating that it would be an icon building for downtown Sarasota. There was no rebuttal by City staff. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB Chair Svekis pointed out that there will be two motions. First Motion: PB Member Siegel moved to adopt a motion to find Major Encroachment 14-ENC-03 consistent with Section VII-1201 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the Major Encroachments subject to the provisions of the draft encroachment agreement. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Siegel stated that the applicant had met the required standards for review and this would be a great addition to the downtown area and he fully supported it. PB Chair Svekis stated he agreed with Mr. Siegel's comments. The motion passed unanimously. Second Motion: PB Member Siegel moved to adopt a motion to find Adjushnent 14-ADP-08 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjushnent, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed drive-through is limited to use by a financial institution. The adjoining building area shall not be converted to a fast-food restaurant or other retail service establishment with drive-through. In addition, upon any change of use of the adjoining building area to another permitted use, the adjoining drive-through area shall be removed and converted to habitable spaces for a minimum 20-ft depth along the Ringling A venue fac;ade. 2. As a condition precedent to the issuance of the first building permit for the project depicted in site plan application 14-ASP-02, the applicant covenants, at its expense, to execute and record in the official records of Sarasota County a Restrictive Covenant. The purpose of the Restrictive Covenant is to provide notice to the public that the real property located at 200 South Washington Boulevard is encumbered by the off-site parking spaces supporting the development upon the real property located at 1936 Ringling Boulevard. The Restrictive Covenant shall provide that 200 South Washington Boulevard shall not be disposed of except in conjunction with 1936 Ringling Blvd. so long as the off-site parking on 200 South Washington Boulevard is required to serve the development upon 1936 Ringling Boulevard. The Restrictive Covenant shall bind the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns. The Restrictive

10 Page 10 of 26 Covenant shall be approved by the City attorney prior to its recording in the Official Records of Sarasota County. 3. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of permit is if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Gallagher seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Siegel stated that the applicant had met the required standards for review and this would be a great addition to the downtown area and he fully supported it. PB Member Gallagher stated that the property is unique, it is a clever way to deal with all these tough things, it meets the intent of the code, and he supported it. PB Chair Svekis stated he fully supported it as well. The motion carried unanimously. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A FIVE MINUTE RECESS 3. BRIGHTWORKS RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (3700 s. TAMI AMI TRAIL): Application 15-SP- 02 requests site plan approval for a retail development on property located in the Commercial General (CG) Zone District with a street address of 3700 S. Tamiami Trail. The proposal is to demolish an existing building with a drive-through, retaining an existing building on the site, and constructing a new retail building and associated parking. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) City Attorney Connolly stated that Ms. Miller had filed an application for affected person's status, Ms. Miller was not in the audience and therefore the PB cannot grant her affected person's status and make her a party to these proceedings, and recommends the application be denied. The PB members agreed. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Robin Kendall, EMK Consultants of Florida Inc., representing Brightworks Real Estate introduced himself; stated that currently the property is developed with a two story office building and a banking facility with drive-through; added that they are proposing to keep the two story building but remove the banking facility, its drive-through, and some of the parking that services the bank, in order to construct a 4,171 sq. ft. retail building; pointed out that all code requirements had been met; noted that the proposed development would generate less trips than what was generated by the present use; added that the proposed development would provide an underground stormwater retention facility to treat the stormwater runoff that is not treated today; stated that they are maintaining the buffers and the trees along the perimeters of the property to buff er

11 Page 11of26 the residential from the development; and concluded that he concurs with the staff recommendation and conditions. STAFF PRESENTATJON: Senior Planner Mendez briefly described the proposed site plan application; stated that the building at the intersection of Jasmine Drive and US 41 would be retained, the building along Versailles Street would be demolished, and the proposed retail space would be constructed at the intersection of US41 and Versailles Street; noted that the applicants propose the removal of the bank and its drive-through, the retention of the existing office, and the construction of new retail; pointed out that the property is located in the Community Office Institutional Future Land Use classification, but meets the standards applicable to Zoning enclaves; added that it was also located within the Commercial General (CG) Zone District, whose potential uses are listed in Table VI- 501A, a copy of which is in the staff report; stated that the proposal met the CG Zone District, parking and other applicable standards; noted that the proposal would result in a substantial reduction of traffic; and concluded that staff had found the proposal meets the Zoning Code requirements, and recommends approval with conditions relating to the loading zone, refuse collection, adherence to the site plan, ownership (land split), easements identified by the DRC, and other standard conditions. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if the property was considered appropriate for other Zoning Categories. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the applicant's plans were for retail, which is an allowed use in the current zoning district. PB Member Ahearn-Koch requested clarification regarding Condition 2. Senior Planner Mendez stated she had initially mistook two parking spaces for a loading zone and condition 2 clarified the loading zone requirements. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned some wording regarding trees. Senior Planner Mendez stated the applicants were preserving the large trees along the perimeter by the residential and were providing supplemental landscaping in order to enhance the buffer. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked about traffic circulation. Senior Planner Mendez stated traffic circulation is reviewed as part of the Site Plan process, stated access from US41 is discouraged, noted full access is provided from Versailles and access from Jasmine would be right turn only to discourage traffic going into the neighborhood. PB Member Gallagher requested clarification regarding Condition 3. Senior Planner Mendez stated the Zoning Code requires any refuse collection containers larger than 90 gallon rollouts or refuse related to food and/ or beverage service be located at least 50' from residential, stated the proposed location does not meet that requirement so the applicants were stipulating the 90 gallon rollouts would be the maximum size of any refuse containers. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if there was any communication with the residents behind the subject property. Senior Planner Mendez responded that she was not aware of any communications, because a community meeting was not required; and added that all neighbors within 500 ft. were notified, but she had not received any communications or s from them. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing.

12 Page 12 of 26 PB Member Ahearn-Koch made a motion to find site Plan 15-SP-02 consistent with 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 Retail Space 3700 S Tamiami Trail, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on March 5, 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. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction, the applicant shall provide a loading zone onsite with a minimum dimension of 12 feet by 30 feet and minimum clearance of 14 feet. Such change must be reviewed and found consistent to Section IV-508(a) for minor revisions to Site Plan. 3. Refuse collection area limited to use of 90 gallon rollout containers and shall not be used for any food- or beverage-related waste not typically associated with an office or retail use without food or beverage service. Use of the retail space by any use including food or beverage service or perishable food sales shall require relocation of the refuse collection area in compliance with Section VII-1401 through an application for minor modification to the Site Plan pursuant to Section IV-508 of the Zoning Code. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, ownership of all portions of the property subject to Site Plan 15-SP-02 shall be clearly identified, and if portions of the property fall under separate ownership all parties shall enter into a Joint Use Agreement pursuant to Section VI-104(b)(l) of the Zoning Code. 5. Prior to issuance of any temporary or final certificate of occupancy for the proposed development the applicant shall record in the Official Records of Sarasota County all necessary utility and right-of-way easements as generally shown on Site Plan 15-SP-02. Such easements shall be submitted as drafts as part of the building permit submittal and approved for content and form by the City of Sarasota prior to recording. 6. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay seconded the motion. Speaking to her motion PB Member Ahearn-Koch stated that the project met the review standards and she supported it. PB Chair Svekis said that he had nothing to add, it was a good project, and he supported it. The motion carried unanimously.

13 Page 13 of PLYMOUTH HARBOR (700 JOHN RINGLING BLVD): Application 15-SP-08 requests site plan approval for expansion for the Plymouth Harbor Continuing Care Community located in the Medical Charitable Institutional (MCI) Zone District with a street address of 700 John Ringling Blvd. Proposed expansion will include an additional 12 independent living units, 31 assisted care units, and 30 memory care units. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) APPUCANT PRESENTATION: Mr. Bruce Franklin, Land Resource Strategies, agent for Plymouth Harbor, Inc., introduced himself, Harry Hobson, President/CEO of Plymouth Harbor, Inc.; and George McGonagill, responsible for d evelopment of construction of the project. Mr. Franklin referred to the Future Land Use and Zoning Map in the packet; pointed out the overall property was acres (in purple), but the subject parcel was approximately 5 acres; indicated that it was classified as Metropolitan Regional #3 on the Future Land Use Map; added that the implementing zoning district was Medical Charitable Institutional (MCI); stated the Sarasota Yacht Club was located to the east of the property, and a multifamily condominium development was located across Ringling Blvd.; stated that the current facilities offer independent living, assisted living, and nursing care; pointed out that this was a continuing care community; clarified that this term was not reflected in the zoning code, however the code refers to the uses that are found in a continuing care community, which are group living, assisted living and nursing home; explained that the proposed addition would provide independent care units, assisted living units, and thirty memory care units, which was a new service at Plymouth Harbor; described the proposed building, stating that it was three stories over parking, was 35-ft. tall, met the district requirements, and it would be adjacent to the North Building; added that the proposed building would use the existing access off of Ringling Boulevard, and would access the first floor parking using the existing internal circulation system; stated that the building was constructed on an existing lot; pointed out that memory care would be located on the first floor above the parking, assisted care would be located on the next floor, and independent living would be located on the top floor; presented elevations of the proposed buildings pointing out the use of glass to maximize the views; stated the that the overall density was 13.5 units/ acre, which was much lower than the maximum 25 units/ acre allowed in the district; and concluded by stating that the proposed application met the intent of the Future Land Use Plan and the requirements of the Zoning code. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked for clarification regarding tree removals particularly if those along John Ringling Blvd were being removed; and the retention pond, 25% of which would be altered. Mr. Franklin discussed the proposed location of the trees on the site stating the trees along John Ringling Blvd would remain; and stated the retention pond would be reduced by approximately 25% and an underground vault installed. STAFF PRESENTATION: Senior Planner Mendez presented an aerial photograph of Plymouth Harbor, stated the total site was over 21 acres, the site plan was for approximately 5 acres, most proposed

14 Page 14 of 26 development was on the west side of the property, currently there were 210 living independent units, 10 assisted living units and 60 nursing home beds; noted that the facility was built in the period s, and the site was located in an A-13 Elevation 12-ft. elevation flood zone; pointed out that there would be three habitable floors over the parking, on-site related improvements, and construction of a segment of the MURT that was within the right-of- way (ROW); added that the proposal was consistent with the Future Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code and met the criteria for development review; stated that staff recommended a motion to find the proposed application consistent with Section N-506 of the Zoning code, and approve the petition subject to three conditions, noting the first ties development to the site plan, the second relates to the completion of the MURT, and the third was a standard condition. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked for additional information about the flood zone and the City concerns about rising sea levels. Senior Planner Mendez stated that staff can only hold the applicant to today's FEMA standards, and the building had been designed to meet those standards. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB Member Gallagher made a motion to find Site Plan 15-SP-08 consistent with Section N-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 Plymouth Harbor on Sarasota Bay, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on March 31, 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. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first additional unit as proposed under Site Plan 15-SP-08, the applicant shall complete the segment of the Multiuse Recreational Trail (MURT) from the western property line to the eastern side of the entrance drive on John Ringling Boulevard as generally illustrated on Site Plan 15-SP-08, including provision of any necessary easements for portions of the MURT located on the Plymouth Harbor property and subject to permit approval by FOOT. 3. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Ahearn-Koch seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Gallagher stated that the application met the review standards and he supported it. PB Member Ahearn-Koch and PB Member

15 Page 15 of 26 Siegel agreed; PB Chair Svekis stated that he thinks this is a good project and wishes more such types of living conditions were duplicated in the City. The motion carried unanimously. 5. SARASOTA STYLE CENTER (1538 STATE STREET): Applications 15-SP-12and15-MCU- 01 request minor conditional use and site plan approval to allow a motor vehicle sales agency and showroom to be located within the ground floor retail space of the State Street Parking Garage, which is located in the Downtown Core (DTC) Zone District with a street address of 1538 State Street. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) PB Member Gallagher recused himself because the applicant was a client at his office. Mr. Gallagher stepped outside the Commission Chambers. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting and Development, agent for the application, introduced himself and Mr. Wayne Ruben, Contract Purchaser, developer. Mr. Ruben stated he wanted to do a project in downtown Sarasota; explained that he became interested in the State Street Garage property in the summer of 2014, studied the Zoning Code and reviewed the allowable uses in the Downtown Core that apply to the subject parcel; added that he wanted to bring to downtown Sarasota a unique activity that would enhance the downtown urban area, stimulate the local economy, and benefit charities; stated that he contacted the Dimmitt family, an automotive family in the Clearwater area, whose showrooms use a "gallery concept," and asked if they would be interested in looking at State Street for a potential Style Center; explained that this was not a facility where automobile service and maintenance are done, rather it is a facility where very expensive automobiles, such as Rolls Royce, are displayed, next to an art gallery on the walls; added that the cars, and the art work on the walls are periodically rotated; stated that the Dimmitt family was interested in the unique market of Sarasota because their market analysis indicated that their market was south, from Sarasota to Naples. Mr. Ruben stated that was how the concept of the Style Center developed; stated that they would maintain a gallery, automobile showroom and event space for catered fundraising events; added that they worked closely with city staff to design the Style Center within the standards of the applicable city codes and the State Street site; noted that the Style Center included automobile storage, that the glass surface height had been increased to 13-ft, and that two cars would be displayed on the right-ofway; and pointed out that the family agreed to get a dealership license in Sarasota, so they could collect taxes in Sarasota to boost the revenues of the City of Sarasota. Mr. Freedman added that there were three sections of the Zoning Code that affect this application: Section 506, site plan, for a minor conditional use; Section VII-602, because they were deemed to be an automobile dealership due to the 12 car storage on the second floor; and

16 Page 16 of 26 Section IV minor conditional use. Mr. Freedman stated that the applicant had addressed all the requirements of the applicable codes and agreed with the staff conditions; added that staff would discuss the removal of Condition 11; clarified that cars would be delivered in the loading zone on the site plan, and some cars would be driven there, therefore there would be no deliveries via big tracks; and added that the head of the Farmer's Market downtown was in support of the proposal. PB Member Siegel stated that this was unique and he supported it; questioned the need of a condition that requires "high end vehicles" because the term is not clearly defined; and stated that he believed the City should not put such restrictions on a businessman. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay agreed with PB Member Siegel, emphasizing the need for flexibility in order to create artistic displays in the showroom. PB Member Ahearn-Koch questioned why the site plan showed 24 car spaces. Mr. Ruben explained that they needed it in case they had to display the cars in several colors. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked about the potential for noise pollution during the events. Mr. Ruben stated that the food would be catered, noted sometimes they have a pianist at the events, which are small gatherings with drinks and appetizers, and are always charitable events. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if the cars that would be stored on the second floor were high end cars. Mr. Ruben stated that they would be, and added that the applicant would take full responsibility for security through design, lighting, and through the details of the lease agreement. PB Member Ahearn-Koch stated that she agreed with the statements made earlier by PB Members Siegel and Lindsay regarding the high end cars, and questioned how the cars would enter the building. Mr. Ruben indicated they would build a special entrance on the loading zone side of the building, and added cars would be able to enter from the road as well. Responding to PB Member Ahearn-Koch, Mr. Ruben explained that if someone wanted to test drive a car, the employees would bring it out to the street. PB Chair Svekis asked what happens on Saturday morning when the farmers' market is downtown. Mr. Ruben stated that there was no conflict, noting the Farmers' Market supported the application. PB Chair Svekis suggested the hours of operation be extended past 9:00 PM to allow time for people to have dinner and then visit the showroom. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that there should not be a condition relating to hours of operation. PB Chair Svekis questioned the limitation on the number of events. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if there were standard hours of operation for car deliveries. Mr. Ruben responded that was addressed in staff's Condition 10. STAFF PRESENTATION: Senior Planner Mendez stated that the application applies to approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of the Ground Floor Liner Building for the automobile dealership; a specified area on the second floor for storage of cars; and the loading zone; added motor vehicle sales agencies may be permitted as a Minor Conditional Use within the DTC Zone District; noted that applicants emphasized they would be selling "high-end luxury" cars, which indicates that the intensity of sales will be low (Mr. Ruben indicated 20

17 Page 17 of 26 sales per month) unlike other car dealerships; the intensity of use was important to staff because the proposed Sarasota Style Center would be located within a public garage; this was also the reason staff included a condition about the frequency of special events, and limited them to two special events per week; added these events draw a lot of people, which could result in fewer spaces in the public garage to support the other downtown businesses; explained that the reason the garage was being built was to accommodate the parking needs of downtown establishments of less than ten thousand feet, because they have reduced parking requirements in the code; pointed out that staff had provided an administrative process by which the applicant could get permission to hold additional events on a case-by-case basis; stated that the proposed development relates to a build-out of space, therefore there is no impact on Development Standards; noted that the elimination of on-site vehicle maintenance and repair was essential to finding compatibility; added that all display areas, with the exception of the separate ROW allowance, were within a completely enclosed building, or fully screened, thus contributing to compatibility; stated that the application demonstrated compliance with the Specific Use Standards in Section VII- 602(b), however staff recommended the inclusion of conditions of approval for clarity and enforcement under the Minor Conditional Use; added that staff had found the application consistent with the Standards for Site Plan Approval under Section IV- 506, and the Standards for Minor Conditional Uses under Section IV-906 based on the applicant's provided proffers and staff's recommended conditions; stated that staff recommended approval with 14 conditions, including three applicant proffers; pointed out that the hours of operation were established by the applicant, and that there would be no objection on behalf of the City should the PB members decide to extend the hours of operation (per earlier discussion); she concluded by briefly discussing the proposed conditions in the staff report. PB Member Ahearn-Koch requested clarification regarding noise, lighting, and the display of items on the sidewalk. Senior Planner Mendez explained that such issues would be addressed though the enforcement of the applicable lighting and signage codes. PB Member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the PB could add a condition regarding the use of alcohol in the public garage, similar to the conditions that apply to special events in public streets. Senior Planner Mendez and General Manager Schneider, pointed out that alcohol use in public areas is subject to existing codes, and that enforcement depends on the type of event and where it takes place ( i.e., indoors vs. outdoors; catered vs. food prepared on the premises; alcohol license vs. alcohol provided by the caterer). PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked about the impact of the extended operational hours on the surrounding residential areas. Senior Planner Mendez stated that she would not recommend operations later than 11:00 pm. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked for clarification regarding the circumstances under which the applicant could be granted permits for additional events; PB Member Siegel, PB Chair Svekis and PB Vice-Chair Lindsay expressed concerns about the use of the term "high end luxury cars".

18 Minutes of the Regular Plaru1ing Board Meeting Page 18 of 26 APPLICANT REBU'ITAL Mr. Ruben stated that any reduction in regulations, such as hours of operation and the added flexibility in the language of Condition 7, would be very helpful to the tenant. PB Chair Svekis called City staff to the table and asked if the Planning Commission changes the wording of a condition, what goes to the City Commission? Senior Planner Mendez stated that the revised language will go to the City Commission. PB Member Ahearn-Koch stated that she felt the language of Condition 7 was competent, however, following up on the earlier discussion among PB Members, she asked if the addition of the word "unique" would be a good choice. PB Chair Svekis and PB Vice-Chair Lindsay objected to the use of the word "unique." Senior Planner Mendez suggested the addition of the word "primarily." Attorney Connolly explained the reasons for which Condition 7 was included in the motion. Discussion ensued. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay moved to find Conditional Use 15-MCU-01 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code, find Site Plan 15-SP-12 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the petitions, subject to Conditions 2 through 6 and 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14. PB Member Siegel seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that he does not agree with Condition 1, because he believes this retail business should be operating the same hours as any other downtown retailer; added that he disagrees with the language of Condition 7; and added that Condition 11 was deleted at staff's request. PB Chair Svekis proposed an amendment to the motion, to delete Condition 6. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ahearn-Koch stated that she disagreed with the motion; she would agree to extending hours for Proffer 1; added that she disagreed with deleting 6, because it would turn this establishment into a restaurant/bar; stated that she disagreed with the deletion of Condition 7, because it was essential in achieving what the applicant wanted; pointed out that the applicant had worked with staff to put the language of the conditions together, and that the applicant had accepted the conditions, which meant that the applicant had found ways to operate their retail business according to the conditions in the staff report; stated she agreed with the deletion of Condition 11; and concluded that the Planning Board should yield to the City's recommendations. PB Member Siegel stated that all negative statements are based on speculation. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay, maker of the motion, accepted the amendment to his motion. PB Member Siegel, the seconder, also accepted the amendment to the motion. The revised motion therefore excludes Conditions 1, 6, 7, and 11, and reads as follows:

19 Page 19 of 26 A-pplicant :Proffers: 1. The maximum range of operating hours for the Sarasota Style Center.vill be: a. 9:00 a.m to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday b. 12:00 p.m. (noon) to 7:00 p.m. Sunday c. Special Events Open until 11:00 p.m. on the day of the event 2. No vehicle maintenance or repair.vill occur onsite. 3. Vehicles displayed outside 'Nill be brought into the building.vhen the shov.'room is closed. A'ete: Underline ebe\'c is an <Igreed mediftecltien te the erigine! proffer. 2. No vehicle maintenance or repair will occur onsite. 3. Vehicles displayed outside will be brought into the building when the showroom is closed. 4. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Sarasota Style, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on March 18, All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. 5. The total number of vehicles for display, sales, lease or storage onsite shall not exceed 24 vehicles within the showroom space and 14 vehicles within designated vehicle display and storage areas within the parking garage structure or any other display vehicles as may be permitted within the right-of-way by separate agreement but which require onsite storage outside of operating hours, for a total maximum 38 vehicles. 6. Events ""'ith extended hours of operation shall be limited to hvo events or less per calendar.veek (Sunday through Saturday) unless specifically waived in writing for the specific week or occurrence by the City Manager or his designee. 7. The motor vehicle sales agency shall be limited to the sale or lease of "high end luxury motor vehicles" 1.vith e>camples including Bentley's, Rolls Royce, McLaren's and like vehicles of a similar suggested retail price, quality and prestige. 8. No parking areas designated for general public parking, employees, or customers shall be used for display or storage of motor vehicles for sale or lease. 9. All vehicle display and sales shall be conducted inside a building, exclusive of any display vehicles as may be permitted within the right-of-way by separate agreement. 10. All loading and unloading of vehicles shall occur on-site within the designated off-street loading zone accessed from the alley at the south side of the building. Loading and unloading activities shall not block any access way. Loading and unloading of vehicles is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, excluding legal holidays. It shall be the duty of the owners and operators of the motor vehicle sales agency, and it shall also be the duty of any agents and employees present on the premises, to insure that the activities of a common carrier, operator, or other person controlling such loading or unloading activities do not violate the provisions of this subsection. 11. The delivery vehicle used for loading and unloading of vehicles within the designated off sh eet loading zone shall not e><ceed a flatbed tow vehicle with a

20 Page 20 of 26 wheel to wheel length of 20 feet and overall length of 33 feet as demonstrated on the submitted Vehicle Turning Template (Sheet SH 101a) of Site Plan 15 SP There shall be no use of outdoor loudspeakers, bells, gongs, buzzers, or other noise attention or attracting devices used by the motor vehicle sales agency. 13. The premises shall be kept in a neat and orderly condition at all times and all improvements shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance. 14. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. The revised motion carried 3/1 with PB Member Ahearn-Koch voting no. PB Member Gallagher re-entered the Chambers. PB Member Ahearn-Koch suggested that the PB members follow the Code of Conduct rules, and wait to speak after they have been recognized, so as to facilitate clear and effective discussions. 6. SARASOTA FLATS (1401 FRUITVILLE ROAD): Applications 15-SV-07and15-ADP-05 request approval to vacate a 20' wide public alley which runs east and west between Central Avenue and Lemon Avenue and bisects a vacant parcel located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District with a street address of 1401 Fruitville Road. The purpose of the alley vacation is to allow for a mixed use development to be known as Sarasota Flats which will consist of a five story building with 228 +/-apartment units and office/ retail space with parking. The applicant is also requesting adjustments to the Downtown Code as follows: Adjustment from the required retail frontage requirement along Central A venue; adjustment from the finished floor elevation for residential on primary streets along a portion of 4th Street; adjustment to allow two access points on a primary street; and location of loading. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Marilyn Healy, Adams and Reese LLP, agent for Framework Group, introduced herself and Phillip Smith, the developer; stated that they were planning to develop an upscale mixed use project on a property bounded by Central A venue, Lemon A venue, 4th Street, and Fruitville Road; added that they needed an alley vacation and three adjustments in order to be able to develop their project; discussed the alley vacation stating the alley bisected the property north/ south, it was not part of the transportation network, it was not maintained by the city, it stopped at the north and south boundaries of the property, it was vacated in 2006 as part of an earlier proposal for a development that did not materialize and the alley reverted back to the city, it was closed to the public for almost

21 Page 21of26 ten years; added that if the alley was not vacated it would be difficult to achieve an infill project with high density at that location, which is what the City needs to enhance the livability and to support the businesses in downtown Sarasota; and concluded by requesting the PB recommend the City Commission grant the vacation. Butch Charlan, Architect, Charlan Brock and Associates, introduced himself and his associate Allen Dabson. Mr. Charlan stated they specialized in the development of mixed use high end projects; described the exterior; explained the were proposing 5 story buildings (228 units), with a Rosemary Beach, West Indies, and contemporary look; added that they are breaking the massive look using different design features, such as the covered side walk and colonnade along Fruitville Road; stated that they also removed units in order to reduce the massive look, and placed the entrance to the courtyard on Fruitville Road; the design of the comers is more dramatic with more details; the Resident Club House and Leasing Office is along Central A venue; Leasable Offices are located the corner of Fruitville Road and Central Avenue; and a Fitness Center is located at the corner of Central Avenue and 4th Street. Mr. Charlan review the requested adjustments, stating: Central A venue: The commercial is flush with the street, but as the grade changes, the residential portion of the building does not meet the minimum 2-ft. above sidewalk requirement along a primary street (Central Avenue); 4 1 h Street: the proposed access and service drive to the refuse/ recycling area has a configuration that requires two points of access, in and out; and The required retail frontage along Central A venue PB Member Gallagher questioned the requirement for an adjustment on Central A venue for the offices. Mr. Dabson stated that the first floor along Central Avenue was the location of the business components of the project, the offices of the manager, assistant manager, leasing agent, maintenance, etc. PB Member Gallagher questioned if the Code allows the construction of the air conditioned corridors connecting the two buildings. PB Member Gallagher asked how the sidewalk along Fruitville Road would interact with the residents. Mr. Dabson responded they are considering landscape and planters but they will work with staff to find the best solution. Mr. Charlan added that there are power lines near the building at that location, which they will try to move underground, and then they will work with a landscape architect to build something creative along the sidewalk. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked why this is a Conceptual Architectural Site Plan and not the Site Plan for the project. Phillip Smith explained that this is the site plan that has evolved after the applicant's discussions with staff, it is conceptual because it is not finalized yet, but this will be turned into a fully engineered site plan. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if the Fitness Center and the Club are for the use of the residents or are they also open to the public. Mr. Smith responded that only the residents can use the facilities, and confirmed that was the case with everything long Central A venue. PB Chair Svekis stated that retail is not private, it is public, and stated that he would not support the project unless they change their plans and bring in retail along Central

22 Page 22 of 26 A venue; it is important because Central A venue is the only pedestrian artery going north. STAFF PRESENTATION: Senior Planner Mendez provided a brief overview of the applications; stated that the alley is improved but it is not maintained; the parcel is located in the Downtown Edge and is in the Rosemary Overlay District; noted that the concept plan included 220 units, accessory uses along Central Avenue; parking; and stated the applicants were requesting: The vacation of the alley; and Adjustments to the Downtown Code: o relief from the required retail frontage along Central A venue from 70 % to 15% (Section VI-1003(c)(1)); o relief from the requirement that the finished floor of residential units be located at least two feet above the adjacent sidewalk along an approximately 121-foot segment of the 4th Street fa<;ade (Table ICV-1003); and o adjustment to allow two access points from 4th Street, allow the location of the loading area and refuse collection along the 4th Street frontage, and o allow the parking garage access along the 4th Street fa<;ade with upper levels of the garage behind a liner building of less than 20-foot depth (Section VII-3206(8). Senior Planner Mendez provided visuals relating to the alley; pointed out that it was improved but not open to the public; briefly presented staff's analysis, and stated that staff recommended approval subject to the five conditions listed in the staff report. Senior Planner Mendez continued with a brief review of the staff analysis regarding the requested adjustments: Adjustment One: Required Retail Office Senior Planner Mendez stated that the uses along Central A venue are auxiliary uses for the residential component of the development, therefore it is appropriate to request an adjustment. PB member Gallagher asked if the experience of a person walking along the street will be what the Code intents. Senior Planner Mendez responded the auxiliary uses provided habitable space, met the window requirements, and in some instances they may be operating longer hours than retail/ office spaces in the downtown area; added that there would be active space, and improvements to the frontage that will close the critical link between Fruitville Road and the existing uses north of 4th Avenue. Adjustment Two: Additional Finished Floor Elevation for Ground -Floor Residential. Senior Planner Mendez explained that due the change in slope from Fruitville to 4 1 h Street, the finished floor of the four first floor residential units adjacent to the auxiliary units on 4th street do not meet the requirement of 2-ft above the sidewalk; added that staff has had discussions both with the applicant and the Urban Design Studio and she is sure a solution can be provided during the administrative process. PB Member

23 Page 23 of 26 Gallagher requested clarification regarding the intent of the 2-ft requirement. Senior Planner Mendez stated that this requirement tends to protect the privacy of the residents from those who walk on the sidewalk. She also provided a correction, stating that the primary streets surrounding the subject parcel are 4th Street, Central A venue, and the part of Fruitville Road near its intersection with Central Avenue. Adjustment three: The location of the access to refuse and recycling area, the entrance to parking, and loading. PB Member Gallagher discussed with staff how the project would look without the adjustments and the vacation of the right-of-way; and concluded that the adjustments will result in a project that meets the intent of the Code. PB Member Gallagher stated that he thought a lot of good things were proposed but expressed concern about the 6-ft. wide sidewalk for the length of a block along Fruitville Road. Senior Planner Mendez stated that in depth streetscape discussions did not take place at this point, but will be addressed during the administrative review of the site plan. PB Member Ahearn-Koch requested clarification regarding Condition 1. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the intent of the condition is to generally tie the applicant to the Conceptual Plan under review today. PB Member Ahearn-Koch, referring to a statement on page 6 of the staff report, requested clarification regarding the necessity of the right-of-way vacation for this project, and about public benefits. Senior Planner Mendez explained that if the alley vacation is not granted, that prevents any development that spans the alley, unless the applicant requests a Major Encroachment Agreement, and noted it would affect other components of the project such as the location of the parking garage, off-site parking, density, etc. PB Member Ahearn-Koch requested clarification regarding the 15% retail, and how that met the code if it is not open to the public. Senior Planner Mendez explained that the 15% retail is the space of the leasable office located on the project's first floor at the intersection of Fruitville Road and Central A venue. PB Member Gallagher asked if a cross section is required at 4 1 h Street. Senior Planner Mendez stated "Yes." CITIZEN TESTIMONY: Dawn Kohen, property owner across the street, spoke in favor of the project, because it will enhance the area and will improve the safety of the vicinity. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Ms. Healy explained that until they own the property she cannot provide documentation on the relocation of the utilities, if there are any. Attorney Connolly explained that they can work on a different date, so that it is after the applicants have title to the property. PB Member Gallagher asked if they would reconsider the width of the sidewalk to make it wider to encourage pedestrians to use the sidewalk. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing.

24 Page 24 of 26 In light of the earlier discussion, Attorney Connolly proposed to draft revised language for Conditions 2 and 3 of the Street Vacation, which would require that applicants provide verifications from FPL and Verizon prior to the second reading of the vacation request, along these lines: As a condition preceding the second reading of the vacation request, the applicant will have to provide to the City Attorney's Office the original FPL and Verizon easements, or written documentation that FPL and Verizon do not need easements, and then the language will direct the City Attorney to record these in the official records after obtaining evidence that the applicants have obtained title to the property. PB members found this satisfactory. Motion for the Vacation of the Right-of-Way PB Member Ahearn-Koch moved to find Street Vacation 15-SV-07 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to conditions 1, 2 & 3 as amended by Attorney Connolly, 4 and 5. PB Member Gallagher seconded the motion. Acting Secretary Schneider pointed out the need for a correction to Condition 4, end of 6th line, as follows: December ~ ;n, PB Member Ahearn-Koch, the maker of the motion agreed with the correction. PB Member Gallagher, the seconder of the motion, also agreed with correction. PB Member Ahearn-Koch, speaking to her motion stated that she agrees with staff that the access provides limited benefit to the public, and that after the vacation, the resulting access for services like garbage collection will be better than what they are now, so she supports the vacation of the alley. PB Member Gallagher stated that the application meets the standards for review, and the intent of the Downtown Code, and he supports it. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay supports the vacation because the alley is benefiting only one property owner. The motion passed unanimously. PB Member Gallagher moved to find Adjustment 15-ADP-05 consistent with Section IV of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to conditions 1, 2 and 3. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. PB Member Ahearn Koch questioned if the motions could be broken down by adjustment. Attorney Connolly responded "Yes."

25 Page25 of 26 PB Member Ahearn-Koch moved to find Adjustment 15-ADP-05 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve Adjustment# 2, Finished Floor Elevation and Adjustment #3, Location of Parking, Access and Number of Access Points, and excluding Adjustment #1-Required Retail or Office Frontage Requirements. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay seconded the motion. Speaking to her motion, PB Member Ahearn-Koch stated she thought the proposed project was fabulous but had concerns with the retail space; noting the intent of the requirement of retail space on the first floor is to invite the pedestrian interaction. Speaking to his second, PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that the users of a private fitness club may not want to be on public display and would keep the windows covered at all times, which limits the pedestrian interaction with the space. The fitness club does not meet the intent of pedestrian interaction. PB Member Gallagher asked if the fitness center were operated by a third party, would it then be considered retail space. Acting Secretary Schneider explained that it would not, as long as the membership and use continued to be exclusive for the residents of the project. After discussion the motion passed unanimously. PB Member Gallagher moved to grant Adjustment #1, Required Retail or Office Frontage Requirements, in support of staff's recommendation. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. IV. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICE TO THE PuBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on to pics 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. APPROVALOFMINUTES 1. February 11, 2015 The February 11, 2015 minutes were approved as presented. 2. March 11, 2015 The March 11, 2015 minutes were approved with the addition of a statement indicating when PB member Gallagher re-entered the chambers after the Woman's Exchange hearing. 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.

26 Page 26 of 26 General Manager Schneider requested the Planning Board complete a survey stating the Office of Housing and Community Development needed it in order to satisfy a requirement relating to the latest housing report. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked what happens next with the Woman's Exchange proposal. Attorney Connolly described the various city procedures and related actions available to the Woman's Exchange. Discussion ensued about the two special meetings in July with the Urban Design Studio. Senior Planning Technician Grassett explained that the July 15th Special PB Meeting is about the Mobility Study that was discussed a few months ago. The July 29th Special Meeting is scheduled in case there is a need to continue the July 15th meeting. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:51 PM Da d Smith, General Manager - Integration Neighborhood & Development Services [Secretary to the Board] Vaid Svekis, Chair Planning Board/Local Planning Agency

27 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME Chris Gallagher MAILING ADDRESS NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITIEE Planning Board 445 North Orange #205 VVHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON ig CITY O COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON VVHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: April 8, ELECTIVE 1!f' APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section , Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION , FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under Sec or , F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PR IOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATIEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule (1)(1), F.A.C.