CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Damien Blumetti, Chair Members Present: Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, Terrill Salem Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, Interim Director, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Lucia Panica, Manager of Development Services Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Jim Koenig, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Department Dan Greenberg, Development Review Planner, Development Services Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 6:00:00 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti called the meeting to order; Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Planning Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY 1. Opening Remarks by Mayor Ahearn-Koch, Deputy City Manager Brown and City Attorney Fournier Director Cover stated there was a discussion item staff wished to open with that would be coming from Mayor Ahearn-Koch, Deputy City Manager Brown and City Attorney Fournier. Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Planning Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. PB Chair Blumetti requested members of the audience not make comments to their neighbors stating it was distracting and noted if a discussion was necessary it could be held in the hallway rather than the Chambers. PB Chair Blumetti requested Attorney Connolly state the established time limits. Attorney Connolly noted staff wished to consolidate the legislative and quasi-judicial Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 19 public hearings for Dr. Nina's; stated the recommended time limits for all petitions; and noted there were: no requests for Affected Person status. PB members agreed to the time limits by consensus. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those wishing to speak at tonight's hearings. 6:03:40 P.M. Mayor Ahearn-Koch, City Attorney Fournier and Deputy City Manager Brown appeared. Mayor Ahearn-Koch discussed the working relationship between the Planning Board members and City staff stating she recognized there had been missteps by all during the past year; stated her appreciation for, and the value of, the Planning Board Member's and City Staff's mutual dedication to the City and the community as a whole; recommended a Planning Board and City Staff facilitated retreat or workshop in order to air grievances, work through those, and find mutual respect SO that everyone can heal and move forward. City Attorney Fournier stated the City Attorney's office is committed to providing good, quality legal representation; and stated he and his staff are always available. Deputy City Manager Brown stated most of the staff that the Planning Board members work with fall under his supervision; said he has counselled staff not to take the disagreements personally; said he felt the Planning Board would show the same courtesy and respect to staff that staff has committed to showing the Planning Board; noted he felt there was an opportunity to move forward in a productive manner; and said his door is always open. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed workshop, the need for mutual respect between staff and the Planning Board, the anticipated outcome from the workshop,and including structural issues as part of the conversation. Deputy City Manager Brown stated his appreciation for the Planning Board's S recognition of, and respect for, staff's S hard work. 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 ofthe Pledge ofConduct (see Changes to the Order of the Day) Attorney Connolly explained the procedures for Quasi-judicial Public Hearings; noted as previously stated the legislative and quasi-judicial public hearings for Dr. Nina's s will be consolidated into one hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 19 PB Members disclosed any ex-parte communications. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Dr. Nina's Veterinary Clinic and Animal Hospital (2959 Fruitville Road & 2959 Rhodes Avenue): Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 17-PA-03 is a request to amend the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan by requesting to change the Future Land Use Map classification for parcels (PID 2030-13-0028, 2030-13-0025) located on the north side of Fruitville Road with street addresses of 2959 Fruitville Road and 2959 Rhodes Avenue from the Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use designation to the Community Commercial Future Land Use designation. The applicant has requested a rezone of the parcels via separate application (No. 17-REN-01) from the Residential Multi Family-2 (RMF-2) and Residential Single Family-2 (RSF-2) Zone Districts to the Commercial General District (CGD) Zone District to allow for expansion of the existing Veterinary Clinic use on the property. Applicant has requested a Zoning Text Amendment (Application No. 20-ZTA-01) to amend the definition of Veterinary Clinic to include indoor boarding of animals (Jim Koenig, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Department) C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Dr. Nina's Veterinary Clinic and Animal Hospital (2959 Fruitville Road & 2959 Rhodes Avenue): Rezone Application No. 17-REN-01 is a request to rezone two parcels with street addresses of 2959 Fruitville Road and 2959 Rhodes Avenue from the Residential Multiple Family-2 (RMF-2) Zone District and the Residential Single Family-2 (RSF-2) Zone District to the Commercial General District (CGD) Zone District. A Veterinary Clinic currently exists on the site as a legal nonconforming use in accordance with Ordinance 87-3042. The applicant is also seeking an amendment to the Future Land Use (from Community Office/Institutional to Community Commercial) via a separate application (No. 17-PA- 03) and is proposing an expansion of the existing Veterinary use. (Dan Greenberg, Development Review Planner) 6:18:10 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Mark Barnebey, Attorney with Blalock Walters, Agent and Mr. Mike Krajewski of DS Properties appeared. Mr. Barnebey thanked staff for their assistance; discussed the applications stating the Veterinary Hospital/Clinic use has existed on the site for over 50 years; displayed graphics showing the existing land use on the site and surrounding parcels; discussed the history of the site and surrounding area; reviewed the existing Future Land Use and Zone District noting due to a City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning that occurred in the past the existing use is now non- conforming and as such cannot be expanded; discussed the proposed Future Land Use and Zoning noting the changes would allow for the needed expansion and will make the use conforming; reviewed the proposed changes to the site; noted three proffers had been made relating to maximum square footage, permitted uses and a grand oak tree that is on the site; stated boarding of animals is currently not permitted if unrelated to medical care; discussed the importance of having the ability to board animals; noted the proposed Zoning text Amendment limits the area for boarding to 259 % of the building area and limits Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 19 the number of dogs that can be boarded to 25; stated staff recommends the number of animals rather than just dogs be limited to 25; stated the proposal is consistent with City codes and the surrounding uses; and requested the Planning Board recommend approval of the applications. 6:30:31 P.M. PB Member Salem asked if the new building would be used for boarding of animals. Attorney Barnebey stated that had not yet been determined. Mr. Krajewski stated adequate parking was theimmediate: need;noted the owners were unaware that boarding of animals was not permitted until they embarked on this project; and said they did not anticipate boarding animals in the new building except in the event there is a hurricane or other emergency situation. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon asked how many kennels were available for boarding of animals. Discussion ensued regarding the averagenumber of animals currently being boarded, the maximum number of animals anticipated to be boarded, limiting the number of dogs VS animals that could be boarded at one time, the need for boarding during an emergency event, and enforcement of proffers or conditions. PB Member Morriss asked why a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was being requested and how often the green space was picked up. Attorney Barnebey stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was requested in order to minimize the use in other locations the code provisions would be applicable to. Mr. Krajewski stated the green space was picked up daily noting medical considerations. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she appreciated the proffers; noted the proposed new building was located closer to the adjacent residential properties; and stated the need for the new building to be designed in such a manner that it does not become a nuisance. Attorney Barnebey stated it will be an indoor facility designed to contain noise. PB Chair Blumetti noted the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would affect all like facilities in the City and questioned if there is the need for a provision in the Code that would allow exceeding the permitted number of animals being boarded in the event of a declared emergency; and asked if the building is hurricane proof. Discussion ensued regarding the maximum number of animals that could be boarded in the event of a declared emergency, how the limit on the number of animals will affect other Veterinary Clinics in the City, and the need to allow exceeding the maximum permitted number of animals being boarded in both local and state declared emergencies. 6:49:48 P.M. Staff Presentation: Jim Koenig, AICP, Senior Planner and Dan Greenberg, Development Review Planner introduced themselves for the record. Senior Planner Koenig discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Guidelines for Review; reviewed the purpose of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 19 proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment noting the existing use is currently non- conforming however would be permitted if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved; discussed the surrounding uses in addition to the existing and proposed zoning and Future Land Use for the site; noted there is residential near but not adjacent to the site; stated staff feels the proposal is on balance compatible with the surrounding uses; noted the new building would require Site Plan approval by the Planning Board; said all applicable adopted Level of Services would be maintained and the proposal would not impact relevant components of the Housing, Historic Preservation, Environmental Protection & Coastal Islands, Government Coordination or Public School Facilities Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan; noted a revised recommended motion was distributed to the Planning Board members this evening; and stated staff recommended approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Planner Greenberg discussed the history of the property; stated the Applicants are requesting the property be rezoned to the Community Commercial zone district in order to make the existing use conforming; discussed the Applicant's proffers; noted if the rezoning is approved the limitations contained in Ordinance No. 87-3042 would no longer be applicable; and stated staff recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Senior Planner Koenig discussed the proposed Zoning Text Amendment stating it would amend the definition of a Veterinary Clinic; noted the revised definition would be applicable to all Veterinary Clinics in the City; said the amended definition would allow animal boarding as an accessory use to a Veterinary Clinic only; discussed differences in the Applicant's and Staff's proposed amended text noting the primary difference is limiting the number of dogs to be boarded at any one time to 25 versus limiting the number of animals to bel boarded at any one time; and stated staff recommended. approval as proposed by staff. 7:06:21 P.M. PB Member Morriss asked staff to address the question of why a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Senior Planner Koenig said amending the definition of a Veterinary Clinic was better than allowing the additional uses that would be permitted under the Future Land Use in other areas of the City. PB Member Morriss asked what the difference between incidental and accessory was. Planner Greenberg stated accessory is defined in the Zoning Code while incidental is not. PB Member Gannon questioned the thinking behind requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment rather than rezoning the property to an implementing zone district under the existing Future Land Use. Planner Greenberg stated Veterinary Clinic use is not permitted in any of the implementing zone districts under the existing Future Land Use. PB Member Salem expressed concerns regarding other uses permitted under the proposed zoning. Senior Planner Koenig stated the proffers offered under the rezone application address that. Attorney Connolly stated if the applications are approved, the proffers limit Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 19 the square footage and the use; and noted if in the future another use: is desired that would require a Rezone Ordinance Amendment which requires public hearings before the Planning Board and City Commission. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated her appreciation for the thoroughness of the staff reports, noting the summary included in the staff report for 17-PA-03 as an example; and questioned if a request to change the Future Land Use was the same as requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Senior Planner Koenig confirmed that was correct. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned what an area of critical state concern that is referenced is. Senior Planner Koenig stated Sarasota is not in an area of critical state concern. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich requested staff address the Planning Board's discussion regarding increased boarding during an emergency. Senior Planner Koenig stated there are concerns regarding how that would be controlled and policed; said he did not know how the right number could be determined; and noted staff agrees with the concept. Planning Director Cover noted all rules change in emergency situations. PB Chair Blumetti stated the property owner should determine what the maximum capacity would be. PB Member Gannon questioned if the Site Plan for the new building would come before the Planning Board and if a Community Workshop would also be required. Planner Greenberg stated Site Plans for structures over 5,000 sq. ft. require Planning Board approval and do not require a Community Workshop be held. PB Member Morriss questioned what Director Cover's concerns were. Director Cover stated flexibility is needed during a state of emergency, noting it would only be a temporary situation. PB Chair Blumetti stated the need to determine what the right number is in order to avoid a situation where the Code is being violated; and questioned what the setbacks are for the implementing zone districts for the existing Future Land Use and for the proposed Future Land Use and zoning. Planner Greenberg discussed the setback requirements for the various zone districts. Discussion ensued. Planner Greenberg noted placing a soundproof structure along the north and east property lines would push the outdoor area activities further away from the residential. 7:24:48 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she had questions for Engineering staff. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those that were not present when previously administered. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned him as to if the three recommended stipulations contained in the staff report for 17-PA-03 had Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 19 been conveyed to the property owner and if the property owner had provided the requested improvements. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated those stipulations were applicable at the Site Plan phase of the project. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich discussed the traffic volume at Fruitville Road and Rhodes Avenue; noted there is no traffic signal at that location; and questioned if the increased traffic would use Rhodes Avenue to travel to a location where they could get to a traffic signal to access Fruitville Road. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the traffic review indicated there would be 16 additional trips; said travelers tend to gravitate to main roads; and stated any increase in trips in the neighborhoods would be minimal, if any. 7:28:02 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Barnebey and Mr. Krajewski appeared. Attorney Barnebey noted there was discussion regarding the impact on the surrounding neighbors; pointed out there are no residential uses adjacent to the property; said the applicants held a Community Workshop and the only attendees were the property owners and their in-laws; and noted there was not public input during tonight's S hearing. Attorney Barnebey discussed the applicant's difference of opinion with staff regarding the language in the Zoning Text Amendment; pointed out there is a definition of the area that can used for boarding; said dogs are the only noisy animals they board SO a limitation of 25 dogs versus 25 animals would be a more appropriate limitation on the number allowed. Discussion ensued regarding the various types of animals that are boarded. Attorney Barnebey noted farm animals are not allowed. Mr. Krajewski noted they have been operating there. for 13 years and have had no noise complaints filed against them. PB Member Gannon stated the PB has to consider that these requirements will apply to all like operations in the City. PB Chair Blumetti discussed the proposed location of the new building and asked if the Applicant's would proffer 15' side and rear setbacks. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Blumetti asked if the Planning Board could proffer 15' side and rear setbacks. Attorney Connolly stated if the Applicants are not willing to proffer that the Planning Board could make a separate recommendation to the City Commission that a 15' side and rear setback be required. Mr. Krajewski stated the Applicant's were willing to proffer the requested setbacks. Attorney Connolly noted the need to ensure that was included in the motion made regarding the rezone application. 7:34:50 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Senior Planner Koenig and Planner Greenberg appeared. Senior Planner Koenig stated staff had reviewed the proposal as it pertains to all properties the requirements could pertain to, both existing and potential sites; noted the limitation that a maximum of 25% of the building area could be used for boarding could result in a sizeable boarding area; and said adding to that a limitation of 25 dogs VS animals would address noise issues and ensure the use remains accessory. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 19 Planner Greenberg clarified that since the property is on a corner lot there are 2 front setbacks and no rear setback SO any proffer should relate to side setbacks only. Discussion ensued regarding limiting boarding to 25 animals versus dogs, the best way to determine the appropriate number to limit the operation to, and the maximum number of animals the Applicants currently board at a time. PB Member Morriss suggested a limitation based on one animal per a certain amount of square footage. PBI Member Salem questioned if sound was staff's S only concern and asked if the maximum capacity allowed could be determined by the Fire Marshal. Manager of Development Services Panica appeared and suggested a reduction in the allowable square footage then elimination of the restriction on the number of dogs/animals; and noted the intent is to ensure boarding remains accessory to the primary use of Veterinary Clinic. PB Member Morriss asked a limit on the number was necessary if noise and smell is controlled and noted the limitation on the square footage would dictate if it is an accessory use. Manager Panica noted traffic is also a concern. 7:42:53 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly noted the need for three separate motions and suggested the Comprehensive Plan Amendment motion first, then the Zoning Text Amendment, and finally the Rezone application. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to find that Petition 17-PA-03 is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is in the public benefit or interest and recommend that the City Commission adopt the petition. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she didn't normally support Comprehensive Plan Amendments that are out of cycle however she felt it was appropriate in this particular situation. PB Member Gannon stated the petition meets the applicable criteria and on balance finds there are proffers and mitigation that protect the community. The motion passed 5/0. 7:45:19 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to find 20-ZTA-01 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV- 1206 and recommend approval of the alternative zoning text revisions as proposed by City staff to the City Commission. PB Member Morriss stated he would second the motion if the limitation on dogs versus animals was removed. Discussion ensued. The motion failed for lack of second. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 19 PB Member Morriss made a motion to find 20-ZTA-01 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV- 1206 and recommend approval of the alternative zoning text revisions as proposed by City staff to the City Commission with the exception of reverting the text from animals to dogs. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. PB Member Salem stated he felt a larger number of animals would be appropriate. Discussion ensued regarding where the number 25 originated from, the actual number being boarded currently, traffic concerns, the timing of the drop-off and pick-up of the animals, whether all structures would be soundproof, the number of dogs that would be outside at a given time and the waste buildup; and the lack of evidence that would support an alternative way to determine the appropriate number. PB Chair Blumetti stated he would not support the motion noting he felt there should be a cap but did not agree with either staff or the Applicant's proposed numbers. PB Member Morriss suggested the Planning Board could recommend approval with the understanding additional research would be done prior to the City Commission public hearing; and noted the numbers currently recommended are only guesses. PB Member Gannon noted there was testimony that there are only enough cages for a certain number which limits capacity except for during an emergency event. PB Chair Blumetti noted the requirements apply to other facilities also. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich noted bird and cats are brought in with their own cages sO the number of cages available on-site only limits the number of dogs that can be boarded. Attorney Connolly stated Attorney Barnebey had just offered up two options: a maximum of 40 animals or 20 sq. ft. per animal. Discussion ensued. Director Cover pointed out that the square footage of the entire building is not available for boarding, only 25% of the leasable square footage. Attorney Connolly pointed out there was a motion on the table. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss withdrew his motion and PB Member Gannon withdrew his second. 7:55:05 P.M. Discussion ensued regarding the number of animals per square foot that would be allowed, if the square footage included the entire structure or the 25% of the building area that is allowed for boarding, and the wording of a motion. PB Member Morriss made a motion PB Member Morriss made a motion to find 20-ZTA- 01 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval of the alternative zoning text revisions as proposed by City staff to the City Commission with the exception of language that will reflect one animal per 20 sq. ft. of the boarding area which is comprised of 25% of the gross square footage. PB Member Salem seconded the motion. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Member Gannon voting no. 7:59:04 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to find Rezone 17-REN-01 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 19 petition subject to the conditions 1 through 6 with the addition of a condition that there will be a minimum side yard setback of 15. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. The Planning Board Took at Ten Minute Recess 2. Quay Sarasota Blocks 2 & 3 (333 N. Tamiami Trail): Site Plan Application No. 19-SP- 05 is a request for Site Plan approval to construct an twelve-story mixed use building with 241 residential dwelling units and approximately 12,750 s.f.c of commercial space on the ground floor on property located in the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone District with a street address of 333 N Tamiami Trail. The project is proposed within "Blocks 2 & 3" on the eastern boundary of the Quay Sarasota General Development Plan which was approved by the City Commission in December 2016. (Lucia Panica, Manager of Development Services) 8:00:26 P. M. Applicant Presentation: Attorney Charles Bailey, Williams Parker Law Firm, introduced himself for the record; stated that he is representing Lennar Multifamily Communities (LMC) who are the applicants for Quay Sarasota Blocks 2 & 3 of Sarasota; introduced Ms. Sema Atis, with Dorsky and Yue, Designer and Project Architect, and Omar Del Rio, Senior Development Manager, with LMC; said that other members of their team are: in the audience; stated that they are here to present the Site Plan for a 12 story multifamily building which contains 240 dwelling units, which will be apartments, and 12,750 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant space; noted that, in the City, downtown Site Plans arel handled administratively, however this application follows the process established by the Development Agreement for Quay Sarasota that Quay Venture entered with the City in 2016; pointed out that the approved Development Agreement for Quay Sarasota included 695 dwelling units, 189,000 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant space, 39,000 sq. ft. for office use, and a 175 room hotel; referred to the General Development Plan, and explained the relationship of the proposed Site Plan to other developments on the Quay site; said that the subject site meets the zoning requirements, and staff has recommended approval with four conditions, which the applicants accept; described the various developments that are taking place right now at Quay Sarasota, including the construction of the internal roadways, stormwater systems, a substantial underground vault, and underground infrastructure to serve the Quay and surrounding properties; added that they are improving and reconstructing the stormwater canal at the south boundary of the property, which serves the Quay and a larger 45 acre drainage basin, most of which is located east of US 41, they have cleared the ditch and they are in the process of piping the ditch, and when it is finished it will serve as the Scenic Recreational MURT that will run along the south edge of the Quay and along the water front to the Central Quay, which is a public space; referred to the Belle Haven Hotel, a historic structure, and stated that, in November 2019, they received their Certificate of Appropriateness, which allows them to commence building rehabilitation in February 2020, with an anticipated completion date in August 2020; added that they will be developing Central Quay, concurrently, which is a public space between the Ritz Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 19 Carlton and Belle Haven, which will be accessible to the public from Fruitville, Quay Commons, and the Boulevard of the Arts, or by utilizing the Scenic Recreational MURT; stated that the Central Quay will also be completed in August 2020; referred to the roundabout at the intersection of US41 and Fruitville Road, and said that construction commenced in December 2019 and will be completed in November 2020; noted that in connection with the roundabout, they will be constructing the Bayfront MURT along Boulevard of the Arts and US 41; stated that according to the Agreement, they are currently working on the completion of a temporary MURT to be used for the duration of the construction of the Bayfront MURT; referred to the Site Plan for Blocks 2 & 3, and noted that they are allowed to go up to 18 stories high, but they are doing only 12 stories; the parking structure will accommodate not only the internal needs of the residential and commercial/ restaurant spaces in Blocks 2 &3, but includes 185 additional parking spaces that will serve future development in the Quay; noted that there is a 10 ft. development offset along US 41; and explained that there is no set back requirement for the Downtown Bayfront District but the buildings will be 10 ft. away from the MURT, and substantially back from US 41. 8:15:48 P.M. Mr. Del Rio stated that LMC is part of the Lennar Corporation, and currently they are one of the top five multi-family developers in the country; noted that the project will have retail on the ground floor, and that they are working with Greenpointe, the Master Developer of Quay, to ensure that they have one retail consultant and leasing team SO that they can have a unified focus and theme in the entire area; stated that this is a rental property, sO they will hold and operate the property for long term; pointed out that rental properties have more amenities than condominiums, and this site will have, on the ground floor, a bike storage and repair store off the MURT, a pet area, and a fitness center; on the seventh floor they will have their pool and amenities deck, almost half-an-acre in size, and will include the pool, outdoor fitness area, outdoor dining and sitting areas, and will overlook the Quay Commons, the Central Quay Park area and towards the Bay; added that at this level there will be additional party rooms, game rooms, for the residents, and they will have a sky lounge that will afford additional views of the Bay and the downtown. 8:19:49 P.M. Ms. Atis the Project Architect, stated that the site is unique because of its location between US41 and Quay Commons; said that they kept the height to a minimum, and their services are internal, resulting in all the sides of the building being free and pedestrian friendly, retail users are requested to have outdoor seating areas, and have amenities at the corners of the building; noted that they created levels on the building via horizontal divisions and vertical setbacks resulting with a human scale for the pedestrians on all four sides; and described the design features of the building. 8:25:02 P.M. Attorney Bailey pointed out that because of its location, the building has four frontages and it is designed SO that all the back-of-house operations are internal to the building, and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 19 are not interfering with the façade of the building; added that another challenge was the fact that the ground on which the building is built is also at different elevations; pointed out that staff recommends approval with conditions that the applicants have agreed to; and respectfully requested approval of the Site Plan. 8:26:35 P.M. PB Member Salem asked if they could do something to soften the look of the side of the building on US 41. Attorney Bailey explained that the commercial spaces at the corners have windows, the middle part is the entrance to the internal services. 8:31:40 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich followed up with the same concern, stating that the back door of the building is along a main street, such as US 41. Attorney Bailey pointed out that their choice for the entrance to the building was controlled by FDOT; explained that originally there were two previously platted streets (4th Street and 5th Street), that were turning movements, which FDOT would only allow them to be right-in only; added that this by itself restricts them from using the driveway as the front door; and added that due to the MURT, they tried to minimize vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Discussion ensued. 8:35:59 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich asked the applicants to address how the numbers on page 2 of 10 of the Site Plan relate to the "budget" for the Quay for retail space and traffic generation trips. Attorney Bailey stated that the Development Agreement provided that the Quay had 922 vested trips; and added that Block 6 and Blocks 2 & 3 have a cumulative total of 293 trips, or 32% of the total trip budget for the Quay. 8:38:14 P.M. PB Member Morriss stated the same concerns about the back of the building facing US 41; and asked for clarification about higher stories being recessed. Attorney Bailey explained that the Development Agreement stated that if Blocks 2 & 3 developed together, the building had to be 10 ft. away from the west boundary of the MURT and the floors above the 12th floor had to be recessed; and said that this building is 12 floors and therefore the tiering requirement did not apply. 8:39:37 P.M. PB Member Morriss asked if the illustrations could show the surrounding buildings because it would help if it is contextually appropriate to the architecture, the massing, the colors, the textures, etc. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss asked if the applicants have addressed any of the comments the Planning Director provided to them about six months ago. Attorney Bailey stated that the project evolved in response to the comments they received, and that the applicants submitted three editions of the plan, however comments relating to aesthetics are very subjective; added that the applicants have met the objective review criteria; and said that the Planning Director's comments express how he would like the building to look, but his comments were not related to the applicable criteria. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 19 8:43:59P.M. PB Member Gannon stated that walking along such a long and tall building is not an inviting pedestrian experience. Attorney Bailey stated that the Development Agreement provided for Blocks 2 & 3 to be developed together to eliminate the driveway access, and in recognition of the building mass, the building has to be pulled back by 10 ft. from the MURT; added that the building is pulled back for as much as 40 ft. from US 41, including the 12ft. MURT, and landscaping; and added that the building is not 18 stories, rather it is 2/3 of the maximum permitted height within the Downtown Bayfront District. Discussion ensued. 8:52:29 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti stated that he would like to hear Planning Director Cover comment about his e-mail on page 74 of the packet. Director Cover stated that this is an urban site, surrounded by urban streets, not a suburban site where you see the back side of the building towards the street sO that all the activity is on the: inside of the project; added that US41 is going through transition now, and the City is trying to make it easier for people to cross US 41, for pedestrians and cyclists alike, and this requires a different design and character than US 41 has now; stated that all along he has expressed concerns about the building's façade on US 41, because for a distance equal to the length of a football field there is a wall and a service entrance, and, from a planning point, or design point, that is not what the City wants to see on US 41; disagreed with the applicants regarding the viability of restaurants along US 41, stating they can be successful when you have a lot of people walking along there; and pointed out that this is an entrance to the City, and this is a major design issue. 8:55:17 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti stated that US 41 is a gateway to the City, and this building will be the gateway into the Quay property; said that he will defend the applicant's position because it is not required by the Code to have commercial on US 41 because it is not a primary street, and the City cannot hold the applicants on something that is not required by the Code; expressed concerns about the service drive coming into the parking garage, and its proximity to the MURT; asked if the service driveway can be an egress instead of ingress; and asked if this was an FDOT requirement. 8:57:30 P.M. Ms. Melanie Smith, of Stantec, introduced herself for the record; pointed to Driveway C and D, and the roundabout; stated that FDOT permitted Driveways Cand D, and required that Driveway D be right-in only due to its proximity to the roundabout and the traffic volume on US 41; explained that since Driveway D is right-in only, they had to allow a 25 ft. clearance for the loading and unloading of the trash; and noted the vehicle can only exit to the north on Driveway C. Responding to PB Chair Blumetti, Ms. Smith stated that Driveway D is permitted by FDOT, but it is not required by FDOT. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 19 8:59:23 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich referred to Driveway Cand addressed the proximity of the entrance of the parking facility to the intersection of US 41 and Driveway Matt Crim, Stantec, explained that their analysis indicates that traffic will not back up on US 41. Discussion ensued. 9:04:31 P.M. Staff Presentation: Lucia Panica, Manager of Development Services, introduced for the record herself and Mr. Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer; stated that the site encompasses 1.65 acres of the 14.69 acres Quay GDP; said that the entire Quay property is zoned Downtown Bayfront; provided historical background information for the developments on Quay GDP; described the uses on the proposed Site Plan; discussed zoning, parking spaces, the parking garage capacity, the service access from US 41, valet services, and refuse collection; pointed out that there are no existing trees on Blocks 2 & 3, and there is no required landscaping; noted the landscape plans for Quay GDP are: included in the packet for reference, and thatlandscaping for this site has been provided under a separate permit; pointed out that all review standards applicable to this site have been met, including the 10 ft setback from the Bayfront MURT due to the combining of the two lots; noted that this is a requirement of the Development Agreement, not the Zoning Code; stated that there have been concerns about the façade along US41, and the lack of activity on the street; added that the applicants revised the design to provide activity at the corners, however, at the time of DRC review of the final design, staff's concerns continued, and they were expressed in the email from Mr. Cover, Planning Director. 9:09:11 P.M. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that in 2016, a traffic study was done for the entire site, and it was found that the entire site meets concurrency; noted that the Development Agreement requires concurrency needs to be monitored as each Block is being developed, to ensure that the overall traffic parameters are met and to provide block-by-block specific recommendations; pointed out that the traffic analysis of Blocks 2 & 3indicates that the underlying parameters of traffic circulation have been met, and that, for this increment of development, all surrounding intersections and driveways will function adequately or well; said that one area of interest is the proximity of the entrance to the building from Driveway C; referred to Condition 2 of the Development Agreement which states that this area should be monitored, and, should it become necessary, additional traffic controls should be implemented; and concluded that, in summary, the development meets the code and staff recommends approval. 9:11:04 P.M. PB Member Gannon referred to Sheet LPP101, by Stantec, and asked if the information on this Sheet is part of what the Planning Board is reviewing for approval this evening. Ms. Panica stated that LPP101 is part of the Site Plan and should be reviewed this evening. PB Member Gannon pointed out that the Downtown Green Space Policy states that canopy Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 19 trees are preferable to palm trees; and asked why LPP101 shows palm trees along US 41. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein clarified that US 41 is permitted by FDOT and they did not want canopy trees in their right-of-way; and added that the City's policy does not apply on their applicant's private property, however the applicants have been advised to provide canopy trees. Discussion ensued. 9:16:37 P.M. PB Member Morriss referred to comments submitted by W.E. Oliver (11/27/2019) regarding the monitoring of traffic capacity at this location; and asked who keeps track of it. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein explained that his office produces Access and Circulation Studies, each edition of which includes updated traffic capacity information, based on all trips. PB Member Morriss referred to CCNA's concern about unauthorized vehicles entering the Service Drive. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that it is the applicant' S intent that the residents enter the building via Driveway C and the customers of the retail spaces use valet services. 9:19:32P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich referred to Mr. Oliver's communications to Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein dated 11/27/ / 2019 and 11/29/ /2019 and asked questions about internal capture assessment. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein explained that the garage is to be used by unknowni future development; added that staff has to evaluate the Site Plan based on what they have before them and make necessary adjustments as the future development is submitted for review. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich referred to Mr. Oliver's 11/27/2019 methodology recommendations for future traffic analysis on Quay Block developments and asked Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein's opinion about the recommendations. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that the methodology recommendations are interesting and could be incorporated in future traffic circulation analyses. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich referred to the Cumulative Trip Generation Budget Total Number in Mr. Oliver's letter of 11/27/2019. Mr. Oliver was in the audience and came forward to testify that his letter: include a typographical error, and the trip number in the letter should havel been 200: instead of 393 trips; added that the analysis is done based on the ITE, whose numbers are based on suburban trip generations, and as a result they are higher than what really happens in an urban area; and he suggested that Lennar Inc., who are developing in downtown areas, may provide traffic circulation numbers from their other projects. 9:25:16 P.M. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein referred to the Sheriff's S comment and stated that the comment was made, the inward drive had a 75ft radius, and after discussions with the applicant, it has been reduced to a 25 ft. radius. There were no applications for affected person's status. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 19 9:26:04 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Bailey pointed out that, according to the staff report, the application meets each and every review criterion for Site Plan approval in the City's Zoning Code; added that Mr. Cover's S comment, that the design is detrimental to the City, is not based on any legal standard or on facts; noted that the applicants understand the Planning Board's concerns about the east elevation of the building and the streetscape along that area; pointed out that all the back-of-house operations are internal to the building; and requested a few minutes to confer with his clients before continuing with the rebuttal comments. PB Member Salem asked for the distance between the driveway and the outdoor space along US 41. Ms. Smith stated that the distance between the south outdoor space to the driveway is 70 ft and the distance between the driveway and the windows to the north is 130 ft. The Planning Board took a Ten-Minute Recess 9:30:38 PM. Attorney Bailey stated that they respectfully disagree with the Planning Board discussion and comments that the applicants have placed the back of the house operations along US 41; added that the team feels that the Planning Board comments were influenced by Director Cover's statement; respectfully requested the Planning Board consider continuing this public hearing to allow applicants to revisit the areas of concern, noting they do not want to set unrealistic expectations that they will provide retail along US 41, because of feasibility issues relating to retail along US41. 9:32:42 P.M. Mr. Del Rio stated that FDOT controls the street and does not allow on-street parking, and with the MURT activated, there will be pedestrians, and bicycles, with no safe way to drop off or park; added that the type of retail that would be considered here is restaurants, which have services; clarified that the commercial on this site does not require valet parking, people can drive in, but the valet focus would be on the additional 185 spaces to be used by the entire Quay; and concluded that they will revisit and improve the street façade because they are. here to stay and want to be successful in this area. 9:36:05 P.M. Attorney Bailey stated that they want to make an earnest effort to respond to the Planning Board's concerns and return on the February 12, 2020 PB meeting. 9:37:15 P.M. PB Member Gannon referred to the drop-off for valet services on Quay Commons, and the service entrance on US 41 for large trucks and refuse collection: and asked where the small service vehicles enter and exit. Discussion ensued about the number of daily trips on Driveway D. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 19 9:41:53 P.M. PB Member Morriss stated that he understands retail will not survive on US 41, but he said there are other options. 9:43:52 P.M. PB Member Salem suggested that applicants revisit their options about having palm trees or canopy trees along US 41; and asked if the applicants can make the façade along US 41 more inviting. Ms. Smith asked what is "inviting. PB Member Salem said seating, more glass. Ms. Smith commented that even though the traffic will be slowing down for the roundabout, US 41 will still have about 40,000 trips a day, because US41 is a major arterial. 9:45:33 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich suggested that the applicants also revisit moving the location of the entrance to the garage from Driveway C, because she is concerned about its proximity to US 41. 9:46:05 P.M. Attorney Bailey said that this will be monitored throughout the development of the Quay and at any point that there are concerns they can make changes to the traffic circulation pattern, for example no left turns. 9:47:19 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti said that Attorney Bailey's earlier comment about Mr. Cover was unfair, as it was unfair and misleading to include in the packet Mr. Cover's letter along with a staff recommendation for approval; added that he has concerns with Driveway D and requested that the applicant revisit it prior to coming back to the Planning Board. Ms. Smith noted that they have been in touch with FDOT and they have mitigated the safety concerns for Driveway D. Discussion ensued regarding the continuation date. It was concluded to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2020, and reschedule it, should it become necessary. 9:51:37 P.M. Manager Panica noted that the applicant stated during rebuttal that the clients to their retail spaces will park themselves and not rely on valet service; said this is the first time she heard that; expressed concerns because the plans do not reflect that and it disagrees with the applicant's valet plan on page 51 of their report; noted that this has impacts on staff's analysis and staff's recommended conditions; and concluded that if this is the applicant's S intent, then this entire project needs to be reviewed again. PB Chair Blumetti asked if: it is proffered that Driveway D is only a service entrance. Manager Panica stated that it is not proffered, however the Site Plan shows signage to that effect and they must develop according to the Site Plan. Planning Director Cover asked if revisiting this issue would require DRC review. Manager Panica stated that only she and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein need to review this issue, however additional changes that are made may require DRC review. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 19 9:53:53 P.M. PB Member Morriss moved to continue the petition to the February Planning Board meeting. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Attorney Connolly announced that the continued meeting for Site Plan 19-SP-05 will be held on Wednesday, February 12, 2020, at 6:00 P.M., at City Hall, on 1565 First Street, Commission's Chambers at the next scheduled Planning Board Regular Meeting. 9:54:12 P.M. IV. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICE TO1 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 none. V. 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. Secretary Cover referred to the new State law that limits the length of time for processing projects, which is 180 days from the time the project is deemed complete to the very end, meaning the time of a final decision either by the Planning Board or the City Commission; pointed out that as a result there is the potential that the Planning Board may have some very heavy agendas in the future; and asked if the Planning Board would be open to start meetings earlier. PB Chair Blumetti stated that it is doable with advance notice. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich agreed only if this is on an "as-needed" basis. Secretary Cover stated that there would be a couple months advanced notice. The Planning Board members agreed that they can do that. Secretary Cover stated that there are many classes, forums, meetings, etc., that provide additional training the Planning Board could benefit from because they are addressing latest trends, and what is working and what is not, on a variety of topics, such as transportation, and land use; and he proposed to cover the costs for Planning Board members who want to take advantage of these opportunities. Attorney Connolly pointed out that should more than one of the Planning Board members choose to attend these presentations, they cannot talk to each other while there. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated that it is a good idea to participate in conferences and seminars because it gives them a broader perspective of how it is done. PB Chair Blumetti agreed. VI. 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. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 8, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 19 9:59:35 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti referred to the Mayor's proposal earlier this evening; and asked if anyone knows when it will be. Secretary Cover said they have to think about it a little. PB Chair Blumetti asked about the status of the designation of Primary Streets. Secretary Cover stated that they plan to present something at the February Planning Board meeting; added that they are considering taking the list of Primary Streets out of the Comprehensive Plan and leaving it in the Zoning Code SO it can be easily updated without having to go to the State when it needs to be amended; explained that this would make it easier to manage, and would provide the flexibility that the City needs; and noted that there will be changes to the map. 10:00:48 P.M. PB Member Gannon asked if the City is bound by FDOT's regulations for the landscaping on US 41, when the City has a Transportation Plan to create roundabouts to slow traffic down, make everything less than 35 miles/hour and create this Boulevard; and asked if it is appropriate for City staff to contact FDOT and say that the City has a plan for this section of US 41 and we want to have this landscape plan to encourage people to walk in shaded MURTS, sidewalks, and streets. Secretary Cover stated that staff fully intends to further explore that with the FDOT, and he thinks that there are other options the City can look into. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:03 P.M. a - Bhi Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Damien Blumetti, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]