CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY May 11, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Terrill Salem, Chair Members Present: Dan Clermont, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Doug Christy, Michael Halflants Planning Board Members Absent: Kathy Kelley Ohlrich City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Kevin McAndrew, General Manger, Development Services Alison Christie, Development Review Senior Planner Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner Briana Dobbs, Senior Planner, Planning Department John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services 1:36:33 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Salem called the meeting to order. General Manager McAndrew [acting as the Planning Board's Secretaryl called the roll; stated five members were present; and noted PB Member Ohlrich was absent. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. CHANGES TO' THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. IV. 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 Secretary McAndrew read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly stated the suggested time limits and administered the oath to those wishing to speak at today's publichearings. The PB members approved the time limits by consensus. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 11, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 9 B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 22-ZTA-07 [Continued From April 13, 2022] is a request for Zoning Text Amendment approval to create a new "Missing Middle" Overlay District (MMOD) that will increase the allowable residential dwelling unit density in excess of 12 units per acre up to a maximum of 35 units per acre when providing for attainable. housing in order to provide for a range of small multi-dwelling housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and cottage court housing. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Department) 1:38:55 P.M. PB Chair Salem opened the public hearing. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Dobbs appeared and stated the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would create a Missing Middle Overlay District; gave an overview of the need for affordable housing; reviewed the definition of cost burdened, severely cost burdened, and attainable housing units; noted there is an associated Comprehensive Plan amendment that the PB heard at their last meeting; gave a snapshot of 2022 median rent not including utilities; presented AMI statistics for 2022; discussed the definition of an Overlay District; pointed out the boundary of the proposed Overlay District noting it encompasses parcels within the Downtown Neighborhood Future Land Use classification however is only applicable to parcels zoned Downtown Neighborhood (DTN); stated Missing Middle housing types include duplexes; fourplexes; courtyard buildings and cottage courts; said the area is considered a walk to town neighborhood; pointed out the neighborhood requested the processing of the Zoning Text Amendment; discussed the purpose and benefits including protection of the character of single-family neighborhoods, provision of diverse housing, expands the supply of attainable housing, provides additional density to support businesses and transit, and encourages residential density and walkability; discussed the development standards noting no additional height and 5 parking spaces per dwelling unit is proposed; said the 5 parking spaces per dwelling unit is proposed for parcels with attainable units in all downtown zone districts; reviewed permitted structure types and design standards; presented a graphic showing examples of the housing types that are proposed; stated the recommendations are based on recommendations contained in the Local Affordable Housing Incentive Strategies and Blueprint for Workforce Housing reports; and discussed the timeline for implementation. 1:47:32 P.M. PB Member Halflants noted the Park East neighborhood had requested the Zoning Text Amendment and questioned if the MMOD could be expanded to other neighborhoods; questioned the proposed lot size requirements; and stated he felt the 25% threshold was too high, noting other cities commonly use a threshold of 15%. Senior Planner Dobbs confirmed the Park East neighborhood had requested the Zoning Text Amendment; discussed the Community Workshop that was held; stated expanding the MMOD to other neighborhoods would require additional Comprehensive Plan Amendment(s) and Zoning Text Amendment(s); stated staff has had discussions with the Coalition of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 11, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of9 City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA); and pointed out the standards could be revisited in the future. PB Member Christy questioned if the MMOD would automatically apply to parcels that are rezoned to the DTN zone district. Senior Planner Dobbs stated only within the boundary of the MMOD. PB Member Blumetti questioned the addition of the parcels zoned ILW; asked how the proposed boundary was determined; and questioned if on-street parking would be permitted. Senior Planner Dobbs pointed out the Future Land Use classification for the ILW zoned parcels is Urban Neighborhood; said the goal is to have the parcels that are currently zoned ILW rezoned to DTN to be consistent with the Future Land Use classification; stated the proposed boundary follows the existing Urban Neighborhood Future Land Use boundary; and confirmed on-street parking would be permitted. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned of other neighborhoods had expressed an interest; asked if staff had considered expanding the boundary; questioned the income range that would be required for a fourplex with one attainable unit; and questioned the parking requirements. Senior Planner Dobbs stated no other neighborhoods had expressed interest to staff; pointed out the area within the proposed boundary has a mix of units that was permitted under previous zoning; stated the income range for a fourplex with one attainable unit would be required to rent the unit at the lower end of the AMI range; and stated parking requirements are based on the primary street standards that are already applicable to most of the neighborhood. PB Chair Salem questioned the current density allowed on a 5000 sq. ft. lot within the proposed boundary; noted under the proposal a four-unit building could be built; and questioned if the additional density would be based on the zoning. Senior Planner Dobbs stated current density allowed on a 5000 sq. ft. lot would provide for a single- family unit; and stated four units could only be built if attainable housing is provided. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem questioned why the attainable units requirement was. for 30 years rather than perpetual; discussed rental rates based on the current AMI; and pointed out the proposal does not address the population that is cost burdened. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the 30-year requirement is based on current standards in the zoning code; and stated the focus is on the 60% to 120% AMI range. 2:00:45 P.M. Citizen Input: PB Chair Salem announced Ms. Monica Abbott did not wish to speak however wanted it on the record that she is opposed to the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Dan Lobeck appeared and stated the revisions to the parking requirements should be severed from the rest of the proposal since the proposed reduction in required parking spaces applies to all properties with a Downtown zoning; pointed out the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 11, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 9 existing issues with parking on Golden Gate Point; stated the proposed increase in density is a giveaway to developers, will not address societal needs, and there is no guarantee that the units will remain affordable; and stated the Park East Neighborhood Association has stated they are not ready to move forward yet. Mr. Lou Costa, President of CCNA appeared and stated he had spoken to the District 1 neighborhood associations and they all support the concept ifi it is successful in the Park East neighborhood; stated a vote against the proposal is a vote against District 1 neighborhoods and attainable housing; pointed out the proposal does not include a provision to expand administrative review; said the proposal is a step in the right direction; and stated CCNA support the Park East MMOD as a pilot. Mr. Tony Smith, President of the Park East Neighborhood Association, appeared and stated Park East is an old neighborhood; stated the zoning regulations implemented in the 1970s imposed limits on building anything other than single family homes; said that resulted in a lack of reinvestment in the community; pointed out currently only high end single family homes are being constructed in the neighborhood; noted duplexes, triplexes and similar structures are not currently allowed; and said implementing the MMOD would address the issue. Mr. Richard Harris appeared and stated he is on the Executive Board of CCNA, is President of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association, and is a CRA Board member; stated he supports the MMOD; discussed the history of 50-foot lot development in the Park East area; pointed out currently only single-family homes can be constructed; and said that needs to change. Mr. Norm Dumaine appeared and stated he was speaking as a citizen; stated he supports the MMOD in Park East; said the MMOD would allow for mixed flexible housing; and stated his opposition to the expansion of administrative review that is contained in the associated Comprehensive Plan amendment. 2:15:16. P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Senior Planner Dobbs appeared and pointed out the Golden Gate Point does not have downtown zoning, noting the zoning for Golden Gate Point is RMF-5; and stated as a result Golden Gate Point will not be impacted by the proposed changes to the parking requirements. PB Member Blumetti questioned what the sunset date of the RROD was; asked if there was any affordable housing built under the RROD; questioned if there was any new development in the RROD that did not take advantage of the of the affordable housing incentives; and asked if staff had considered raising densities without the attainable housing component. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the RROD sunset in 2019; said she was unaware of any new development in the RROD with or without using the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 11, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of9 affordable housing incentives; and stated staff felt the attainable housing requirements were needed to receive additional density. PB Member Halflants questioned if an average of the AMI could be used, stating the ranges were too complicated. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the ranges were important sO that all new development did not fall at 100% of the AMI. PB Member Christy asked if other jurisdictions used the .5 parking space per dwelling unit for affordable housing. Senior Planner Dobbs stated that is a common standard. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned how staff arrived at the 25% and .5 parking space per unit standards. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the 25% standard was included in the RROD, RMF-6, and RMF-7 districts; and stated the .5 parking space per unit is a common standard in other jurisdictions. PB Chair Salem questioned what the setbacks would be. Senior Planner Dobbs stated setbacks will be the same as what is required for the underlying zone district. Discussion ensued. 2:21:05 P.M. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. PB Chair Salem stated he felt the attainable requirement should be in perpetuity to coincide with the increased density; said developers won't want to construct mega homes next to duplexes/quadplexes; stated he felt the MMOD would work as intended; and noted the neighborhood's: support. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he felt the 30-year requirement for staying attainable was sufficient noting that is a standard period of time; said there is a lack of affordable housing citywide and without the MMOD expensive homes will be built; said the additional density is necessary; stated walkability is key to the success of the proposal; pointed out the need to address the needs of the people already living here; and noting walkability helps with traffic congestion. PB Member Blumetti stated he supports the increased density and attainable housing; said he fears if the requirements are too complicated the RROD experience will reoccur, and only single-family homes will be built; and stated the need for increased density and attainable housing. PB Member Christy stated he agreed with PB Chair Salem that the attainable requirement should be perpetual; and asked Attorney Connolly if there were any legal obstacles in doing sO. Attorney Connolly stated it is a policy question. PB Member Halflants said most buildings do not last 30 years; stated older buildings are more affordable; stated his support for increased density; pointed out the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 11, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 9 neighborhood is close to downtown which reduces parking and traffic; stated he disagrees there is no market for single family homes in Park East; said the 25% requirement was too high; stated the 12-unit limitation was appropriate; and commended the Park East neighborhood for initiating this proposal. PB Member Blumetti questioned if existing structures would be rent controlled. Attorney Connolly stated the requirements would apply to new development only. PB Chair Salem stated while all agree it is a good plan, there will always be a need for affordable housing; said if the requirements are only good for 30-years the issue will have to be addressed again in the future; and said that is why he feels the attainable requirement should be in perpetuity. PB Member Halflants stated if a unit stays attainable the owner will not be able to make a profit in the future. PB Chair Salem stated if a lower price wasi initially paid the owner should be willing to pass that on. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti stated his concerns that 30 years was not going to work, noting if in perpetuity it is less likely to work. PB vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find Zoning Text Amendment 22-ZTA-07 consistent with Section IV-1206 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to the City Commission. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1 with PB Member Christy voting no. The Planning Board Took a Five-Minute Break C. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. Sarasota Memorial Hospital (1705 & 1717 S. Osprey Avenue): Rezone Without a Site Plan Application No. 21-REN-06 is a request for Rezone Without Site Plan approval to rezone subject parcels with street addresses of 1705 and 1717 South Osprey Avenue from the Office Professional Business (OPB) zone district to the Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) zone district. The Future Land Use classification is Metropolitan Regional Site 8-SMH for all properties. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) 2:43:57 P.M. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those who were not present earlier. Applicant Presentation: Attorney Dan Bailey representing the Sarasota County Public Hospital District; Mr. Ryan Brady, Project Engineer, Stantec; and Ms. Laura Boyce, Senior Planner, Stantec appeared. Attorney Bailey discussed the requested rezoning noting three parcels at the intersection of a vacated portion of Hawthorne Street and S. Osprey Avenue were requested to be rezoned; noted the existing uses on those parcels; stated the applicants were seeking to rezone the parcels from the Office Professional Business (OPB) zone district to the Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) zone district; presented a graphic Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 11, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 9 depicting the Future Land Use classification and current zoning of the three parcels as well as the surrounding parcels; discussed the SMH zone district development standards, the history of the parcels that make up the SMH campus and future anticipated acquisitions; stated the overall floor area ratio (FAR) and maximum lot coverage are below the maximum allowable; pointed out the overall minimum Urban Open Space requirement is exceeded by 50%; noted the required Community Workshop had been held and no one attended; and said the applicants were in agreement with staff's S recommended stipulation. PBI Member Christy noted there was no accompanying site plan. Attorney Bailey stated there are no immediate plans to redevelop the parcels; noted a variance had been granted for the current setbacks of the existing structures; and pointed out any future development would have to comply with the required 25 ft. setback. Discussion ensued. 2:53:22 P.M. StaffPresentation: Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner, appeared and stated she was in agreement with the applicant's statements; confirmed OPB is the existing zoning; noted the SMH zone district was the only implementing zone district for the Future Land Use classification; said a variance to the 25' required setback has been granted; stated a Community Workshop was held and no one attended; stated the DRC signed-off on the project on 10/11/21; said the request is consistent with the Standards of Review; and stated staff had provided a recommended motion. The PB Members had no questions. 2:54:37 P.M. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find Rezone Application 21-REN-06 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition, subject to the following condition number one. PB Member Christy seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 2:55:18 P.M. Attorney Connolly called Mr. Joel Berwitein who had applied for Affected Person Status for the following public hearing. Mr. Berwitein was not present SO was not granted Affected Person Status. 2. 1251 4th Street: Rezone Without a Site Plan Application No. 22-REN-03 is a request for Rezone Without Site Plan approval to rezone the subject parcel with a street address of 1251 4th Street from Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district to Downtown Core (DTC) zone district. The current Future Land Use classification is Downtown Core (DTC). The 5,250 sq. ft. site is currently occupied by a 1,219 sq. ft. single family home. No changes to the site are proposed at this time. (Alison Christie, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 11, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 9 Applicant Presentation: Attorney Nancy Cason, representing the property owners; appeared and stated the request is to rezone a parcel located at 1251 4th Street from the Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district to the Downtown Core (DTC) zone district, consistent with the Future Land Use classification for the parcel of Downtown Core; stated there is an existing single family home on the site; said there are no plans to redevelop the parcel at this time; noted a Community Workshop was. held and no one attended; and requested the PB recommend to the City Commission approval of the rezoning request. The PB Members had no questions. 2:57:17P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Christie appeared and reiterated there are no plans to develop the site at this time; said future development will have to comply with the development standards for the DTC zone district; stated a Community Workshop was. held on7/15/21 and no one attended; stated a' Transportation Concurrency Review from September 2021 found the request to be di minimis; pointed out another Transportation Concurrency Review will be required for any: future development plans; said the request complies with the Standards of Review; and stated staff recommended approval with the noted condition. The PB Members had no questions. PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find Rezone 22-REN-03 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the Rezone to the City Commission, subject to the condition proposed by staff. PB: Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. V. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TOTHE. PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no citizen input. 2:59:35 P.M. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 13, 2022 PB Member Halflants requested the following revisions be made to the April 13, 2022, minutes: Page 3, bottom sentence, change "proposed densities" to "existing densities" Minutes of thé Regular Planning Board Meeting May 11, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 9 Page 5 change "noted he opposes the requirement for a super majority vote for Comprehensive Plan amendments" to "noted he opposes the inclusion of height and density requirements in the Comprehensive Plan since a super majority vote by the City Commission is required for approval of Comprehensive Plan amendments" 3:01:08 P.M. VII. 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 McAndrew gave a snapshot of the June meeting agenda; noted PB Vice Chair Clermont will not be present; stated there are four matters anticipated to be on that agenda, the first being a legislative public hearing regarding alcohol production; the second a legislative public hearing for a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Sarasota Kennel Club property followed by a quasi-judicial public hearing for associated rezone and site plan applications for that site; the third being a quasi-judicial public hearing for a proposed 23-unit project on Golden Gate Point; and the fourth being a quasi-judicial public hearing for Akoya Residences, a site plan for a 51-unit apartment building in the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD). Discussion ensued regarding possibly starting that meeting earlier or starting at 1:30 as usual and planning on taking a dinner break. The PB agreed by consensus to keep the start time at 1:30. Attorney Connolly pointed out there are several additional applications for apartment buildings on the North Trail; and noted there could be a great deal of interest in the Akoya Residences project since it will be the first one of several. 3:07:36 P.M. VIII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Blumetti questioned if valet parking regulations were under the Planning Board's purview. Attorney Connolly stated parking requirements in the Zoning Code are under the PB's] purview;and stated valet parking for special events is under the purview of the City Manager's office. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:09 P.M. Steven Cover Terrill Salem, Chair Planning Director Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Acting Secretary to the Board]