CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY August 20, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Negnborhooa & Development Services Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer Ryan Chapdelain, AICP, Chief Planner Miles Larsen, Manager-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. WORKSHOP TOPICS 1. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (2030) Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer, and Ryan Chapdelain, Chief Planner, appeared and presented a PowerPoint presentation (attached hereto as Exhibit "A") regarding the proposed text amendments. Ms. DavisShaw stated the proposed amendments to the full chapter would be presented at the September 17th special meeting however since the majority of the proposed revisions involved Objective 9 those proposed revisions were being presented in advance of that meeting. Ms. DavisShaw stated there were three topics: Level of Service (LOS), Mobility Districts, and proposed modifications to the Traffic Study Plan. Ms. DavisShaw stated a suburban model has been used in the past; roads have been rated using an A-F scale with "A" being traffic is moving freely and "F" being the road way is at capacity; the ratings are based on the pm peak hour (the busiest time of the day); the levels of service are defined in the Comprehensive Plan; the City is obligated to ensure roadways operate at the adopted Level of Service; the State Concurrency Statutes require local governments to adopt levels of service that can be reasonably met; $85 million needs to be invested over the next five years, not including additional development and/or funds from developers, to maintain the existing levels of service; current discussions revolve around where best to direct available funds; currently roadways are improved based on Minutes of the Planning Board Workshop August 20, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 5 how cars act at the pm peak hour; and the community wants changes to US 41 including multimodel projects such as roundabouts, wider sidewalks, and better transit stops. Chief Planner Chapdelain discussed the proposed Mobility Districts. Mr. Chapdelain presented a map indicating the proposed districts; stated the districts were patterned after the City's Future Land Use Map; policies in the Transportation, Future Land Use, and Neighborhood Chapters were considered; stated there were three districts: a Downtown District that is a high density, urban hub, major revenue generator, with a multimodel network in place; a Commercial Corridor District that contains concentrated development, linear connections to different parts of the City, links higher density areas of the City, contains low to mid-level rise buildings, has a mix of employment and residential uses, and the transportation network is bicycle/ pedestrian friendly; and a Single Use/Neighborhood District that contains single family and low intensity commercial uses. Mr. Chapdelain discussed the proposed tiered development review process stating the goals are to encourage the right development in the right location and protect single use areas; the process is more predictable; noted fees will still have to be paid; concurrency is not being eliminated; the proposed thresholds are based on review of traffic studies over the past ten years and development objective of the districts; site access circulation will have to be evaluated regardless of the size of the development; developments will have to comply with the Future Land Use, zoning, and other City codes; and discussed trip generation thresholds for the proposed districts. Ms. DavisShaw discussed the differences in how projects are reviewed/evaluated stating under the current system if a proposed development is not deemed deminimus a traffic study is required which creates unknowns; the proposed process is based on thresholds, payments are made that go into a fund used to make improvements identified in the CIP; if the thresholds are exceeded a traffic study would be required; the proposed process provides for predictability and encourages development in desired areas; site access is still evaluated and any necessary site specific improvements have to be made regardless of impacts to the surrounding transportation network; if improvements to a roadway that is not in the CIP are required the developer pays a proportionate share into a fund and the City Commission could add the project to the CIP; and noted the proposed process gives the community the ability to say what improvements are made. PB member Svekis questioned the LOS for US 41 and Mound Street noting the roadway cannot be widened and several new large developments are in the works. Ms. DavisShaw stated the LOSis "F" at seasonal pm peak hour and noted under the current system if the intersection is already failing the developer cannot be held responsible for improvements; the City designates the LOS and is responsible for maintaining that; if the roadways are performing appropriately and a proposed development will degrade that the developer will have to make the improvements that are proportionate to their development; noted the Vue is being developed under the current system, since it is already failing the City cannot make the developer improve the intersection, the City has to make the improvements, and noted a roundabout is being constructed at that intersection. PB: member Siegel questioned if, under the proposed system, a developer was willing to fund improvements deemed necessary based on a traffic study would the City not allow the development to occur to the extent it could be built out. Ms. DavisShaw stated the City has Minutes of the Planning Board Workshop August 20, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 5 an obligation to ensure roads function properly and if a development is consistent with the City's land use plan and the developer is willing to do the improvements the City cannot deny the development because they don't want the improvements made. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated based on her past experiences the "adjacent" roadways that were included in a traffic study were not actually adjacent; neighborhood roads are not included in traffic studies; safety is not considered; she likes the proposed process; she feels the community likes the proposed process; and stated the need to ensure verbiage used is understandable to the average person. Ms. Davis Shaw stated only thoroughfare streets are evaluated; if the LOS is not degraded impact fees have to be paid however no actual improvements have to be made; and if improvements are required the developer would be responsible for their proportionate share. PB: member Lindsay stated the process needs to take into account how property is bought/sold and projects planned noting developers and sellers have difficulties agreeing on a price due to the requirement to perform a traffic study and delays caused by that; not knowing if the project can actually be done until the traffic study is completed creates a situation where the property owner either has to carry the property for several years or sell at a very low price; and suggested the process should include more decision making upfront. Ms. DavisShaw stated under the current system a traffic study is required regardless of if the counts are relatively small; noted the results may not be desirable to the community; stated the new process uses thresholds; developers still have to know the number of trips that will be generated; if trips generated are within the threshold the developer can pay an impact fee and go forward; if the trips generated exceed the threshold a traffic study will have to be performed; and stated the new process is more predictable. PB: member Svekis questioned if it would be possible to determine traffic counts in the future based on the number of parking spaces and the hours of operation rather that traffic studies; stated US 41 has four lanes to the north and six lanes to the south and because of that diversity adding a multimodel system such as SCAT would decrease the LOS;and questioned how that was included in the calculations. Ms. DavisShaw stated basing traffic counts on parking spaces and operating hours is uncommon however she didn'tknow that it couldn'tbe done. Mr. Chapdelain stated the Future Land Use Map was relied on to calculate the LOS. Ms. DavisShaw stated traffic counts are based on operation; multimodel systems such as SCAT are somewhat accounted for if impacting the speed or volume of vehicles; and with the new process if SCATi improvements such as bus pullouts or jump lanes are desired those can be identified as multimodel improvements and funded as such. PB Chair Gallagher suggested it may be valuable for a matrix to be provided that shows how the conditions under the proposed system would be better for neighborhoods and developers. PB: member Ahearn-Koch requested the map of the proposed districts be enlarged; questioned if when reviewing traffic studies over the past ten years projections for future traffic were included; questioned how the three districts were determined; and noted there are sensitive areas in the City that have to be kept in mind. Ms. DavisShaw stated projections for future traffic have been included in past studies. Mr. Chapdelain stated the three districts were based on defined areas and noted the Downtown District was based on Minutes of the Planning Board Workshop August 20, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 5 the existing downtown districts and did not include Laurel Park. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned the proposed Commercial Corridor boundaries on the north trail and south trail, specifically the area south of Hampton Road. Mr. Chapdelain stated those boundaries were based on land uses. PB member Svekis noted the verbiage on Page 10 of the proposed text amendments that replaces " shall be required" with "are encouraged" and questioned why encouraged" if there is no force behind it; stated he was suspicious of numbers that end in zero; questioned the basis for the threshold numbers; and questioned the process for updating the thresholds in the future. Ms. DavisShaw stated "are encouraged" is proposed due to lack of staffing to enforce required" and the numbers end in zero because the Mobility Districts are based on thresholds rather than actual numbers. Mr. Chapdelain stated there would be opportunities to revisit the thresholds in the future. PB member Ahearn-Koch requested an explanation of Action Strategy 9.3 and the last sentence of Action Strategy 9.10. Ms. DavisShaw stated even if a traffic study is not required specific sites will be evaluated and any necessary improvement will have to be made and there could potentially be a location where the right-of-way is not open and the community wants it open SO staff did not want to prohibit that. PB member Svekis questioned how old the listing of projects was and if there was a process for re-evaluating the list. Mr. Chapdelain stated the list of projects was updated last year. Ms. DavisShaw stated the City Commission has a public hearing on the list of projects every year. PB member Svekis questioned if it would be legal for the Planning Board to have an internet message board that would be available to the Planning Board members and the public 24/7. Attorney Connolly stated that would be a violation of the Sunshine Law because any communication between two or more Planning Board members regarding issues that it is foreseeable would come before the Planning Board at a future date must occur at a meeting that is open to the public, the public can attend and participate in, minutes are taken, and the meeting is advertised in advance. 2. URBAN DESIGN STUDIO PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS. Ms. Karin Murphy, Director, Urban Design Studio, Mr. Andrew Georgiadis, Principal Urban Designer, Urban Design Studio, Summer Intern Patrick Braga, and Summer Intern Brianna Dobbs appeared and presented a PowerPoint presentation (attached hereto as Exhibit "B"). Ms. Murphy stated she hoped the work the Urban Design Studio (UDS) has done would add clarity to the work done by Ms. DavisShaw and Mr. Chapdelain noting local streets are a very important part of a Form Based Code; stated a 180 day work plan had been identified at the joint workshop between the Planning Board and City Commission in December 2013; stated a lot of community outreach and education has taken place; the community has been educated on the difference between a Form Based Code and the existing Code; they have hosted numerous citizens and groups at the Studio; a significant number of external events have occurred including walking audits and participation in community events; thousands of residents and stakeholders have participated; the Minutes of the Planning Board Workshop August 20, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 5 Environmental, Future Land Use, and Transportation Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan are addressed in this cycle; and the primary task is to develop a Form Based Code. Ms. Murphy, Mr. Georgiadis, and Intern Braga discussed the proposed Environmental Chapter amendments including the natural transect, upland policies, outdated policies; and flood zone adaptation; discussed the proposed Transportation Chapter amendments including the multi-model transportation, revisiting primary and secondary street designations, and the expansion of bicycle facilities; discussed the proposed Future Land Use Chapter amendments including study areas, transect zones, catalyst plans, tree preservation, parkland acess/acquisition, potential transformations to the Tamiami Trail, and code issues including building standards, arcades, parking, and signage. Ms. Murphy discussed the next steps in the process stating they would be coming to the Planning Board in October with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code text amendments and would be providing the City Commission with a status report in September. PB: member Lindsay left at 8:05 pm. PB member Svekis questioned the use of the terms "synoptic" and Euclidean" ; questioned if the traffic from the UTC Mall was being taken into consideration; and noted the increasing use of electric cars and questioned how those were being accommodated. Ms. Murphy stated the terms "synoptic" and Euclidean" were defined in newsletters and through discussions with various groups; noted she and Mr. Georgiadis had provided planning services to surrounding government agencies, the MPO is updating their plan, and stated the need for regional discussions. Mr. Georgiadis stated the barriers to accommodating electric cars include having to swap out the entire fleet, the electrical production and distribution networks would have to be upgraded, and building the infrastructure at the scale needed to accommodate the electric cars. Ms. Murphy stated the UDS had been coordinating with other agencies regarding future regional transportation needs and discussed statistics regarding the use of cars versus other transportation options. PB Chair Gallagher noted the upcoming special meetings in September. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm. avic CG - David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Chair 10-8-14 Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]