CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Vald Svekis, Chair Members Present: Robert Lindsay, Vice-Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Chris Gallagher, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Neghborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager-Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLMEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Svekis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY General Manager Smith stated Ringling College of Art & Design consisted of two applications, a street vacation, which is a non-quasi-judicial public hearing, and a site plan, which is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Both applications were listed together as a non-quasi-judicial hearing, however, the site plan application should be quasi-judicial. General Manager Smith stated the Planning Board had two options, one would be to split the public hearings with the street vacation remaining under the non-quasi-judicial public hearings and move the site plan to the quasi-judicial public hearings; the second option would be to keep the public hearings consolidated into one item, as shown on the agenda, but move the items to the quasi-judicial public hearing section of the agenda. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated that the two public hearings were advertised correctly; added that the applicant prefers the two hearings remain consolidated; explained that this has been done historically because the public testimony is related; and emphasized that if the hearings are consolidated the public will have one opportunity to speak on both, however there must be two separate motions. After discussion consensus was to keep the items consolidated. As a result, the agenda was renumbered, as follows: Item III.B.3., McBean Boys & Girls Club Right-of- Way Vacation, moves up to become item III.B.2.; Item III.B.2., Ringling College of Art & Design, moves down to become new Item III.C.1.; and Current Item III.C.1., Oakridge Apartments, is renumbered to become Item III. C.2. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 26 Attorney Connolly discussed the time limits and administered the oath to those wishing to speak. 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 thel Planning Board.) A. Reading of the Pledge of Conduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. B. Non Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - SIGNS: Application 15-ZTA-01 proposes to amend Section VII-109 of the Zoning Code, entitled "Signs Prohibited in all Zoning Districts" to provide that for purposes of the prohibition against privately installed signs in the public right of way; on public buildings; on utility poles, etc.; that the word 'sign" shall have its commonly understood dictionary meaning and the narrower definition of the word "sign" found in Section II-201 of the Zoning Code shall not apply. (Robert M. Fournier, City Attorney) Staff Presentation: Attorney Fournier stated this issue was presented to the City Commission several months ago; explained that it relates to private signs that are installed, or intended to be placed in the public right of way such as streets or sidewalks; pointed out that the City is primarily regulating commercial signs as opposed to political signs; discussed the history of the amendment stating that in an effort to address the panhandler problem in the downtown area, Mr. Ron Soto, the Chair of the Downtown Sarasota Merchants Association (DSMA), started a program called Downtown Cares, urging people who are downtown to donate in collection boxes located in the stores rather than giving directly to the panhandlers, the proceeds of which are forwarded to service providers (benefiting the homeless); added that Mr. Michael Barfield objected to the content of the message of the signs and questioned their legality, and the reasons for which they were allowed on the public right of way; explained that the reason they were allowed is because these signs did not fall within the definition of signs found in the City's Zoning Code; added that when he explained to Mr. Barfield that the A-frame signs did not meet the definition of signs for the City, Mr. Barfield displayed his own A-frame signs with his own messages; stated that when this issue was discussed at the City Commission meeting he pointed out that sidewalks and streets are traditional public forum for First Amendment, and the City would find it extremely difficult to regulate the content of signs, because sign regulations need be content neutral; added the choice was to leave that section of the Zoning Code as is, which would allow the DSMA and Mr. Barfield to display their signs, and the City could potentially have to protect them from vandalism; stated that if the PB chooses to approve the proposed text amendment, which includes a broader definition of the term "sign," this definition will be used only in Section VII-109 of the Zoning Code; explained that the new expanded definition enables the City to continue to regulate signs on a limited basis, noted the City would not regulate political signs; and stated Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 26 both the DSMA signs and Mr. Barfield's signs would be prohibited under the proposed amendment, only government signs would be allowed on the public right of way. Discussion ensued regarding vandalism of signs, liability for injuries from tripping or falling over the signs, the purpose of the proposed amendment, permitting of the signs, enforcement, displaying signs on store fronts rather than in the right-of-way, and signs placed in areas permitted for sidewalk cafes. Attorney Fournier stated that the purpose of this Section of the Zoning Code is to allow only the placement of governmental signs on public right of way, and you don't want to regulate political signs as opposed to commercial signs; added that there was a loophole in the regulations, and it was discovered by the circumstances that were just explained; stated that the purpose of prohibiting a private sign in the public right of way is liability, the potential proliferation of signs in the public right of way, interference with governmental signs, interference with traffic flow, etc. Discussion ensued regarding private signs in the public right-of-way in general, the status of the dispute with Mr. Barfield, and how tube dude signs fit into the definition of signs. Attorney Fournier explained that these signs do not require permits because they do not fall within the definition of signs in the Zoning Code, SO what the City is trying to do is come up with a sign definition for the section of Zoning Code that prohibits signs in the public right of way; stated that the PB was free to reject the amendment, but as a result there must be tolerance with signs in the public right of way if the signs do not fall under the definition currently found in the Zoning Code; added that is the reason he proposed to either leave the Zoning Code as is, or clarify what is prohibited without referring to the content of the sign, stated that the City Commission chose to send this forward; noted there are two new Commissioners that will be considering the proposed amendment when the item came back before them and he could not say what the City Commission would eventually do; pointed out that Zoning Code amendment procedures require that PB provide a recommendation to the City Commission; and explained that the establishments get sidewalk café permits that indicate the permitted areas and have conditions as to what is allowed and not allowed to occur within the permitted areas. PB: member Lindsay asked if the permitted merchant has the authority to remove a sign that has been placed within the permitted area. Attorney Fournier stated the City, based on notification by the permitted merchant, has the authority to remove a sign located in the permitted area, just like the removal of objects that are not allowed within the permitted area according to the conditions of the permit. PB member Lindsay clarified the question, describing a scenario where a third party placed a sign within the permitted area. Attorney Fournier said the merchant is responsible for the permitted area, and can remove anything that is not allowed in that area based on the conditions of the permit; stated that tube dudes do not fit into the definition of signs either, they are however addressed by other ordinances; and added that there are two upcoming ordinances that the PB members will not see because they are: not in the Zoning Ordinance they are in the City Code, which discusses objects in the public right of way. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 26 Citizen Testimony: Mr. Ron Soto appeared and expressed concerns about the proposed language in the City Code because it prohibits all the A-frame signs including those placed out by the merchants promoting their businesses; or show what they do, which are considered good components in a walkable city, according to the experts, SO long as they are placed appropriately and do not interfere with the pedestrian traffic; pointed out that the prohibition of signs will apply to areas outside the downtown, such as St. Armand's S Key and the Gulfgate area; stated that it is better to require permits, list allowable permitted uses, and add conditions such as a person getting the permit is a business owner, SO that anybody cannot put up a sign; noted that there is an ordinance now that allows each business to have one A-frame sign on their private property; explained that the problem is that buildings come to the edge of the private property and there is no way to put a sign on the private property; and stated that a new ordinance stating that if you are a business owner you can have an A-frame sign placed on the public right of way, excluding the walkway area, needed to be written. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. Attorney Fournier stated that currently there are provisions for A-frame signs in another section of the Zoning Code, but it is like comparing apples and oranges; added that the signs in the pictures Mr. Soto shared are falling in the "sign" definition of the Zoning Code and are permitted; added that they are prohibited from being placed on the public right of way both by the current regulations and by the proposed amendment; noted that he supports these signs for the merchants but they are addressed in a different Zoning Code section than the one subject to the proposed amendment; and suggested that PB members may make another motion directing staff to review the other Zoning Code section. PB: member Siegel asked if a permitting process could provide better control on the content and the placement of signs. Attorney Fournier said it could help, however he has to look into it further, to determine if it is feasible, and if its implementation and enforcement would be administratively or fiscally burdensome, those are the things that require further study. PB member Gallagher made a motion that the issue be referred to staff for review then brought back to the PB. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. Attorney Fournier supported the idea of sending this to the staff. PB member Lindsay asked if there were regulations relating to the permitting of signs noting then there could be control over the content of the sign, such as to promote a menu, or show hours of operation. Attorney Fournier stated that they can state anything if the sign is on private property, the legal questions appear when the sign is in the public right of way. PB: member Lindsay noted that if they are regulated and used properly, such as promote the business, then the City would not be giving the merchants an unfair advantage of freedom of speech to promote their own propaganda such as the homeless issue for example; and added that there is nothing that stops a merchant to put signs on the window. Attorney Fournier agreed, adding that even if the proposed Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 26 amendment is approved, the merchants can still display signs on their own property, not on the public right of way. PB member Lindsay asked if there were regulations on what merchants can display on the windows. Attorney Fournier stated that there is a limit to the area of the window the sign covers, but the message can be anything they want. PB Chair Svekis pointed out that according to the code, a sign cannot be closer than five feet from the public right of way, if the window is up to the edge of the right of way they cannot put the sign there. Attorney Fournier said that this is yet another related regulation found in another section of the Zoning Code. PB member Gallagher repeated his motion and Mr. Siegel seconded it. General Manager Smith asked if PB member Gallagher was looking for something specific. PB member Gallagher supported his motion stating that the proposed text amendment includes legal issues and aesthetic issues, and as such, it could be reviewed under the EDCM, because it falls in the right of way, and by the City Engineer; explained that it goes across several disciplines, and each of these departments has to weigh on this issue and come back to the PB; added that this approach would allow the PB to get to the heart of the issue, review the Zoning Code and update provisions that predate the downtown code; and stated he would like to have comments from all the departments that could be affected by the proposed regulations. Attorney Fournier provided clarification, and stated that the proposed amendment relates to Zoning Code Section VII-109, while the section Mr. Soto referred to is Section VII-108 (4), "Portable Signs, Temporary Signs. " PB member Siegel, speaking to his second, stated that he supports the idea of further study and discussion; added he supports more clarity on the issue, believes this needs regulation, whether it is on public or private property; and thinks that clear language is needed to express the policy and the intentions of the City, SO as to stay away from litigation and scrutiny which is difficult, unlike the rational cases, where the government wins ninety percent of the cases. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she supports the motion. PB: member Lindsay stated he supports the motion because it would bring the conversation on this issue and will address it the best way possible, with public safety, and appropriate use of public right of way in mind, and not with the intent to regulate content. PB Chair Svekis stated that occasionally things go awry and we have to find solutions, unfortunately in the search of good solutions there are unintended consequences, and he supports the motion, hoping to iron the problems out, as much as possible, both practically and legally. Attorney Connolly asked for clarity before the vote on the motion; stated that Attorney Fournier brought before the PB. Zoning Text Amendment 15-ZTA-01 which deals with amendments to Zoning Code Section VII-109; asked if the PB members' discussion relates to what Mr. Soto discussed in regard to Zoning Code Section VII- 108, or the PB members intend this motion for both; and asked what the PB members were referring to staff for further study. PB member Gallagher said that in order for staff to have a good discussion on the topic, they must look at both sections. Attorney Fournier stated that in his opinion two motions are required, because they are two different Sections of the Zoning Code; pointed out that there is a proposed Zoning Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 26 Text Amendment before the PB relating to Section VII-109, that his presentation was about, the PB can recommend approval or denial for it, and he has no recommendation; he added that Mr. Soto brought forward a related issue about temporary signs, found in Zoning Code Section VII-108; explained that earlier in the meeting he recommended PB members forward that section to staff for further review; explained that the City Commission expects a PB recommendation for approval or denial on the proposed amendments to Section VII-109. PB member Gallagher withdrew his original motion and Mr. Siegel withdrew his second. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly suggested the following language: "Move to recommend to the City Commission denial ofZoning Text Amendment 15-ZTA-01, because there is not enough evidence that it is in the public interest in serving a valid purpose, because it needs further vetting." PB member Gallagher agreed with this wording of the motion. PB member Lindsay asked if they could make an alternative motion to continue to a date certain. Attorney Connolly said that was an option, and usually it would be listed with the others, however what is different about this is that it is not an application from a third party that needs to go through the process, rather it is an assignment from the City Commission to the City Attorney, and he has to report back the PB's recommendation. PB member Siegel explained that he is trying to avoid taking a vote that would reject the fact that the PB found no public purpose in this; added that if this is on the record, down the road it could be an impediment in trying to solve this problem; stated it is a mistake to use the words "no public interest, or public purpose is served through this" because it could come back to haunt us. Attorney Connolly suggested the following rewording of the motion: "Move to recommend to the City Commission denial of Zoning Text Amendment 15-ZTA-01, because there is not yet adequate evidence that it is in the public interest and serving a valid purpose, because it needs more vetting. PB member Gallagher accepted this wording for his motion. PB: member Ahearn- Koch seconded the motion. The motion passed 3/2 with PB member Siegel and Chair Svekis voting no. 2. MCBEAN BOYS & GIRLS CLUB RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION: Application 15-SV-05 is a request to vacate an approximately 55 foot wide by 292 foot long unimproved segment of North Osprey Avenue running north and south between 20th Street and 19th Street. The purpose of the vacation is to incorporate the vacated right of way into the existing Roy McBean Boys & Girls Club campus in order to develop a youth development and recreational park. (LUCIA PANICA, PLANNER) Staff Presentation: Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; stated the proposed street vacation relates to a 55 ft. by 292.38 ft. unimproved section of right of way for North Osprey Avenue; explained North Osprey Avenue runs north-south and is located east of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 26 North Orange Avenue and west of Gillespie Avenue; noted that the right of way area proposed for vacation dead ends at a previously vacated portion of 19th street to the south and is bounded by 20th street to the north; showed photographs of the area; added the parcel to the west of the subject right of way is owned by the City of Sarasota Housing Authority, the eastern portion of which is under a long term lease to the Boys and Girls Club of Sarasota County Inc.; stated that there are two vacant parcels abutting the subject parcel on the east, one is under contract for purchase with the Boys and Girls Club, and the other is owned by the Florida Department of Health; noted the applicant is requesting the right of way vacation to consolidate the existing Boys and Girls Club facility and the parcel proposed for acquisition in order to make it part of their campus and develop youth recreational facilities such as soccer and baseball fields; stated that formal plans regarding any future development have not been submitted for review, however prior to any future development, the parcels to the east would need to be rezoned to Governmental and would require Site Plan and Major Conditional Use for expansion of the Boys and Girls Club facility; noted that the City does not maintain this parcel, the City of Sarasota Utilities Department, Verizon, Florida Power & Light Co., COMCAST, and TECO/Peoples Gas do not have any interests in the right of way; noted there are no rearrangements of streets, rights of way, easements or non-fee interests that are required as a result of this vacation; added that this request is beneficial to the applicant but there are community benefits as well; in talking with the Boys and Girls Club they have indicated that there has been criminal activity at the parcel, and people throw trash there, sO potentially these things will be mitigated if the property is developed, also the additional facilities will provide additional services to the patrons. Planner Panica stated staff finds Street Vacation 15-SV-05 consistent with the Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code, and recommends to the City Commission approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. PB: member Lindsay questioned if the right of way to the south of the subject parcel had already been vacated. Planner Panica stated that both Osprey Avenue and 19th Street south of the subject parcel have been vacated; responding to PB member Ahearn-Koch's question, Planner Panica stated the sidewalk seen in the earlier pictures is not affected by the proposed change, because it stops south of the subject parcel. PB: member Lindsay questioned the impacts of the proposed vacation on the parcel owned by the Health Department, to the east. Planner Panica stated that the applicant is interested in purchasing it, and has contacted the State about it. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, representing the Boys and Girls Club, identified himself for the record and provided additional information; stated that the applicant has submitted the necessary documents to the State for the purchase of their parcel, and when that is completed it will be incorporated in the campus of Boys and Girls Club; a Master Plan will be developed for this area to include passive and active recreation fields; stated that these vacant parcels have been sites of criminal activity in the past, and the proposed change will mitigate that problem; added that his office was ready to continue with the master plan for the site but it is an expensive project, and the Boys and Girls Club, being a non-profit organization, must wait until they have control of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 26 the property before initiating fundraising activities for future development; in conclusion he stated that the staff report is complete and the applicant is agreeable to the staff conditions. PB Chair Svekis questioned the age of the soccer players and the size of the field they need to develop; Mr. Michael Beaumier, Chair of the Building Committee of the Boys and Girls Club, stated that they are considering a number of options, including different sizes of soccer fields; they will make final decisions after they have control of the property, they plan to make their campus better for the benefit of the 6,000 children they serve in their programs; even if they do not develop the area immediately, they will fence it in and clean it up. PB Chair Svekis expressed concerns about the multifamily development to the east. Mr. Freedman stated that all those concerns would be addressed as part of the Major Conditional Use application. PB Chair Svekis pointed out that the Boys and Girls Club have a long term lease yet they are buying the adjacent property, and asked what would happen should the lease be discontinued and they are left with a land locked property. Mr. Beaumier indicated that private donors have collected funds and have approached the Housing Authority to purchase the property for the Boys and Girls Club, and in the end it will all be consolidated. PB Chair Svekis stated that this proposal is a worthwhile project and a good thing for the community and the children. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB Member Ahearn-Koch made a motion to find Street Vacation 15-SV-05 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to second reading of the Ordinance granting approval of the vacation of the North Osprey Ave right-of-way, the applicant shall provide proof that the purchase contract for the eastern abutting lot located at 1900 North Osprey Avenue, Parcel Identification Number 2024-09-0001, has closed. The applicant shall provide the city with a copy of the deed by which applicant obtained title to said property. The copy shall contain the recording data established that the original of the deed was recorded in the official records of Sarasota County. PB member Gallagher seconded the motion. PB Member Ahearn-Koch stated that it is a wonderful thing for the City, all the ducks are lined up, and it is an improvement and a value to the community. PB member Gallagher stated he had no concerns since 19th Street to the south is vacated, and the Standards for Review of Street Vacations are satisfied. PB member Siegel stated that he had visited the property and he thinks it is a good plan and supports it. The motion passed unanimously. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 5 MINUTE RECESS Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 26 C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings Attorney Connolly explained the following two public hearings include Site Plan applications, and therefore, per Florida Law and Sarasota City Code, are subject to the Quasi-judicial process, which is more formal than the legislative process; added that in this process there are parties to the public hearing, they are the applicant, the City, and anyone who has applied and received what is called "affected person's status" under the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code; pointed out that parties can provide testimony in the form of documentation and expert opinions, parties can cross examine and provide rebuttal; noted PB decisions are based on information submitted on the record and at the beginning of the meeting, PB members must disclose if they have had any "ex-parte" communications about the public hearings; and established the time limits as follows: For the two applications of the Ringling School of Art & Design 25 minutes for the applicants and the City Five minutes for affected persons, Three minutes for citizens, and For the OakRidge Apartments Ten minutes for the applicants and the City Five minutes for affected persons, and Three minutes for citizens. Attorney Connolly stated that Mr. Richard Martin qualified as an affected person for the Ringling application. PB Chair Svekis asked if there were any "ex-parte" communications. PB Member Ahearn-Koch indicated that she had conversations with Mr. Kirschner during which both the Ringling School and the Osprey applications were mentioned but not discussed; noted that the Osprey application was mentioned and discussed at the CCNA meeting the previous Saturday; and added that it was mentioned in an article in the Observer that she did not have time to read. Responding to PB Chair Svekis' question, Attorney Connolly stated that the review standards for a Vacation of Right-of-way are different than those for Site Plan review. 1. RINGLING COLLEGE OF ART & DESIGN (2363 & 2390 OLD BRADENTON ROAD, 2210 N TAMIAMI TRIAL, 1228 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WAY): Applications 15-SV-02 & 15-SP-01 request site plan approval to construct a new library building on a 3.28 acre site on the southeast corner of Old Bradenton Road and Dr. Martin Luther King] Jr Way located in the Office Regional District (ORD) Zone District and the Ringling Overlay District. The new library will replace the existing Kimbrough Library. The applicant is also seeking to vacate a segment of Old Bradenton Road between US41 and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Way. (LUCIA PANICA, PLANNER) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 26 Mr. Dan Bailey representing the Ringling School of Art and Design, introduced himself for the record and also introduced Dr. Larry Thompson, President of the College; Mr. Todd Sweet, the architect for the library project; and Mr. Mark Adler, the Engineer of the project. Mr. Bailey stated they are asking for the following five distinct things: 1. Site Plan approval for the new library 2. The vacation of the segment of Old Bradenton Road between US 41 and Dr. Martin Luther Kingl Jr. Way, and in connection with that 3. Two Quit Claim Deeds, one at the northern section of that road, where the City has acquired maintenance rights; 4. Another one is a strip that was donated by the College to the City several years ago, but they want it back if they can get I back 5. And the last thing will be to amend the master plan for the College consistent with what is being requested today. Dr. Thompson presented a brief description of the College pointing out that it is one of the best art schools in the country, they have 1300 students (of USA and international origins), two thirds of whom live on campus; added that they have grown a lot since the 1980s when the library was built and their enrollment was 300 students; added that their strategic plan is to increase enrollment to 1500 in the next couple years and to 2000 soon after that; noted they are a high tech campus and the proposed library will be equally high tech, added that it will cost approximately 19 to 20 million dollars and they have already raised 15 million dollars; and noted they want to begin construction immediately SO they can use the library in the 2016-17 school year. Dr. Thompson discussed the request to vacate the portion of Old Bradenton Road from US 41 to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way; stated that the school owns all of the property along the road, with the exception of three homes, the owners of which are in support of the vacation; the reason for the vacation request is that this road is used as the speedway to the airport, cars are flying through, it is very unsafe and puts the students in danger, particularly after the construction of the new library, when students will be crossing the street even more; and noted that two thirds of the traffic on the Old Bradenton Road is through traffic not serving any residences. Mr. Sweet discussed the library design stating it is open and encourages collaboration; is reflective of and inspired by the Sarasota School of architecture; stated the approximately 3 acre site is located on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Old Bradenton Road and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way; the existing building will be removed; the new library is 45,000 sq. ft., triple the capacity of the current library; and stated the building is in compliance with the Ringling Overlay District. PB: member Ahearn-Koch requested information about tree removal. Mr. Phil Smith, Tree Arborist, stated their plan indicates six grand trees, noted two near the building will be removed because they have decayed cores, added that the two near the roadway do not have decay but they have structural issues and they will keep them, and noted the ones in green will be kept as well. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked about the proposed Planting Plan. Mr. Smith stated that there was a very intensive Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 26 landscape plan; on the site a shallow retention area covered with grass, which they plan to make a focal point and make it a display of environmental planting of native plants and trees which will result in heavy vegetation; a portion of the walkway along the bayou is a boardwalk and the rest is gravel, it is path students can take from the retention area to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Way. PB member Gallagher questioned if the building met the requirements of the Ringling Overlay District, where the building meets the streets. Mr. Sweet explained that the Overlay District requires a 25 ft. active space along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way, for at least 50% of the façade; stated the proposed design has a 10 ft. setback with a grade differential, a slope, between the sidewalk and the level of the first floor, and in the slope there are retaining walls allowing landscaping in a tiered layout, to help make up for the 5 ft. grade differential between the sidewalk and the level of the finished floor of the building. PB Member Ahearn-Koch asked if there was a gate or a wall along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Way and what the height was. Mr. Sweet stated there is not a gate, just the retaining walls. Mr. Adler stated that it is low, because it is not intended to separate the building from the street; and made a correction stating the grade is 8.5 ft. not 5ft with vegetation for active space. Mr. Bailey discussed the request to vacate a portion of Old Bradenton Road stating it was part of the plat of the school in 1926, stated there were three residential lots abutting the south portion of Old Bradenton Road; noted all three property owners supported the proposed street vacation; noted easements would have to be granted to the City; stated that portion of Old Bradenton Road is predominately a short cut for northbound traffic; noted approximately 130 pedestrians use the road daily and that will increase once the new library is built; stated any increase in traffic resulting from the vacation of Old Bradenton Road could be mitigated with the creation of a right hand turn lane at the intersection of US 41 and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Way; stated that the segment of Old Bradenton Road proposed for vacation was classified as a local street on the City's Thoroughfare Plan; stated it is designated as a major collector road which he considers inappropriate; and pointed out the segment of Old Bradenton Road north of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Way had been vacated for the Airport. Mr. Bailey discussed Old Bradenton Road's role in the street grid system; stated the main issue is public safety for pedestrians; noted other large campuses in the area (Booker High School and SMH) had vacated streets to make their campuses function better; stated Sarasota High closes School Avenue part of the day during school hours; and First Baptist Church had vacated Kings Court. Mr. Bailey stated staffs recommended conditions were acceptable however the applicants were concerned about dedicating land for a right turn lane at US 41 and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Way and had prepared proposed revisions to that recommended condition. PB: member Siegel asked if there was any documentation toj justify the concerns for pedestrian safety expressed earlier. Dr. Thompson stated there were none, just several close calls; added this portion of Old Bradenton Road does not serve a public purpose; noted only three residences are located in that area and all three support the vacation. PB member Siegel stated that he observed the traffic at that intersection and he was surprised at the amount of traffic that used this road; added that PB members are bound by Action Strategy 2.8 of the Transportation Plan and the four standards of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 26 review for vacations of rights-of way; and it comes down to the public purpose and public interest. Mr. Bailey stated that public safety is in the public interest; added that this road is designated as a local street; and stated it is a discrepancy in the plan, if this is to function as a collector it should be included in the Thoroughfare Plan under that designation. Discussion ensued regarding the effectiveness of traffic calming tables; the intersection of Old Bradenton Road and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way; and the ability to limit traffic on the segment of proposed for vacation if the vacation is approved. Planner Panica, and Senior Planner Mendez introduced themselves for the record, and explained that Planner Panica will present information on the Site Plan and Senior Planner Mendez will present information on the right-of-way vacation. Planner Panica stated that the applicant did a great job presenting the Site Plan and she will address some Zoning issues; noted that the subject parcel is located in the Office Regional District (ORD) and the Ringling Overlay District (ROD); pointed out that the applicant is requesting Site Plan approval to allow the construction of an approximate 45,515 square foot library, the proposed library will replace the existing library; added that the applicant has not indicated what will happen to the existing library building; noted that a library is a permitted accessory use to a college and subject to the RCAD pursuant to Zoning Code Section VI.908(c)(3)b); added that pursuant to Zoning Code Sectionll-90810)2). all of the lots owned by the RCAD and within the ROD may be combined to satisfy development standards such as density, floor area ratio, building coverage and parking and loading requirements, even when the lots are separated by a public right-of-way, and she has conducted a campus wide review for those topics; stated that the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for in the ROD is 1.0, campus wide the actual FAR is 0.21; added that the maximum building coverage allowed is 50% campus-wide, the existing and proposed non- residential and residential building coverage is 17.6%; pointed out that the minimum number of parking spaces required for a nonresidential floor area is one parking space per 500 sq. ft., and there are no parking requirements for residential uses and residential accessory uses; stated that 766 parking spaces are required campus wide and there are 771 parking spaces with an additional 6 loading spaces; added that there is one driveway on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way for loading purposes only; pointed out that no additional density has been proposed; said that the maximum building height is 55 ft. for portions of the building located within 165 ft. East of Old Bradenton Road, the remainder is 40ft.; noted the maximum height to the top of the building located within 165 ft. of Old Bradenton Road is 44 ft., with an overall height of 45 ft. 8 in. with the parapet; added that the proposed height for the remainder of the building is 30 ft. to the top of roof, with an overall height of 34 ft. 6 in; noted that portions of the building facing Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and Old Bradenton Road have to provide a 25 ft. active space, at least 50% of the length of the first two stories and the applicant has provided that; and stated that all setback requirements have been met in addition to the bay window, which is encroaching into Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, 3 ft. 9i in. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 26 Planner Panica noted that minimum glass requirements have been met with an approval of administrative reduction for portions of two facades that are wider than 25 ft. from property lines; explained that they use alternative features such as trellises and open space to achieve interaction with people as windows would have; added that since the property has frontage on Whitaker Bayou, it is subject to the regulation of Section VI-908(c)(10)of the Zoning Code, which requires a pedestrian walkway and states that blank walls should be avoided; noted that even though landscape buffers are not required, the applicant has submitted an extensive landscape plan; stated that pursuant to DRC review comments, additional information and justification has been provided regarding tree removals, that Mr. Nigel Weait, City Arborist, has visited the site, and all tree protection requirements have been met. In summary, Planner Panica stated that the proposed library meets the standards of the ORD Zone, the ROD standards and other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code; added that the Site Plan demonstrates functionality of the proposed library, the location of the building is an ideal location to promote pedestrian interaction with the space, and concluded that staff finds Site Plan 15-SP-01 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and recommends approval of the Site Plan subject to the four conditions in the staff report. PB members had no questions regarding the Site Plan. Senior Planner Mendez discussed the application for street vacation; stated the subject segment of Old Bradenton Road extends from its intersection with Dr. Martin Luther King] Jr. Way south toi its intersection with US 41-Tamiami Trail; pointed out the school owns the properties on both sides of the road segment, with the exception of three residences located at its south end, closer to its intersection with US41- Tamiami Trail; noted that the average width of the 1,170 ft. long segment is 60 ft., and the width of the actual vehicular travel way is approximately 22.5 ft.; indicated that the closure would primarily impact northbound traffic on US 41 - Tamiami Trail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way, and their intersection; referred to the findings of the 2013 Tindale Oliver Study, which indicates this road segment carries approximately 1,000 to 1,800 vehicles, 20 bicycles and 130 pedestrians per weekday, two thirds of which is through traffic; added that future growth to 2035 indicates that there will be little additional demand on Old Bradenton Road, but there is an increase of 25% - 30% on US 41, which will also affect the delays at the intersection; noted that the study was conducted when the school was not in session and its findings may be skewed; added that this study did not address alternative strategies such as traffic calming, or impacts to the north, and did not address volumes on alternate routes and the overall street grid; explained that the road segment, even though it is not designated as a major collector in the Transportation Chapter of the City of Sarasota Plan 2030, (similar to the portion of Old Bradenton Road north of its intersection with Martin Luther King, Jr. Way), it plays an important role in providing an alternative route to northbound US 41 north, and maintains the function of the grid; added that there are planned major improvements for the roads in this area, such as the round-about at Myrtle and 47th Street, median improvements and bicycle lanes, in an effort to balance roadway concerns and the quality of life in the neighborhood; added that these improvements are setting the tone for this area; and stated that the proposed request for vacation is in Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 26 conflict with Action Strategy 2.8 of the Transportation Chapter of the Sarasota City Plan which states: "The City shall not vacate any public rights-ofway or easements unless they are not in use, provide no public benefit, or are not in the best interest of the City to retain for future use. I Senior Planner Mendez pointed out that the right-of-way is in use, it does benefit the public, it is in the best interests of the City for the purposes of connectivity and for utility purposes; and added that Action Strategy 6.6 of the Transportation Chapter of the Sarasota City Plan states: "The City will maintain the integrity of the street grid pattern by encouraging traffic calming techniques to reduce volume and/or speed to protect neighborhoods from the impacts of through traffic. Closing oflocal streets will only be pursued if traffic calming or alternative methods are not appropriate. Senior Planner Mendez pointed out that local streets are not intended to only serve the immediate neighborhoods, they are also part of the overall grid and carry through traffic; added that based on the information submitted, staff does not feel the applicant has considered alternative methods of traffic calming that would allow the integrity of the grid to be maintained, while serving the needs for the college; stated that the goal should be to maintain the street grid activity while providing for the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and other users; noted that in terms of traffic calming, the applicant' S concerns relate to the speed of the traffic on this road segment, and the pedestrian needs; explained that traffic calming solutions are accomplished through the use of a combination of tools used in the street design; presented various such tools; pointed out that the School's Master Plan shows that the school site includes several major road crossings, SO the situation on the subject road is not unique; added that the master plan shows three pedestrian crossings on the subject road segment that are not developed at this time; pointed out existing traffic calming devices on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way; discussed two key crosswalk locations on the subject road segment, one connecting the staff and student parking, located on east of the road, to the library on the west side of the road, and the other at the point where the sidewalk stops along the east side of the road, where people cross to go to the sidewalk located on the west side of the road; noted that posted speed limits on the subject road segment, near its intersection with US 41, require a speed of 15 miles per hour, which is a big drop in speed immediately after the northbound US41 traffic turns on the subject road segment; added that, once they turn from US 41 onto the subject road segment, halfway through the curve the speed is increased to 25 miles per hour; pointed out that there is no bicycle lane on this road; noted that speed signage and enforcement could be improved. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the proposed street vacation was reviewed based on the standards for review in Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code; noted that the road continues to be used and provides benefit to the general public; pointed out that there is no need to rearrange streets if the vacation is approved as the traffic would be diverted to the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way and US 41 signalized intersection, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 26 however the study indicates that there will be a need for a turn lane to keep that intersection functioning at the current Level of Service; noted that the street has been improved, and it has utilities and sidewalks; stated that the vacation is proposed in conjunction with a companion request, they are related but they are not mutually dependent; explained that it is in the public interest for the City to maintain the right- of-way because this road is used, iti is part of, and helps maintain, the overall transportation grid; stated that based on the evidence in the record and the applicable standards for review, staff finds Street Vacation 15-SV-02 inconsistent with Section IV- 1306 of the Zoning Code and recommends denial; added that staff has provided recommended conditions for the PB's consideration should they choose to approve the request; mentioned that the applicant has also brought forward a condition for the PB's s consideration; and requested the PB offer staff the opportunity to comment on the applicant's suggested condition. PB member Gallagher suggested Senior Planner Mendez discuss her concerns at this time, and inquired about the status of the proposed round-about at the intersection of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way and US 41. Senior Planner Mendez responded that there is the potential for a round-about at that location, but it is not in the CIP at this time; stated her preliminary concerns about the applicant's S proposed condition; pointed out that the condition goes into effect at 90% of the capacity of the intersection; explained that 90% capacity is when the intersection is failing to function, there are no immediate solutions, for most roads after dedication it takes about 3-5 years for the acquisition of rights-of-way, planning, engineering, etc.; and added that the proposed condition is not specific as to who determines the capacity level, tools, enforcing mechanism, etc. PB: member Gallagher asked if the City had considered developing a turning lane, a deceleration lane, for northbound traffic approaching Old Bradenton Road. Senior Planner Mendez responded that staff has not considered that option. PB member Siegel asked if staff has any records regarding the speeding mentioned by the applicant and how the road be blocked if the vacation was approved, Senior Planner Mendez responded that the only records regarding speeding the City had was what was mentioned in the Tindale Oliver report the road would be blocked with plantings; and noted there is a proposed T-turnaround for southbound traffic on Old Bradenton Road that comes down into this road segment. PB: member Siegel asked how this street vacation compared to the one approved for Booker High School. Senior Planner Mendez stated that Booker is a high school with only one road bisecting the campus, and where the population consists of children, as compared to the college campus, which is crossed by several roads, and has an adult population; added that while a portion of Orange Avenue was vacated, an alternative route was provided and traffic continued to get through. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the applicant had proposed any traffic calming alternatives other than the street vacation. Senior Planner Mendez stated there was none. PB: member Ahearn- Koch asked staff to speak to the following statement made by the applicant in the packet: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 26 a because oft the ambiguity oft the precise extent of the City's roadway maintenance over the years, the RCD is requesting that the City quit claim the roadway.. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the City needs a legal description of the roadway because it was created in a variety of ways, sO the description used by staff is based on the condition of the roadway today. PB Chair Svekis noted that US 41 experiences gridlock at different times of the day and functions at the worst possible level, and Old Bradenton Road functions as a relief valve; added that there are only three routes north, US 41, Old Bradenton Road, and Bayshore Road, which is also affected; and questioned why Bayshore Road had not been discussed. Senior Planner Mendez stated that traffic is distributed through different routes, and Bayshore Road is one of the secondary streets that functions as a relief valve at peak traffic hours. PB Chair Svekis stated that, considering the heavy traffic and the way US 41 functions, he questioned the wisdom of placing a round-about at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way, because the traffic light offers better control of high volume traffic. Affected Person Testimony: Mr. Richard Martin appeared and stated he was one of the three single family owners on the street, spoke in support of the street vacation, and mentioned that the other two owners also support the street vacation; stated that US 41 and Old Bradenton Road is a dangerous intersection that the residents of the three single family homes on the subject road segment are not using; and urged the PB's final decision to focus on the safety of the students who Cross the street to go to their classes, and on the integrity of the campus. Citizen Testimony: 1. Jeff Schwartz, RSAD faculty member spoke in support of the street vacation based on safety issues. 2. Sara Bicknell, RSAD student and Secretary of the Student Government Association spoke in support of the street vacation based on safety issues, due to poor visibility at night, and the speed cars drive through campus. 3. Vincenza Della Donna, RSAD student and Vice President of Student Government Association, stated 75% of their members support the street vacation because of safety issues. 4. Tammy Walsh, RSAD student and Vice President of Student Life, spoke in support of the street vacation based on safety concerns; also speaking on behalf of the parents of the students, and the parent association, who have expressed safety concerns. 5. Maynard Hiss, local resident, stated he lives within 500 ft. of Old Bradenton Road, feels that he is an affected person but did not receive a notice; stated that the library is a great idea, however looking at the landscape along the bayou, he is unsure as to what will happen to the existing mangroves, he would agree for them to be trimmed but he objects to their removal; added that the existing road does not meet stormwater requirements, and wonders how the RSAD will address the stormwater issues if they take it over; pointed out that Whitaker Bayou is also not in compliance; added that there are serious safety issues caused by the through Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 26 traffic, particularly trucks cutting through, and suggested the school and the City should work together to solve these issues. 6. Paul Verrizzo, local resident, spoke against the street vacation, stating it is not the responsibility of the City to vacate the street, students should also be more careful. 7. Rick Tabhs, Director of RSAD Public Safety, spoke in support of the street vacation based on student safety. 8. Dennis Johnson, RSAD Public Safety staff, spoke in support of the street vacation, stating that the road is unsafe; added that, in the last three years, there have been at least six vehicular accidents at the intersection of Old Bradenton Road and US 41, and in the last three months, there were two pedestrian accidents and one bicycle accident at Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and Old Bradenton Road. 9. Russell Mink, RSAD student and Resident Assistant, spoke in support of the street vacation, stating safety concerns both during the day and at night due to the fact that there are no sidewalks on the east side of the road, and there are no street lights. 10. Jeff Poleshek, RSAD Director of facilities, spoke in support of the street vacation; stating that improvements on Old Bradenton Road stop north of the subject road segment, at its intersection with Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. Way, and there are no bike lanes or sidewalks, therefore the road is unsafe; and added that the School is taking it upon itself to provide for the safety of their students. 11. Tracy Wagner, RSAD Vice President of Finance and Administration, stated she has worked with the City to develop standards for campus development as the school grows; stated she appreciates the challenges the City faces; and she hopes the PB will not minimize the challenges the RSAD faces in their efforts to ensure student safety. 12. Maryellin Kirkwood, local resident, spoke in opposition of the street vacation, stating that there should be alternate routes available to relieve traffic congestion. 13. Mary Lee, founder of Marietta Museum, spoke in support of the street vacation; stated she is an affected person but forgot to do the necessary things; she is across from that intersection and believes it represents a huge safety issue not only for the Ringling students but also for the people across the street on US 41, because cars speed out of the south part of Old Bradenton Road to go south on US41. 14. Isabel Norton, spoke in support of the street vacation stating safety issues due to poor street design. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Bailey, speaking about his proposed stipulation, stated that he was under the impression that the round-about is in the design stages at this time; added if the round-about is not coming anytime soon, then RSAD should be required to provide the additional right turn lane at the intersection of US 41 (northbound) and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. Dr. Thompson stated there is a large pedestrian population concentrated in one area. PB member Siegel responded that he understands the problem the school is facing, there must be a solution to it, and the City needs to be responsive, however the solution is not vacating streets that are in use. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 26 Mr. Bailey argued that if the subject road segment is functioning as a collector road it should be ordained as such, and have a public hearing to receive public input; noted that he has brought forth requests on street vacations on other streets that were also used at the time and the requests were granted, all for good reasons; stated that all of them were not the same, and were evaluated against the same review standards as the ones used for this application, which are supposed to be considered as you are trying to provide a balance for competing public interests. PB member Gallagher asked if the street vacation was part of the RSAD's campus master plan. Mr. Thompson responded that the master plan they have at the school shows this as a vacated road, but the master plan approved by the City shows this as a city road; added that there are high counts of pedestrians walking up and down the road as they are crossing the street. Mr. Bailey repeated the fact that the study traffic counts were taken when RSAD was not in session. Discussion ensued about similar roads in town. PB member Gallagher asked for additional information about stormwater management on that street. Mr. Bailey explained that there is a campus stormwater plan. PB: member Gallagher asked who would be responsible for maintaining stormwater management if the street is vacated. Mr. Bailey stated that the RSAD has agreed to take on that responsibility. Mr. Shawn Lions, President of AM Engineering, stated that there is not a good stormwater system along the east side of that portion of Old Bradenton Road; and added that on the west side of the road, the campus plan has a stormwater system. PB member Gallagher stated that the situation at RSAD is different because this is a college campus; added that a college campus in an urban area would have defined crossways, and people would not be crossing at all different points; and asked City Attorney Connolly if there is a definition of public interest in a State statute. Attorney Connolly stated that a street vacation is a legislative decision. PB Ahearn- Koch asked if, prior to this meeting, RSAD had brought to the City's attention the serious safety issues shared by students and faculty, SO that the City can address them before something happens. Dr. Thompson responded that they have had conversations on this subject, they tried to vacate the road when they were building the student center, and they were told not to bring it up; and added that the school has not considered other mitigation efforts, such as speed tables, but they have brought to the City's attention the issues on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way. There were no more PB questions. There was no rebuttal by City staff, or Mr. Martin, the affected citizen. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB Member Ahearn-Koch made the following motion: Adopt a motion to find Site Plan 15-SP-01 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part ofan applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance oft the permit ift the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal laz. All other Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 26 applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. Prior to issuance ofbuilding permit, grant a five foot wide easement approximately 295 feet long along the west side of the Library grounds for the 8" water main located east ofthe Old Bradenton Road right-of-way of Old Bradenton Road. The water main cannot be repaired without encroaching upon the college property. 3. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled New Library Project, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on January 12, 2015. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director ofNeighborhood and Development Services. 4. The Elevations must be in compliance with the Administrative Adjustment for window area granted on January 14, 2015 and approved by Timothy Litchet, Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. PB: member Ahearn-Koch, in support of her motion, stated that the Site Plan was well presented and she has no issues with it. PB: member Gallagher stated that he supported the motion even though he has some issues with the Site Plan; stated that he would prefer that the building meet the street differently, at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way, similar to other urban colleges, rather than having the set-back with the terraced landscaped walls; added he has concerns with the amount of glass; stated he likes everything else, and since they meet they Zoning Code requirements, he will support the motion. PB member Siegel totally supports the Site Plan. PB member Lindsay had no comment. PB Chair Svekis stated that this is a great addition to both the community and this great learning institution; and added that Ringling College is a big part of Sarasota, and he fully supports the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PB member Ahearn- Koch made a motion to find Street Vacation 15-SV-02 inconsistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission denial of the Street Vacation. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated that the RSAD is of great value to this community, and she appreciates all the safety concerns expressed by the students and faculty, and thanked them for coming forward to make the City aware of them, however she agrees with Mr. Hiss that the City and the School should work together to resolve the issues; added that the City has standards for street vacations, and not one of them supports the vacation of that street; staff has gone into detail and she agrees with their comments; added she understands that this connector road is used by through traffic, and worries about the traffic on North Trail, about North Old Bradenton Road, and about making Martin Luther King, Jr. Way more dangerous; and concluded that she sees nothing in the standards for review to support the vacation of the street. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 26 PB member Siegel stated that his decision is based on the criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan and the Standards for the review of street vacations; added that he already spoke about the City's challenges with traffic congestion; suggested that we must realize the town is growing, the infrastructure is old, and these problems will not go away; stated that this is not just a local problem it happens everywhere; noted that one thing that is important to him is that all the speakers were people who were directly affiliated with the School, or living at the School; stated that he respects the College and the work Dr. Thompson had done there, it is a tough decision for him but at some point we must do what is in the interest of the greater number of people; explained that if the PB were to vacate this street, which is an active street, it would be setting a precedent that would continue on and on; noted that the problems he heard can be resolved and he would like to hear from staff and the City on the issue because in his experience they have always been responsive; and stated that he wishes he could come up with a better solution, but he thinks his decision is in the interests of the City. PB member Lindsay said that he did not hear any discussion addressing long range planning, all discussions were focused on present conditions; added that any impacts on US 41 would be incremental and incrementally would bring DOT's action trigger point closer, SO that DOT and or the City would take necessary actions to address the issues; stated that pedestrians and cyclists are as important as other means of transportation; noted that this is a pedestrian thoroughfare to the college; added this is something that is going to affect the City and RSAD for the next century; noted that the RSAD is very: important to this City, ranking high like USF, the Museum, the Airport, etc., and he does not like the fact that the City sends the message to the school and its donors that it is a low priority, that we will not spend a few dollars to fix the surrounding roadwork and allow them to consolidate their campus into a campus community situation, as opposed to an intersection of busy roads with some classrooms around it; restated that it is important to think of this in the long term; noted that the public's long term benefit comes from the success of an important City institution, which is a contributor to what makes Sarasota the place we all live in, and like, makes the community successful, economically successful, more attractive, and gives money to the City to do things like road improvements; repeated that at the end of the day the PB is talking about a bunch of short term considerations, and ignoring the long term importance of the institution to the City, the institution's ability to plan its growth, consolidate its campus, and for the City to plan its future; stated that the road network is not carved in stone, it is a physical plan that has been constructed by people, and it can be reconstructed and moved by people; added that when it was first built is was based on the best guess of the people of that day as to where the road should be located; added that roads are not built to last centuries, rather they are built to be convenient and to accomplish certain goals, and he believes this road segment has outlived its usefulness as a thoroughfare, and it is more important now as part of a successful college campus; noted that the discussion is not about an institution that is going to be around twenty or thirty years as a law office, a department store or a single family home, we are talking about an institution that has been around for a long time and we hope it will be here one hundred years from now, like many other Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 26 colleges in the country that are hundred years old; and concluded he will not support the motion. PB: member Gallagher stated he agreed with PB member Lindsay and would not support the motion, because there is a longer term view here; noted that the students, the faculty and staff of RSAD do not relinquish their role as members of the public when they become members of this institution, and their interests are as important as anyone else's s; listed several things that make this petition unique, first this is a long established college with a campus that they continue trying to make happen, and very different from the "flower" streets as to what happens there; added there is a very unusual intersection that is very problematic; pointed out that there was a brief discussion on traffic calming techniques and there was also testimony that some of these techniques could not be used at the US 41 /Old Bradenton Road intersection because of its configuration; added that US 41 is a tough road, causing problems all along its route, and RSAD is a victim of the nature of this street; added the City has plans in place to help the situation; noted that the world of traffic engineering has changed a lot in the last quarter of a century, and there are different ideas out there today; shared that he lives in an area where there are two traffic lights close to each other, something that makes drivers speed to race through the: next green light that they see; suggested reconsideration of the need for a traffic light at the intersection of US 41/Old Bradenton Road, and its replacement with something like a STOP sign that will make all drivers slow down for a stop; stated that, in terms of a long term master plan for the school, he sees a role that needs to be filled by a modern traffic engineer and a modern urban designer, who will be working hand in hand to incorporate in the campus planning the new techniques for addressing issues such as those at US 41 and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way, and will also work with the City to make that work; concluded that there is a lot of room to vote against the motion, and he will not support it. PB Chair Svekis stated that this is a terrible situation because he has the greatest respect for the school, but on the other side of the coin vacating the street will provide limited benefits to the school; noted that the street vacation is contrary to Action Strategy 2.8 of the Comprehensive Plan; stated he is aware of the traffic concerns on US 41 and does not think any streets that connect to US41 should be closed; and concluded he will support the motion. The motion passed 3/2 with PB members Gallagher and Lindsay voting "No." THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 5 MINUTE RECESS 2. OAKRIDGE APARTMENTS (4900 N. TAMIAMI TRAIL): Application 15-SP-04 requests site plan approval to convert an existing 121 unit hotel/ motel use into a multi-family development with 121 residential units on property located in the North Trail (NT) Zone District and the North Trail Overlay District with a street address of 4900 N Tamiami Trail. (LUCIA PANICA, PLANNER) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 26 Applicant Presentation: Mr. Justin Russell, Corporate Council, Vengroff Williams Inc., representing OakRidge Apartments, LLC, stated that they plan to convert an existing two story, 12lunit hotel/motel into 121 residential multi-family units in the form of efficiency apartments, by adding a small kitchenette to each unit; noted that at this time there are no plans to make any significant changes to the existing structure, and concurrently, in order to meet parking requirements as a residential facility, they are submitting a zoning change request for the property, from North Trail (NT) to North Trail Overlay District (NTOD), in which case any future development will be consistent with the NTOD standards; explained that the intent of this project is to address the growing need in our community for affordable housing; noted that this property was recently designated for affordable housing by the Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD); and stated that he believes this project, with the experience of the owner in this field, can become a stepping stone in cleaning up and reshaping the North Trail District, while providing safe and affordable housing in that area of the community. Mr. Nelson Roy, Architect for the project, stated that the project is located at 4900 North Tamiami Trail, between Mecca Drive and 47th Street; noted that the subject parcel as well as the properties to its north, south, and west are zoned NT, while the property to the east is zoned Multi-Family Residential; explained that they are not planning structural changes to the existing building; added that they will add sprinklers, improve the plumbing, and add a kitchenette to each unit; noted that there is a restaurant on the premises that will be operated separately, and that there is a leasing office in the restaurant building; pointed out that the residential area, including the pool/ recreational area and the parking, are gated and accessible through automatic gates; noted that there are two driveways one for ingress and one for egress; and stated that they received approval by the DRC, and they agree to the staff conditions. Mr. Kerry Kirschner, Executive Director, Argus Foundation, stated that Sarasota does not address the need for affordable housing for our population in the service industry; added that the actual residential rental cost per square footage in Sarasota is higher than that in Atlanta or Chicago because we do not have enough affordable housing; said that Mr. Vengroff has provided many affordable units in Sarasota over the years; that the proposed conversion could be used as a model in how to eliminate the concerns in North Tamiami Trail, where the properties, on which the old hotels are built, are not deep enough for development; pointed out that Mr. Vengroff can provide safe, affordable studio apartments for $600.00/1 month, including electricity, Cable TV, and other amenities; added the site is served by public transportation; and encouraged the PB members to visit Mr. Vengroff's studio apartments in Bradenton. Mr. Russell stated that the applicant finds the staff report complete and agrees with the conditions. PB member Gallagher asked if the handicapped requirements had been met. Mr. Russell stated that they worked with City staff on the changes in the units and all applicable requirements have been met; added that they are currently finalizing their Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 26 plan for handicapped accessible parking spaces which will be located in front of the handicapped accessible units. Responding to questions by PB member Ahearn-Koch, Mr. Russell stated that the property management office screens the tenants family size, and places them accordingly in studio apartments or larger units; pointed out that the amount of the affordable rent is based on federal law, and the property management office receives that information from the City; and explained that they work with local charities to find qualified tenants. PB Chair Svekis asked if there is an exhaust system for the cooking area. Mr. Roy responded that the cooking area consists of a cooktop on the counter, an exhaust system above, and a microwave. Staff Presentation: Planner Lucia Panica, stated that this is a conversion of a motel, built in 1978, to studio apartments; stated that the applicant requested the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD), which is optional; explained that any future development on the property is subject to the NTOD regulations; explained that the structure was the first in a two phase development, however the second phase was never constructed leaving the green space to the east of the structure; added that the current changes intend to bring the building up to code, and to meet residential use safety standards; stated that the original driveways are used for ingress and egress; noted that the proposal meets parking requirements, and provides bicycle racks inside the gated area; stated that a Type B buffer is required along the north and south property line, and a Type A buffer is required around the parking lot; added that the applicants have provided the required buffers and four landscaped islands; noted that refuse collection enclosures will be updated and located at the southwest section of the parking area; explained that additional review will occur when they submit their plans; and concluded that the Site Plan has been found to meet the applicable development standards of the Zoning Code, therefore staff has provided a recommendation of approval with conditions for Site Plan 15-SP-04. PB: member Gallagher asked for clarification about parking requirements under the current zoning; Planner Panica stated two spaces per unit would be required; responding to questions from PB member Ahearn-Koch regarding how many individuals can live in a unit and if the City regulates that, Planner Panica stated that due to the square footage of the units, the Building Department regulates the number of people per unit. PB Chair Svekis stated that there are no affected persons but there are people who want to speak about this application. Citizen Testimony: 1. Tobin Page - Property Manager, he works with the local charities, he sees that the need for affordable housing is absolute, and supports the application. 2. Valery Guilong, working with a grass roots homelessness prevention organization, helping homeless families; stated that there are approximately 338 families in Sarasota with 1,200 children in Sarasota County Schools; explained that her agency used to place homeless families in the old hotels for $336/week and in Mr. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 26 Vengroff' S properties they pay $575.00/ month; stated that she has placed families in Vengroff properties for a few years, and supports the proposed application. 3. Elisa Graber, Suncoast Partnership to End Homelessness, spoke in support of the project, stating thati it addresses the local need for affordable housing for the homeless and entry level service industry employees; added that 10,000 affordable housing units have been lost in the last ten years in Sarasota County, and existing rentals are at 90% occupancy. There is a big local need. 4. Maryellin Kirkwood spoke in support of the application because it provides needed housing for working people who do not make enough to afford market rate housing in the Sarasota area; and pointed it out that this is a private venture, it does not use public sector money, and addresses a big need. 5. Jeff Smith, long-time resident of the Indian Beach neighborhood, spoke in support of the application because of three reasons: he speaks as an advocate of "at risk of being homeless" people who have difficulty finding housing in Sarasota because of low salaries; speaks as a resident living near this location, and he believes this is a better use of the old motels than the way they are used now (for illegal activities); and speaks as a prior homeless person, and he can attest to the fact that giving someone the opportunity to earn clean and safe housing it is the best thing to help that individual regain his self-esteem in times of serious adversity that many face in their life. 6. Nick Nieman- spoke in support of the application, he is a tenant in one of the Vengroff properties; stated that he became homeless due to a serious illness; explained that he is 60 yrs. old and does not yet qualify for programs designed for senior citizens, therefore he had no place to go, and for the last three months he is living in a place that he can afford to pay with his disability income. 7. Akram Alan" Sleit, owner of the Sarasota Fitness Club, spoke in favor of the application; stated he knows many college students who have to work twoj jobs to make ends meet, and believes that this idea could help college students find affordable housing as well. There was no rebuttal from applicant or City staff. PB member Siegel made the following motion and PB member Gallagher seconded it: Adopt a motion to find Site Plan 15-SP-04 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon approval of Site Plan 15-SP-04 and prior to issuance of the first building permit to establish the new multiple family residential development use, the North Trail Overlay District proviso (as provided in appendix number 3) must be signed and recorded in the official records for Sarasota County to identify that all of the NTOD standards are mandatory for all future development applications. 2. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 26 obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 3. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Oakridge Apartment-Conversion Project, Hotel Complex to Residential Units, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on January 13, 2015. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. PB member Siegel stated that this is a wonderful project, he learned a lot from the presentation, and wishes the applicant good luck. PB: member Gallagher and PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that the application meets the review criteria and they will support the motion. PB member Lindsay stated that this is a creative adoptive use of existing properties, because it would be very difficult to accomplish this with new construction, and supports the motion. PB Chair Svekis stated that this is a double reward because it gets rid of the dilapidated hotels and gains affordable housing, will support the motion, and thanked Mr. Vengroff for his efforts. The motion passed unanimously. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no Citizen' 's Input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 14, 2015 The following corrections were identified: Page 4, 20th and 22nd lines " refuge refuse.. Page 5,3rd line I to create the necessary amount of land..." Page 5, 7th line from the end of the paragraph 1 on a single lot because they were built leng a long time ago.. 1 Page 9, 2nd to the last paragraph, 5th line, a mute moot.. Page 13, 2nd line from the end, 1 recommends recommend to.. Page 14, 2nd paragraph, 11th line, 1 thereis there are. Page 20, 8th line, refuge refuse.. Page 37, 2nd paragraph, 9th line, 1 jet go..." The minutes are approved as amended. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 11, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 26 VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by staff. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by Planning Board members. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 11:26 PM. - aund Sz 1 David Smith, General Manager - Integration Vald Svekis, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]