CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board David Morriss, Chair Members Present: Patrick Gannon, Vice Chair Members Robert Lindsay, Chris Gallagher, Eileen Normile Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David L. Smith, AICP, General Manager, Neighborhood & Development Services Dr. Clifford Smith, Senior Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Morriss 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 Planning Board Members approved, by consensus, to move agenda item VI.1 to the top of the agenda. Secretary Smith explained that the City is hiring a Planning Director; the City would like to have advisory board members on an interview panel; they are requesting the Planning Board designate two representatives to participate; and requested the Planning Board identify two representatives at the meeting this evening. Attorney Connolly expressed concern about two Planning Board members participating on ani interview panel; explained that any time two or more Planning Board members exchange communications, iti is considered a Planning Board meeting and it needs to be advertised; and added that this could potentially create problems, because the hiring process meetings are considered governmental meetings. Secretary Smith stated that the City was creating a separate Planning Department, as it was several years ago; and explained the process and the interview schedule. Discussion ensued, PB Member Normile moved that the Planning Board designate one representative. PB Vice Chair Gannon seconded the motion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 10 Speaking to her motion, PB Member Normile stated that if the discussion cannot go into specific instances to address what is going on in the City, then it loses tremendous value. PB Vice Chair Gannon, speaking to his second, stated the same reasons. The motion passed 5 to 0. PB Vice Chair Gannon made a motion to designate PB Member Lindsay as the representative. PB Member Normile seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0. Discussion ensued regarding recommending that the City Manager appoint a former Planning Board member to serve on the interview panel. PB Member Lindsay suggested that this person should have served on the Planning Board in the recent past so as to be familiar with recent Planning Board procedures and new legislation. PB Member Gallagher suggested that it could be a Sarasota County Planning Commission member noting the City and the County planning efforts overlap. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that, based on his experiences in the time that hel has served as a Planning Board member, the issues that were reviewed by the Planning Board did not have any impact on the County. PB Member Gallagher pointed out the issues of affordable housing and transportation. PB Member Lindsay noted the County is primarily working on green field development, while the City's planning efforts are focusing primarily on redevelopment. PB Member Normile suggested that staff provide a list of former Planning Board members for review and appropriate action at the February PB meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the timing between the February Planning Board meeting and the interview schedule. PB Vice Chair Gannon made a motion to recommend to the City Manager that a former Planning Board member be appointed to the panel. PB Member Lindsay seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 4 to 1 with PB Member Gallagher voting no. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all who intended to speak in this evening's public hearings. Secretary Smith explained that the Planning Board will hear two Comprehensive Plan amendment applications; stated the Planning Board will recommend to the City Commission approval or denial of the proposed amendments; noted when the applications are heard by the City Commission they will require a super majority vote to approve them; and stated there was no such requirement for the Planning Board. PB Vice Chair Gannon requested clarification about the process for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; asked if the changes to the Future Land Use Map affect the site Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 10 planning process; and asked if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process includes site planning. Secretary Smith explained that both proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments will require rezoning and site plan review by the Planning Board later in the process; added that the preservation of trees will also be evaluated at the time of site plan review; and noted that staff will present a brief overview of the amendments to be followed by applicant presentations. B. Non-Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 16-PA-02 is request to amend the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan by requesting to change the Future Land Use classification of the property located at 105 S. Beneva Road (a 4.447+ acre portion of PID 2031010011) from the Community Commercial Future Land Use designation to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use designation. The applicant intends to rezone the property from the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone district to the Residential Multiple Family 5 (RMF-5) zone district. (Dr. Clifford Smith, Senior Planner) Staff Presentation: Dr. Smith introduced himself for the record; stated that the applicant is Donald Neu, the owner is Tenth Way Corporation, and the site is located at 105 S. Beneva Road; noted that the proposed use is new multiple family residential that is adjacent to existing multiple family residential development and retail; pointed out that this is a small scale amendment to the Sarasota City Plan 2030; it requires public hearings with the Planning Board and the City Commission; added that the subject property is currently vacant and has trees; the owner will comply with tree protection requirements at the time of site development; referred to the Future Land Use Map where the subject property is designated Community Commercial; indicated that the proposed future land use is Multiple Family-Medium Density, the same as the adjacent properties to the south and to the west; noted that it will serve as a transition between the commercial properties and Beneva Road; stated that the property has no access however access will be created over the waterway; added that the infrastructure will not be impacted by the proposed future land use change; noted that there was a neighborhood workshop; added that the Sarasota County Area Transit reported that the amendment would have al beneficial impact on the transit system; pointed out that the City has adequate capacity in open space and recreational facilities; added that the potable water, sanitary sewer and solid waste collection services have adequate capacity to service the site; pointed out that the Sarasota County School District indicated that the future land use change would not result in an increase of allowable dwelling units so it will not impact the student population; and concluded that staff recommends approval of the amendment. PB Member Normile asked about the maximum height for the requested land use designation. Secretary Smith stated that land use designations do not address height, the implementing zoning districts address height; pointed out that the implementing zoning districts for the proposed Multiple Family-Moderate Density land use Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 10 designation include RMF-4, and RMF-5, which have maximum height limitations of 70- ft. and 90-ft respectively, with an additional allowance of 25-ft if the development incorporates parking at the lower levels; and stated that he has explained to the applicant that the maximum allowable heights for the implementing zoning districts are not compatible with the existing surrounding residential uses. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked about the impact of the proposed amendment on the Environmental Protection Goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Secretary Smith pointed out that the applicant already has development rights under the current commercial designation of the parcel, which are more intense than those being proposed; and added that during the review of the proposed amendment staff did not identify any Environmental Goals, Objectives, and Action Strategies upon which the proposed amendment had a detrimental effect. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Neu introduced himself for the record; indicated that the site is approximately 4.5+ acres; stated it has been vacant for a long time and it is not appropriate for commercial development; noted that the proposed land use is more compatible with the existing land uses; pointed out that the subject parcel is separated from the existing commercial to the east by a waterway; explained that if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved the site will be subject to rezoning and site plan review; all of the details of design, buffering, and height requirements will be addressed at that point in the process; stated that the owner agrees with the staff report and its recommendations; and requested approval of the proposed amendment sO they can move forward. PB Member Normile asked if the applicant has determined the height of the buildings that would make this residential development viable. Mr. Neu stated that they do not have a site plan at this time, however he does not think that it would be necessary to request maximum height for this development; presented several potential scenarios; and concluded that this issue will be addressed later on in the process. Attorney Connolly clarified that this is a legislative public hearing; PB members need to evaluate the public benefit; and added that this is unlike the quasi-judicial public hearings where decisions are based on the evidence presented at the public hearing and if Zoning Code requirements are met by the proposed development. PB Member Lindsay added that the PB: members at this hearing should consider the maximum allowable uses under the least intensive implementing zoning category and asked what the maximum building height in the CRD zone district was, and it was stated as 65 feet. Attorney Connolly noted that the applicants are only entitled to the minimum allowable uses of the least intensive implementing zoning district of the proposed future land use designation unless the applicant chooses to further restrict their rights and presents proffers as part of the rezoning and site plan applications. Discussion ensued about the allowable height and set back requirements in the RMF-4 and RMF-5 zone districts which implement the Multi Family - Moderate Density land use designation. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 10 Public Input: There was no public input. PB Member Gallagher moved to find proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application 16-PA-02 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan 2030, it is in the public benefit, and recommend to the City Commission to approve the application. PB: Member Lindsay seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Gallagher stated that this is a multi-level process; adding that both the applicant and staff have made a compelling argument that residential use is the best use for this property, especially when it is separated from the existing commercial development by the canal. Speaking to his second, PB Member Lindsay agreed with what was said, and added that the height difference between the potential uses was only 5-ft., and will be evaluated at the rezoning and site plan review. PB Member Normile asked ifl height stipulations could be included in this application. Attorney Connolly responded no. Motion for approval passes 3 to 2, with PB Vice Chair Gannon and PB Member Normile voting no. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 16-PA-03 is request to amend the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan by requesting to change the Future Land Use classification of the vacant parcel (PID 2039-09-0072) adjacent to 1805 Siesta Drive from the Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use designation to the Neighborhood Office Future Land Use designation, which matches the Future Land Use designation of 1805 Siesta Drive. The applicant intends to rezone the vacant parcel from the Residential Single Family 3 (RSF-3) zone district to the Office Neighborhood District (OND) zone district and rezone 1805 Siesta Drive from the Office Professional Business (OPB) zone district to the Office Neighborhood District (OND) zone district allowing consolidation of the parcels. (David L. Smith, AICP, General Manager) Staff Presentation: General Manager Smith stated that the proposal is to change the future land use designation of the 0.201 acre site from Single Family-Low Density to Neighborhood Office; noted that the applicant is Joel Freedman, representing 1805 Siesta LLC, the property owner; stated the proposed use: is a parking lot for the adjacent existing office under the same ownership; added that the current zoning is Office Professional Business (OPB), and the zoning for the subject parcel is RSF-3; explained if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, both of the parcels will be rezoned to the Office Neighborhood District (OND); stated OPB is an old zone district that is not used any Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 10 longer; OPB remains in the Code because there are still properties with that zoning and they can be developed according to that zoning; pointed out that the current future land use designation is Single Family-Low Density; stated that the proposed parking lot will have minimum impact on the residential uses because an office generally operates only during the day; pointed out that infrastructure and mass transit will not be impacted; added that it is a viable residential lot and could be developed as such; noted that there was a neighborhood workshop; stated that the impact on the transportation system is de minimis; noted that parks and recreation, sanitary sewer, potable water, and solid waste collection have adequate capacity to serve the site; and added that the applicant, at the time of building permit, would have to obtain stormwater permits in order to meet the drainage level of service. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if there was public input from the neighbors. General Manager Smith stated that neighbors attended and spoke at the neighborhood workshop; noted their comments are reflected in the workshop minutes that are included in the packet; and added that staff has not received any additional comments from the neighbors. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Freedman introduced himself for the record; stated that he is representing 1805 Siesta LLC; noted that the owners acquired the property through a foreclosure, fixed up the house and use it as an office; added that they realized that the lot to the east was informally used as a parking lot; stated the owners now need to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on the subject parcel then rezone both parcels to OND, which is a downzoning; pointed out that there is no intent to rebuild the property; stated he hoped that staff will work with the applicants to allow the site to be used without making improvements such as paving because they only want to use it: for overflow parking for the adjacent existing office; stated that prior to the rezoning, he will also need a variance because the building has a large setback; noted that everything should be coming together in the next couple months, depending on the approval of the variance; if the does not get approved the alternative solution is to redevelop the site which means the house will be: rebuilt under the OPB district; and added that the owner does not want to do that, they want to keep the lot as a grass parking lot. Discussion ensued about where grass parking could be allowed, trees, and drainage. Mr. Freedman stated that he will evaluate the various options during the site planning process, noting the applicants intend to minimize impacts on the site. Public Input: Mr. Matthew Miller, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the petition, because the rezoning to a non-residential category will have a negative impact on the value of his abutting residential property. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 10 PB Chair Morriss closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. PB Member Normile asked if the applicant is willing to include a proffer in this petition stating that the vacant lot will only be used for parking. Mr. Freedman responded that proffers are appropriate at the rezoning and site planning process; stated he intends to work with staff; and noted proffers could be considered at that time. PB Member Gallagher moved to adopt a motion to find Petition 16-PA-03 consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan 2030 and is in the public benefit, and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Member Lindsay seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Gallagher stated that a balanced variety of land uses are necessary for a viable community; noted that office uses at this location do not have ai negative impact for the neighbors; and added that it is a very small parking lot next to a very small office building that helps the existing office to be viable. Speaking to his second, PB Member Lindsay stated that the site is located at a busy intersection; if they choose to build a new building on both lots, office is appropriate for that location, because it: is not suitable for residential development; and stated on balance it is appropriate for the change to take place. PB Member Normile stated that she will not support the application, because the applicant does not agree to a proffer at this time. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that he is interested in protecting the natural environment, and he is evaluating the type of development that would save the trees on the lot. Discussion ensued about various development scenarios on this property; the City processes required for future Comprehensive Plan amendments; site plans with proffers; and the number of votes necessary for the approval of such amendments. The motion passes with a vote of 4 to 1, with PB Member Normile voting no. 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 none. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 14, 2016 PB Member Gallagher stated on page' 7 of 18, the first line of the first full paragraph should be revised to delete the word "not," as follows: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 10 Speaking to his motion, PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that this is net downtown, PB Members, by consensus, approved the minutes, as revised. 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. 1. Selection of two Planning Board members to participate during the Planning Director Hiring Process. This item was moved to the top of the agenda under Changes to the Order of the Day, 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. 1. School Planning Update (Kathie Ebaugh, School Planning Director and Planning Board Member) Ms. Ebaugh introduced herself for the record; stated that according to the interlocal agreement between the City and the School Board, the School Board is required to provide an update to the City about upcoming capital improvements; added that this year they are doing more than usual because residential development in Sarasota County has increased; named the School Board's S planning team; stated that their mission is to ensure Sarasota County's current educational services have the necessary capacity and facility needs while preparing for the demands of the future; stated that they achieve this mission in three ways: growth management, community planning, and facility planning; noted that schools are the only infrastructure that is regulated both by the state and locally; explained that the state establishes class sizes by school grade level, and the school district must receive state approval before they can build new schools or increase the capacity of existing schools; pointed out that another way the State will impact the School Board's activities is through the implementation of Florida House Bill 70-29, which was approved by the last legislature and will go: into effect in July; explained that the legislation has a lot of ramifications, from school choice to school construction, including establishing a maximum amount of funds to be spent per student station; noted that this will impact Sarasota County because the School District chooses to do construction that is expensive up front however it has lower life cycle costs, something that they cannot do with the funding limitations of House Bill 70-29; stated that the planning team of the School District places a lot of value on the interlocal partnerships, and meet with representatives of the local governments to discuss school related land use planning issues; stated that their department establishes student attendance zones, is the property manager of the School Board, and works on service agreements; pointed out that they determine capacity development, they develop a Five Year Plan Survey, which is updated every five years and lets the State know what the needs of the School Board are; added that they are monitoring student enrollment, evaluate Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 10 capacity based on the established Levels of Service, provide input to the local governments during the development review process, and determine concurrency; stated that in budgeting, they are looking at major capital improvements, minor capital improvements and small projects; listed the projects that were funded in the latest capital improvements plan, including the completion of the North Port branch of the Sarasota Technical College (STC), Elementary School) J, Venice Middle School Field Space, Venice High School Classroom Wing, and school site purchases; talked about the need for a new high school east of I-75 and north of Clark Road to relieve Riverview High School and, through redistricting, Sarasota High School and Venice High School; described a project at Venice Middle School that is a partnership between the School Board and the City of Venice Parks Department, which will result in three lighted fields at the Venice Middle School campus, which will be used by the City Parks Department after the completion of the school day; added that they are also involved in asset preservation, trying to protect the District's capital improvements; listed planned renovations and improvements that are funded in the latest plan; noted that safety and security are very important, and they have hired a new safety and security director for campus security and emergency management; added that there is a great focus on technology, with continuous four year upgrades, which has placed this School District among the best in the state and the country; and concluded that they try to use the public's S money wisely. PB Chair Morriss asked what the length of payback on the life costs of a project is. Ms. Ebaugh responded that it varies, noting upfront costs are higher, however the payback periods are short. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked how they plan for school traffic at certain hours sO that it does not back up into neighborhoods. Ms. Ebaugh stated that most parents prefer to drop off and pick up their children from school, even though the School Board prefers that they use the bus; stating that can create problems in certain areas. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if the School Board performs traffic studies to determine the local traffic impacts when they develop a school. Ms. Ebaugh stated they try to be a good neighbor and work with the local planning agencies; noting schools are not required to comply with local land use regulations because they are self-regulated. General Manager Smith noted that in the past, such as during the Bay Haven renovation, the City's Engineering Department and the School Board planners worked closely to minimize traffic impacts on the neighborhood. Ms. Ebaugh added that there are major traffic impacts at the time of student drop off and pick up in certain schools, such as Bay Haven and Southside, the two older schools in the City of Sarasota that were built in the 1920s; added that they try their best, but agrees that there are concerns with traffic and inappropriate parking; and pointed out that once violations are off school property they become a policing issue. PB Member Lindsay requested Attorney Connolly provide clarification about proffers and exactions, and asked how Planning Board Members should regulate the requests for proffers. Attorney Connolly stated that it is subject to different interpretations; noted that it is the applicant's application, and the Planning Board cannot control it; explained that the applicants will decide what they want to apply for, and what to proffer, sO then the Planning Board decides "Yes," " or "No;" concluded that there is nothing wrong with Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 10 putting on the record what is going to make you change your no to a yes, noting it then becomes an exaction rather than a proffer. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:28 PM. ausl 25 - a David Smith, General Manager David Morriss, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]