CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Patrick Gannon, Chair Board Eileen Normile, Vice Chair Members Members Damien Blumetti, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Present: Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Present: Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Timothy Litchet, Director, Development Services Lawrence Murphy, Building Official, Development Services Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer Lucia Panica, Chief Planner, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL! MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Gannon called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.m., and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY 1. Staff is requesting Agenda Item No. VI.1 be moved to the top of the agenda. Planning Board Members approved the request by consensus. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF - [MOVED TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA] 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. Construction Staging Mr. Timothy Litchet, Director, Development Service, Ms. Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer, and Mr. Lawrence Murphy, Building Official, Development Services introduced themselves for the record; Director Litchet stated that they do not have a specific presentation this evening, however they understand that the Planning Board has questions about construction staging, and they are here to provide information and clarification; noted that Ms. DavisShaw deals with right-of-way closures and sidewalk closures, Mr. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 43 Murphy deals with a lot of the building related issues, and he, as the director of Development Services, is also involved in this. PB Chair Gannon stated that one of the reasons the Planning Board requested that the item be placed on the agenda for discussion is that, in various presentations, there were questions from the public as to what happens to their neighborhood when a plan goes forward, and the impact on them; and added that there were questions as to what is approved in the site plan, and if it could, in some way, mitigate any of the potential construction issues that might arise. PB Member Morriss stated that the staging issues create risks to adjacent properties and other people's lives, people are: not happy with the way it is being handled, and asked staff to address this issue; and asked if it is an enforcement thing, or the Code is wrong, or if it is something else. Director Litchet noted that every time there is construction in congested areas there are challenges; added that the proximity in the high condo areas have raised additional challenges in the past few years that the City had not experienced before; pointed out that some relate to the specific zoning districts, because the City has created some potential conflicts with the zoning; explained that, when the Code requires lot-line-to-lot-line construction in many cases, or allows a maximum of 5 ft. setbacks in areas where there were 30 ft.- 40 ft. setbacks, the new building is going to cause some type of consternation, because of the proximity issue; added that staff is very aware of that, and they have done their best to: minimize impacts;noted that they have had complaints about cranes swinging over their properties, but one cannot build these high rises without having a crane, the crane swings are allowed to go over somebody's air space, and they plan the crane swings to limit the movement of materials over other properties; said that Mr. Murphy can speak as to when he requires the netting to go up; pointed out that some of these projects would be much easier if they had to deal with cooperative property owners, of course nothing says that the adjacent property owner has to be "cooperative," but there have been times that staff has asked contractors to construct hard structures over adjacent parking areas, and the adjacent property owners say that they do not want that to happen; noted that it is within their rights, but this is an example of the fact that staff may request something of the contractor, butit may: not be accepted by the adjacent property owners; stated that they have had projects that went very smoothly; noted right now with the construction of The Mark staff has received very minimal complaints, even with the Farmers' Market; and added that a lot of it comes down to the cooperativeness of the contractor, and everybody working together. Mr. Murphy stated that the City's zero-lot-line regulations are comparable to those across the country; stated most contractors are used to developing on zero-lot-lines, but that creates issues with the adjacent property owners when the contractors request access to their properties for either installation of protection, or even constructability issues that create the need to access the property;noted that those are outside the City's realm, because the City cannot mandate the adjacent property owners allow access to the contractors, but the City can provide protections in an aerial nature; noted that they have utilized in most of the zero lot line projects tools such as scaffolding and catch nets; added that the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 43 construction crane swing radius, the radius of where they are actually picking loads and swinging them on to the building for use, is indicated on the staging plan to ensure that they are not swinging over adjacent properties or adjacent structures; pointed out that OSHA requires a weather-vane, and aerial operations cease during high winds (25 m/h sustained winds); stated that those are some of the tools the City has used very successfully, and in the next DSA meeting he will bring up the fact of the rasping of the Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS); there have been cases where the EIFS adhered to the exterior of the structure; explained that it [the structure] has to be rasped in order to accept stuccoapplication; said that they can controlled it well now, they require some finer netting over these types of operations, or requiring daily clean up, or vacuum raspers; noted that there has been no push back from the industry about the extra mandates on them, and most of the contractors are willing to comply when the City asks for these protections under the Florida Building Code; pointed out that it becomes a little contentious when they want to erect scaffolding for the protection of adjacent properties, and they do not get the consent of the adjacent properties; explained that the City then has to use some alternative measures to erect the netting to catch these types of objects; noted that, with the amount of construction that he has done in the City of Sarasota, in the last twenty eight years, there has never been a fatality; pointed out that there is a human factor that is involved in construction, people on construction sites, unintentionally make mistakes; added that some of those mistakes have been brought to light in some of the projects that were developed downtown, where the contractors made mistakes and incidents happened; said that they were not malicious in intent, they were just accidents, and accidents are hard to stop; added that construction, by its nature, is something that you want to have a heightened awareness when you walk by it; and concluded that, for the most part, the City has done a very good job on containing accidents, especially in the downtown cores, as well as on other construction sites, holds all construction sites, even the residential ones, to very high standards, and has a hard enforcement on them. Director Litchet stated that construction, by its nature, will raise dust and debris, requires special netting, and things like that, in some cases the windows are totally enclosed; added that another issue with construction is noise, they abide by the City's noise ordinance, and they enforce that, for example when it says 6:00 A.M. start, it means just that, and it does not mean that one can start staging at 4:00 A.M.; added that he has seen Mr. Murphy shut jobs down for days, or withhold inspections, etc., because staff takes noise violations very seriously; and concluded that if the City still gets complaints about the hours, then something needs to be done with the City Code, because staff will abide by the adopted Ordinances. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that as part of the development of a site, her department issues right-of-way-use permits, and works closely with Mr. Murphy's staff when it comes to staging and traffic management; explained that depending on the types of improvements the developers have to do, it may become necessary to close part of the road or the sidewalk during the construction; added that improvements to water and sewer lines also require closures; noted that when there are closures of lanes or sidewalks for a project, the developers pay fees, they have to build things to City standards, and staff Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 43 inspects that; added that they also are required to get erosion/s siltation permits to make sure that the material is not getting to the stormdrain and clogging it; said that people call when they see an issue, staff goes out to talk with the contractor to clean things up, and if issues continue, they work with Mr. Murphy's team and they help resolve the issue. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she is not a fan of zero-lot-line development, but she understands it is there, and staff has to deal with it, however when she went to New York, she walked around the World Trade Center where there is a lot of construction, it is lot- line-to-lot-line, and she noticed that every building was wrapped up, top to bottom, with an orange netting, whether it was a brand new construction or a renovation, completely wrapped, if it is eighty stories, it is wrapped, sO that is how they deal with lot-line to lot- line construction, nothing falls through that wrapping; asked, when the zoning code changed to allow lot-line-to-lot-line construction, how were the codes changed for protection; secondly, she asked, who has the burden of making sure that a construction project is safe; said that she cannot believe that the burden is on the next door neighbor, she thinks the burden falls on the one who is building; said that he has to figure out how to build it without killing anyone; noted there were some instances recently that it was a miracle thati no one was killed; thirdly she stated that she feels the City has a duty to protect the life and safety of the people who live in the City, it is not just "it is a Code issue," or "they really try... */ " added that there were things falling off that building into people's windows and walls, stuff flying off The Vue that hit the building next door and fell on to Gulfstream; asked where: is the City's duty to protect these people, it really appeared to the un-initiated to be egregious; added that it is hard for her to understand how Codes are being enforced, when she watched The Vue for instance, pile up top soil during the rainy season, they never covered it, and it sat there at the corner of Gulfstream and US 41, where the entire world could see: it, and she could see: it from her window, and then it rained, and it all went into the drain, everything flooded, and people's cars were ruined; stated that it appears there is need for more enforcement, better rules about enforcement, and better Codes; noted that we are dealing with buildings that are built lot-line-to-lot-line, or even five feet apart, which is a dangerous; and she asked staff to speak to that. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that she cannot recall what happened in this particular case, but she knows that developers are required to put up erosion control, and if they do not do it, then according to the Ordinance, they are fined. PB Chair Gannon asked if City Engineer DavisShaw recommends changing the fines sO that they actually hurt. City Engineer DavisShaw responded that the majority of the time there are: no violations to that extent, but should the Planning Board want to recommend a more restrictive fine or penalty, then staff can ask the City Commission to approve increasing those fines. Mr. Murphy stated that there are a couple of inherent differences about the way things are constructed in New York and the way things are constructed in Sarasota, noting a lot of the buildings in New York are steel erected, sO they are different in nature, they use different materials; stated here we add additional materials like stucco, and it is impossible to do those types of operations in a totally enclosed area, total enclosures do not work well with the types of materials used in construction in the state of Florida, not to say that they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 43 cannot be looked at; said that he is a firm believer in increasing safety whenever he can, but when: it comes to the direct impacts that they had down at The Vue, this brings us back to what he mentioned earlier about the human nature in the equation; explained that in that particular project, they missed some sleeves, and they were coring in post-tension slabs, due diligence was not put in where the drilling was being done, and unfortunately they hit a preloaded tension cable; added that, as soon as he heard about it, he went to the site to speak with them, put protocols in place that required signatures by engineers for each location where they would be doing core drilling, and it was X-rayed sO that there weren't any post tension cables, and then they had another one; said that he felt that the protocols that he put in place did not work, SO he asked the developer to net the entire side of the building, because at that particular building most of the tensions were facing the adjacent building; unfortunately, the way the netting was secured to the building, and according to their design, when the wind reached fifty miles an hour, the netting had to come down, and the operations of core and drill would cease until the protection could be back: in place; everything moved along well until they moved to the edging of slabs for the hand rail detail, and they hit another cable, human error; repeated that this is the reason he mentioned the human factor in construction, and that protocols were not followed; added that he does not think that physically, with the type of construction done in Florida, that an entire wrap of a building is the true answer to the issue; stated that he does not think that the constructability wouldi be there in order for the contractors to be able to apply their exterior materials on the building; added that staff can look into increased protections, something that he would personally explore; noted that other incidents were a result of poor performance, and human error; noted that it is hard to adjust human error; staff is trying to do the best they can, and when they have a problem with a contractor they put more and more layers on him; and pointed out that in subsequent buildings the safety protections went in from the start, they have not had any issues from the newer construction, and hopefully that sets an example of how it should be done. PB Member Morriss stated that this is between best practice, the right thing to do, and the cost-effective thing to do; he knows that no one wants to dictate something that is outrageous and ridiculous, but it seems it works to have these protections in place before there is a problem; and asked if Mr. Murphy thinks that the majority of the contractors are trying to do the best practice, or the most cost-effective practice, as opposed to the preservation of safety. Mr. Murphy stated that most of them are trying to dol best practices, but there was not good construction management on the construction sites; added that City staff were not used to having that; said that management picked up, the enforcement picked up, his time out in the field picked up, and they achieved a higher level of what he calls common sense construction; said that staff are doing things that they needed to do, they are having the conversations much earlier, and the staging plans are much more scrutinized; pointed out that he has looked at bigger jurisdictions, including St. Pete, Tallahassee, Miami, they do not have the layers that Sarasota requires on the staging plans, and they have a much more dense core; noted that they are moving in the right direction, there is always room for improvement, Sarasota has a really good program that far exceeds what he has seen in other jurisdictions relating to requirements for the staging plans; and said that they really bring it down to the personnel parking, entrances, delivery routes, etc.. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 43 PB Member Morriss stated that it appears that the City has fixed the problem, but people are angry about things that happened in earlier projects, several years ago, but now staff works differently with the contractors. Director Litchet stated that there is always a learning curve, during this construction boom, staff learned a few things themselves, but he thinks the contractors in town are concerned with safety, and they are cooperative, because it costs them money when they run into problems; added that Mr. Murphy has looked into practices in other parts of the state, and more dense areas, and agrees with Mr. Murphy in that the City is doing as good a job as other bigger jurisdictions, but there is always room for improvement; said that staff has explored how far they can go, even when the people who they are trying to protect are opposing the installation of safety measures, they work with the legal staff and act accordingly, and it is aj progression of learning; agreed with Mr. Murphy in that during the period of coming out of the recession, there were some labor issues, people could not get the people they needed, although it is always a struggle to get good talent; state when someone asked if it is the City'sj job to make things safe, certainly it is, but it takes a little bit of effort by everyone involved, including the contractor, the people next door, and of course the City, this is the philosophy of City staff. PB Member Morriss stated that his grandmother used to say, "there is no cure for stupid," sO no ordinance will protect people from someone who is snipping a post tension cable, nobody does that unless they are really green." Mr. Murphy stated that it happened, and then followed the controls, it is obviously a process that staff will continue to refine and add to, safety is his concern; noted thatl he had some issues because he closed the sidewalks, and stated if he can redirect the traffic down one block to increase the safety, he would do it because he thinks it is prudent, because he does not want pedestrians right up to the construction project, if there is a feasible route within a few feet, that provides a higher level of protection; stated it is a double-edged sword, and staff cannot please all the people all the time, adding staff puts their best effort forward to try to keep the rights-of-way open, and to provide safety, and expresses that to the contractors directly; and stated that the City is not alone in this, there is OSHA, if it gets to the point that staff has to go to that extra level, they make those calls, noting OSHA is the actual enforcement arm of occupational safety. PB Member Blumetti asked if staff has ever denied a project based on the lack of a staging plan, and secondly maybe staff can comment on the staging plan of the building at the end of State Street, which seems to be very complicated yet is running very smoothly. Mr. Murphy stated that it is The Mark. PB Member Blumetti asked where the materials are stored and where the construction workers park. Mr. Murphy said that the construction workers were parking in the State Street parking garage, some are now parking under the building; noted the electricians have sub-let a site: nearby, the majority of the deliveries are coming in from Pineapple, there is a twelve. foot area where they bring their trucks and are hoisting from there, some of the materials are delivered with temporary roadway closures on Pineapple, because of the width of the building, and obviously they have two crane picks that are going on; commended the contractor for doing an excellent job noting they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of4 43 meet biweekly to make sure everything is being adhered to; and stated that this is the pinnacle of how the construction should take place, to a certain degree, obviously there are some issues with closures, but he believes that is one of his better projects right now. PB Member Blumetti asked again if staff has denied a project due to the lack of a staging plan. Mr. Murphy stated that he can guarantee that staff has done that. Director Litchet stated that a permit for a commercial project like that cannot go out until staff has an approved staging plan; noted that they also require staging plans for residential buildings of greater than 5,000 sq. ft., showing their parking, flows, etc.; and pointed out that they also require staging plan updates every ninety days, because things change on the site. PB Chair Gannon thanked the comments and intentions of City staff, and stated that unfortunately practice does not always match up to that; noted that at The Mark, the sidewallk on the west side of Pineapple was closed when the construction company erected the concrete barriers, with no signs saying "Sidewalk Closed," and it was that way for weeks; added that Sarasota Modern had the sidewalks closed on a major thoroughfare, the Boulevard of the Arts, for over twenty months, during the various stages, when it was only the last few months that they needed to close it to replace the sidewalk; said that it seems that the burden is on the public to make the complaints, because it was said earlier that staff responds to the complaints, and he understands it is a staffing issue, going out and inspecting to seei that contractors have erected sidewalk closure signs, and they have placed them in a position where somebody can respond to that; stated that the Planning Board received a letter from the Citizen's with Disabilities Advisory Board, asking the Planning Board to be aware of issues that affect them; said that when one looks how the construction people, once they get approval, are closing sidewalks, and erecting signs, etc., they don't always take into account how a person in a wheelchair or a walker is going to respond; explained that if they walk halfway down the block, and they find the road closed, and they cannot cross in the middle of a six-lane road, then they have to turn around and backtrack, sO even crossing the street to get to the sidewalk at the opposite side, that is not insignificant for some of our aging population; pointed out that, fora a City that has set goals ofi increased walkability, it appears that some of the mechanisms of approving closures for months and years, and not following up on signage, etc., is impacting the public, and making it more difficult to deal with; added that this goes hand-in-hand with the fact that, as staff knows, we have more construction going on, and there are more people in the downtown area; pointed out that the Planning Board, as the Local Planning Agency, has the task of making recommendations to changes in the Code, and this is one of the areas the Planning Board is trying to deal with, in their responsibility, as they see things that come up in the hearings; added that questions about what happens during staging have already come up in Community Workshops and in public hearings, SO the Planning Board knows this is a common question that the citizens are asking and are concerned about; asked what else can be done, for example is it a Code change to require netting to the face of the building that faces an existing building for some hundred, or fifty feet, or if it is residential versus an office building, or something, as you get closer and closer, are there some added regulations or procedures that either need to be put in place or adhered to; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 43 concluded that this is one of the questions the Planning Board is looking into; and asked staff to let the Planning Board know if they have any suggestions. PB: Member Morriss stated that the Planning Board is interested in arming staff with better Codes sO that they can enforce better practices throughout; said that it would be helpful to everyone, but the contractors may not like it much; noted that it has been mentioned that all a contractor has to do is to come to staff and say he needs an extension to this road closure because he does not want to spend much money, or he would pay overtime, etc., and asked what is the actual policy relating to extending closure periods, because het thinks the perception about that might be a little skewed. City Engineer DavisShaw responded that if they come in requesting a closure of any type, staff will review the: request to see: ifi itis ai reasonable closure, or if modifications are: needed that would reduce the impact; stated if it is determined that the road needs to be closed, and their request is legitimate, they have to pay for closing the road, they pay more if they close the road during season, or if they close an # A" street or "B" street that is walkable, SO there are things in the Code that try to encourage to do work off peak and keep the closures on the streets where they do not expect as much pedestrian activity; and stated if the closure. happens earlier than they have approved, then they are. fined and required to open the road up. PB Member Morriss asked how much they pay, because the perception is that it: is pennies, and that it is cheaper to pay the fine than to hire the extra workers to do the work faster. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that it depends of different factors and read from an Ordinance the costs for closures; said to close a road section, there is a fee: for the sidewalk, a fee for each parking space, a fee for each lane, a different fee if: it is during season, and a different fee depending on the type of street, "A" or "B"; noted that these prices were approved in 2013 and were increased substantially after 1350 Main Street was built, because that project had the area closed for a very long time; explained that back then there were ways that the permits could be waived, but the new Ordinance eliminates the possibility for the fees to be waived, and has increased the fees significantly from what had been in place before; added that staff is looking into modifications, for example you are paying for a whole day, even if the sidewalk needs to be closed for less time, sO staff is thinking about reducing the time and the fees accordingly, because if they have the permit for the whole day, there is no reason for them to finish in less than a day, sO staff is looking into that, hoping they open the street during peak hours, which will be better for the community; added that staff is also looking into increasing the cost of sidewalk closures, and what staff wants to do, if it is physically possible, is to require a covered walkway be constructed, that is a better scenario; said that staff wants to make it competitive with other choices; noted that each construction site and each sidewalk is different, sO she cannot say that this would be an option in every instance, but they want to try to encourage it, if it is an option; and noted that the fees are in Resolution 13-R2326 and the road closure or the right-of-way-use fees are in Ordinance is 13-5033. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018. at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 43 PB Member Ohlrich asked: what is the degree of specificity that is identified and agreed upon, at what point in the process are these items agreed upon, items that are important during construction, such as staging, storage of equipment and building materials, parking for construction workers, if they are not specified and agreed upon, what recourse is there, should something happen, or somebody complains, and if there is a specific recourse. Director Litchet stated that all of these things are addressed in the first staging submittal, including parking washouts, what will be closed, where the materials are stored, these are all part of the initial staging requirements. Mr. Murphy concurred, and added that all of these requirements are also listed on-line on the building permit website; said that the staging plan has to be approved prior to the issuance of the building permit. Director Litchet stated that if the contractors are not following the staging plan, staff can either use Code Compliance, because the contractors must be in compliance with the staging plan, the building permit, and its conditions, or Mr. Murphy has the authority to stop any job based on permit violations, and that has happened before. PB Member Ohlrich asked if The Mark requested, and if SO, if it was approved, that the workers would park in the State Street garage. Mr. Murphy stated that it was part of the approval, and it was approved by the City's Parking Manager. PB Member Blumetti suggested staff reevaluates the idea of reducing the fee for part time closures, because it may become a loophole for some of the contractors to get a reduced fee for closures. PB Member Morriss stated that it should be a little more painful to them when they shut public access off, we want to be fair and reasonable, but the citizenry are deeply inconvenienced by some of this stuff; stated in his experience he has tried to do everything within a window of opportunity, do it intensely and quickly, but he does not see this happening here as much, maybe because of the tone of the place, and asked if it could become more painful without creating a huge problem. City Engineer DavisShaw responded that staff can look into that. Mr. Murphy stated that the fee should be commensurate to the closure; said that he would not use the expression "make it painful;" repeated that the fee should be commensurate with the amount of time the right-of-way is closed, and the type of road, or street, or sidewalk that is closed; and stated that is the Engineering Department's purview, and they have been looking into different fees. PB Member Morriss stated that putting this in perspective, $25.00/day is the half of a carpenter's S hour, he was surprised at how small the fees are, because in his jobs, the fees have been high and painful, sO he was wondering if that might address some of the concerns. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 43 PB Chair Gannon added that another concern is that, at the time of initial plan review for zero-lot-designs, does staff discuss that they will have a great deal more issues during construction, and about the staging of this type of development, than if they were to set the buildings back five or ten feet, to reduce those kinds of issues, or is there a way the fee structure can begin to address that. Director Litchet stated that staff discusses with the applicants the challenges and impositions to the neighbors zero-lot line construction involves; added that staff can look at street closure fees; welcomed any recommendations from the Planning Board if the PB feels that the fees are not painful" enough; noted that sometimes you can lengthen a job by creating more barriers, SO staff encourages balance, and the quicker the job gets done the better; and concluded that the public gets priority and needs safety and mobility, and it all has to work out. PB Member Morriss asked if there is a process that staff can suggest, through which staff and the Planning Board can sit down to figure out where that "sweet spot" is, where the project is expedited but at the same time they do not have any cushion, or much "fluff," in the closures. Director Litchet stated that he does not have an answer to that right now, but staff can discuss it, coordinate with the legal staff and the mobility experts now on staff, who may provide some advice and help to develop recommendations on this matter, and can also look at best practices elsewhere, if they can have some other people help. PB Chair Gannon asked if there is specific action item Director Litchet would recommend. Director Litchet said that he does not have anything at this moment, but staff will schedule another discussion, now that they have heard the Planning Board's concerns. PB: Member Ohlrich recommended that staff consider increasing fines for non-compliance, increasing fees for right-of-way closures, and report back to the Planning Board. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if staff feels there are enough inspectors currently on staff with the building boom that is going on. Mr. Murphy responded that there is no a lot of bench strength in the Department. PB Vice Chair Normile said that it seems very significant, if you have this much construction going on, and rules and regulations, and lot-line-to-lot-line, and asked if Mr. Murphy can use more inspectors. Mr. Murphy responded that he has had an ad running for three months now for a commercial plans examiner; pointed out that the problem is that the licensed people are very hard to get right now; explained that it is a very competitive market between what Sarasota's S packages are offering and what is being offered in other jurisdictions, SO it becomes a very hard task to get the appropriately licensed people; added that all of City'sinspectors have to be licensed with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, they have to have a minimum of five-year's experience in the trade that is been sought; noted that since the downturn, a lot of the licensed people left the state and never returned, that is why he works with different organizations, like ICC, in order to look at how people are licensed, and to try to get alternatives in place; and added that obviously the concern is that the City Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 43 does not want to dilute the pool, the City wants seasoned construction specialists that they can Cross train, but it has been very difficult to fill positions. Director Litchet pointed out that when the City posts a job in the building trades now, it is at least six months before they get an application or two; noted that Florida is one of the few states that requires that inspectors are licensed in the specific trade; noted this became a requirement about fifteen years ago, and all the building departments are feeling the effects of it now; added that a lot of people were grandfathered in; said that when he first started out, he could send a guy out and he could do plumbing, mechanical, etc., but now they have to have tests, they have to have all these hours to keep their certifications up, and sO forth, sO it is a real challenge to get people with single licenses; added that when the City gets them, they have to go through a tremendous training process and hours in the field to become cross certified sO that they have that bench strength and it is getting harder and harder; pointed out that, now the City is losing, because it cannot compete with what is being paid out there in the private industry, the City cannot come even close to matching it, because the private industry is paying whatever these people need in a short period of time; stated that this will be an ongoing issue for groups like the City, and even the private providers, it has been a big problem because there is hardly anyone out there, their inspectors have to be certified just like the City inspectors, and they cannot keep them; repeated that it is an on-going problem that the City is facing, in terms of bench strength; and added that the City Commission has been very good whenever they have asked for more people, but the frustration has been finding and keeping people, and it is the same thing in the Engineering world. City Engineer DavisShaw agreed, and added thati it is very difficult to fill engineering and technical building positions because the demand is SO great with everything that is going on construction wise. PB Chair Gannon thanked the speakers and said he will follow up with Secretary Cover about follow up actions. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TOTHE 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 Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Contact. Attorney Connolly described the procedures for Quasi-judicial Public Hearings, recommended time limits for the presentations, and administered the oath to all present who intended to speak this evening. PB Chair Gannon asked the Planning Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications they may have had in relation to all of the following three quasi-judicial public hearings. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 43 PB Member Ohlrich disclosed a phone conference with planning staff and stated she did a site visit on her own. PB Member Blumetti disclosed contacting City staff, David Minacci, Attorney for the Board of Architecture and Interior Design in Tallahassee, and Mathew Bechtel, the Architect that signed for the plans for the Sarasota Day Care; PB Member Morriss disclosed on-line research for Kids-R-Kids; PB Vice Chair Normile disclosed conversations with Caroline Zucker, Sarasota County School Board, and stated spoke with an operator at Kids-R-Kids. Attorney Connolly explained that during ex-parte disclosures, the parties have the right to ask questions, to determine if there is any bias as a result of the ex-parte communications; and noted that Mr. Lincoln, the Attorney for the second public hearing for the Sarasota Day Care project, is interested in doing SO. Attorney Lincoln addressed PB Member Ohlrich and said that he saw some e-mails in which she indicated that she was reviewing information from the Department of Families and Children, and asked if that is correct. PB Member Ohlrich concurred. Attorney Lincoln asked if she also reviewed their Handbook. PB Member Ohlrich said "Yes," and asked if what he meant is the Department of Families and Children's Handbook for Certification of Childcare Facilities. Attorney Lincoln said that the official name of it is the Childcare Facility Handbook, October 2017. PB Member Ohlrich said she reviewed this handbook, as well as the Florida Statutes, Section 402.26 through 402.319. Attorney Lincoln asked if she has a copy of the Facility Handbook to put in the record. PB Member Ohlrich responded she did not print it. Attorney Lincoln suggested that she make arrangements with the clerk to do sO, because according to the City's Code, any time a board member does any investigation that is outside from what is going on in the hearing iti is ex-parte content, and the subject matter of the investigation has to be introduced to the record during the proceedings; explained that he is going over this now, because in this case we want a clear record, and if there are going to be questions about the handbook, he thinks it is best that a copy be placed on the record. PB Member Ohlrich agreed to do that; added that she also reviewed some of the National Association for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC) Early Learning Program Accreditation Standards, and she can make those available to Ms. Grassett as well. Attorney Lincoln addressed PB Member Blumetti and asked if he can disclose the time, date and subject matter of the conversations he had, and specifically asked about the contents of his conversation with David Minacci. PB Member Blumetti said the topic was violations of Code, potential violations of Florida Statutes Section 481.229(3), and violations of Florida Statutes Section 61(8)(1)23.01 and 5, against the architect and against the engineer. Attorney Lincoln asked about PB Member Blumetti' S conversation with Mr. Bechtel, the Architect. PB Member Blumetti stated that he called Mr. Bechtel approximately at 4:00 PM the day before this meeting to discuss his involvement in the project; asked him ifl he knew about the project, but he did not know the name of the project, he only knew the project by the engineer who was working on the project; and discussed his signature on the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 43 drawings, in part pertaining to the fact that it is a signed and sealed document on the engineer's title block, which is a potential violation of the statutes that he just mentioned earlier. Attorney Lincoln asked if PB Member Blumetti suggested to Mr. Bechtel he send a letter to Ms. Grassett rescinding his seal on the plans. PB Member Blumetti said "Yes." Attorney Lincoln asked if PB Member Blumetti told Mr. Bechtel that, if he did not do that, PB Member Blumetti would report Mr. Bechtel to the Department of Architecture. PB Member Blumetti said "Yes, but this was at the request of the attorney." Attorney Lincoln stated that at this point he will do something that he has never done in a Quasi-judicial Public hearing, and asked PB Member Blumetti to recuse himself for bias and prejudice from any participation in any of these proceeding; added that he understands that PB Member Blumetti believes in good faith that these are serious issues with these plans, but what he has done is to directly interfere with a witness in the proceedings, and with the evidence that has to be put forward in these proceedings, to try to change and alter the testimony of a witness and the evidence that has been put forward; said that PB Member Blumetti cannot make impartial rulings on the quality of evidence that hel has directly tried to manipulate, or exclude from these hearings; added it is the definition of a situation in which PB Member Blumetti has a bias or a prejudice that affects the outcome and the fairness of the proceedings to his client, and while he does not think it was done in any bad faith, what was done is anathema to a quasi-judicialhearing and having a fair and impartial hearing, that is required in these circumstances; noted that it went beyond a simple investigation on the issue, and PB Member Blumetti tried to directly interfere with the evidence, and for that reason PB Member Blumetti is biased, and he has to ask that he recuse himself from participation. PB Member Blumetti stated that he is first an Architect and then a member of the Planning Board, and under Chapter 445 Business and Professional Regulations General Provisions, letter (i), as a Licensed Architect, hel has the professional obligation to report whathe thinks is illegal activity by a licensed professional, it is his legal obligation; repeated that this is not in good faith, it is his legal obligation. Attorney Lincoln responded that if PB Member Blumetti believed that that was going on, and simply done that... PB Member Blumetti interrupted by saying that he has proof of that, and there is an open case against both of them right now. Attorney Lincoln said that this is the result of PB Member Blumetti's phone call, who told him to remove the evidence or he would report him; added that it may be PB Member Blumetti's duty as an Architect, but it takes PB Member Blumetti out of the ability to participate in the proceedings this evening, in this hearing, on this matter, because hel has taken steps that establish that he cannot be impartial as to the evidence; and repeated that PB Member Blumetti may believe that a violation has occurred, and he may believe that he had an obligation to report it, but that is something separate from what he had to bring to this table, and his actions have crossed that line. PB Chair Gannon suggested that the City Attorney state what is the Planning Board's next action. PB Member Blumetti stated that! he believes this is not the case, becausei it falls under Article IV, Division IX of Conditional Uses, Section V, which clearly states that the general public health and welfare is preserved, and any reasonable conditions necessary for such preservation have been made. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 43 Attorney Lincoln stated that it does not matter that PB Member Blumetti thinks that the plans are not legal. PB Member Gannon asked if there were any questions for other PB Members. Attorney Lincoln stated that there were no other questions. PB Chair Gannon stated that he also had ex-parte communications with staff, and asked Attorney Connolly what is the Planning Board's next step. Attorney Connolly stated that it would be wise for PB Member Blumetti to recuse himself, because if he were to go forward, he has created an issue that is a guaranteed appeal and guaranteed litigation. Attorney Connolly did not think it is in the best interests of the parties to go there; added that what PB. Member Blumetti needs to understand is that when he is sitting in a quasi-judicial public hearing he is the judge, and in a typical proceeding, the judge does not do any investigation whatsoever, the plaintiff and the defendant do their investigation, they bring facts and the law to the judge, and the judge makes a decision on it; SO the fact that PB Member Blumetti went out and had a conversation with a witness, it presents a reasonable argument that he would not be able to be a fair and impartial judge of that witness. PB Member Blumetti stated that there were situations where the Planning Members spoke to applicants before; and asked why is this different. Attorney Connolly pointed out that what PB Member Blumetti has admitted here is that he did suggest to the witness to remove his seal. PB Member Blumetti stated that it had nothing to do with this public hearing. Attorney Connolly asked PB Member Blumetti if he thinks that he can make a decision this evening completely ignoring the fact that he questions the sealing. PB Member Blumetti stated that it is subjective; added that, under Attorney Connolly's guidance he would recuse himself, but he believes it is subjective. Attorney Connolly stated that with his guidance he is trying to reduce risk, and by going forward, it is an appellate risk. PB Member Blumetti agreed to recuse himself from the public hearing for the Sarasota Day Care. PB Member Morriss noted that he investigated the site of Kids R Kids; and asked if the whole website should be printed out and entered in the record as evidence. Attorney Connolly stated that Attorney Lincoln is correct, the Code states: ifa a Commissioner or Board Member conducts investigations, makes a site visit or receives expert opinions outside the public hearing, then the existence of the investigation, site visit or expert opinion shall be made a part of the record... PB Member Morriss agreed to send to Ms. Grassett the link of Kids R Kids. PB Member Blumetti asked if what he did is not made part of the: record. Attorney Connolly stated that is a different issue, and explained that the reason that he recommended PB Member Blumetti recuse himself is because parties have a due process right, under the federal constitution and the state constitution, to a fair and impartial judge, and the testimony PB Member Blumetti has already put on the record, where he asked a witness to remove his seal from those plans, shows a bias against that party. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 43 B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Sarasota County Parking Garage (2150 Ringling Blvd): Adjustment Application No. 18-ADP-03 is a request for approval of an adjustment from Section VII-110(5)(C), Zoning Code (2002 ED.) for property located in the Downtown CORE (DTC) Zone District with a street address of 2150 Ringling Blvd., known as the Sarasota County Parking Garage. The Applicant is requesting wall signage to be located other than at the top of the first floor façade and to allow signage to exceed the allowable maximum height of 24". (CONTINUED FROM 9/5/18 PB MEETING) (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Applicant's Presentation: Ms. Brandy Kell, representing Sarasota County Facilities Operations, introduced herself for the record; stated that the applicant proposes two adjustments relating to the signage for the Sarasota County Parking Garage located at 2150 Ringling Boulevard, in the Downtown District; noted that the current criteria for the signs state that the identification for the building cannot be higher than the first floor of the structure; pointed out that this building was built prior to all the criteria; added that what the applicant would like to do is to remove and replace the sign, and put a more visible "P" for parking garage on the sign, sO that pedestrians, vehicles, bicyclists or anyone else in the Downtown area can identify where this parking garage is; pointed out that the applicant would like to locate the sign on the fifth floor, where the current sign is located, and puti it at a level where people can actually see it; noted that the first floor is not going to work because of the landscaping and the stairwell, it is at the corner of the building where the Sheriff's Office is, therefore the applicant is requesting to put two identical signs on the northwest and on the northeast face of the tower; and said that in the packet there are images of what that would look like. PB Member Morriss asked if this is the same parking garage used by the people who report for jury duty. Ms. Kell agreed. PB Chair Gannon noted that there are a lot of people who get summoned for jury duty, and this is the first time they have to come downtown, and he thinks signage and wayfinding is critical to them. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she did a site visit and it is clear that if the sign were on the first floor someone coming from the west would not be able to see it; pointed out that someone coming from the east might be able to see it, but she thinks higher up, where it is now, it is better for people who are finding their way to that parking garage; And added that the universal sign for a parking garage will be an asset. Staff's Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; stated that the subject property is located at 2150 Ringling Blvd., on the south side of Ringling Blvd., east of East Avenue; pointed out that the 3.25 acre property contains a four-story parking garage with rooftop parking, and 973 parking spaces; noted that the building was constructed in 1989, prior to the Downtown Code, and it is used by the general public as well as Sarasota County employees; added that the property is zoned Downtown Core; stated that the applicant is requesting two adjustments, two identical signs; noted that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018. at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 43 pursuant to Section VII-105 (5)(c) of the City's Zoning Code, wall signs are required to be located at the top of the first floor façade, provided that it does not exceed 2-ft. in height for any length; said that the applicant requested two identical signs, where the "P" is proposed at 4-ft, and the majority of the sign is 1'3"; noted that at the height and placement of the proposed sign, a 2-ft sign would not be that visible, and would not serve its purpose; added that an increase in size to 4-ft. for a portion of the sign would be a reasonable increase, and would be more visible to the public trying to locate the parking garage; stated the bottom of the sign will be located approximately 50 ft. from grade, approximately where the existing sign is located, and it is also a decrease in size from what is there now; said that no lighting is proposed and a detail of the sign and its location has been provided as part of the support material; and stated that as indicated in the staff report, staff supports the two requested adjustments, and recommends the Planning Board approve the adjustment subject to the two conditions in the staff report. PB Member Ohlrich noted that based on the applicant's testimony, the staff S testimony and the information in the staff report, the building was constructed prior to the Downtown standards and Downtown sign regulations, and she asked staff to confirm that, when the building was built, it met the standards of the day, and the standards of the day did not require signage to be located at the top of the first floor. Chief Planner Panica confirmed both. PB Chair Gannon asked if there are any residential facilities near the parking garage. Chief Planner Panica stated, "No," and used areal photographs to show other signs in the vicinity, to illustrate that the few signs that exist in the vicinity are further away from the location of this sign, and there are no conflicts. PB Member Blumetti asked if the parking garage is used at night, and why the sign does not light up. Chief Planner Panica stated the parking garage is not used at night. Ms. Kell confirmed that the facility is not used at night. Affected Persons' Presentation: There were none. Public input: There was none. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PBI Member Morriss moved to adopt a motion to find Adjustment 18-ADP-03 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the. Adjustment with the two staff conditions. 1. Adjustment Application No. 18-ADP-03 is limited to the Sarasota County Parking Garage building wall signs as shown on the sheets received by Development Services Department on October 9, 2018 as submitted by the Applicant. 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 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 43 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 obligation S 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. PB Member Blumetti seconded that motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that the staff response to the review of the five criteria was very clear, and as far as the impact on the public, it is important that there is very clear signage. PB Chair Gannon added that he found that the application meets the requirements of the Code, that the proposed does not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the Downtown! Neighborhood and the zone district, SO that he would support the motion. The motion passes with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. Sarasota Day Care (930 N. Beneva Road): Site Plan Application No. 17-SP-12 and Minor Conditional Use Application No. 17-MCU-02 are a request for Site Plan and Minor Conditional Use approval for a Daycare Facility to serve up to 300 children with proposed hours of operation being Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., located on an approximate 7.5 acre parcel in the Residential Multiple Family - 1 (RMF- 1) zone district with a street address of 930 N. Beneva Road. (CONTINUED FROM 10/10/18 PB MEETING) (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Attorney Connolly pointed out that there are no applications for affected person's status for this public hearing. PB Member Blumetti recused himself, and left the chambers at 7:24 PM. PB Vice Chair Normile addressed Attorney Lincoln and stated that since this is a continuation of last month's hearing, she wants to make sure that she is completing the record by putting into evidence what she discussed with Ms. Zucker of the Sarasota School Board, and an: individual at Kids RI Kids; said that there was: no more. information, but they referenced the three final evaluation and rating sheets for the Charter School applications that she mentioned in the last hearing, and she will submit them for the record. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, agent for applicant, introduced himself, and Mr. Lincoln, Attorney for the applicant. Attorney Lincoln stated that he will address questions from the Planning Board members that were not fully addressed at the last hearing; introduced Mr. Norton, who is the Principal of Charter School Beneva LLC, and Mr. Losee, and Mr. Smith, the Traffic Engineer; explained that he will first address the questions about Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 43 financial issues raised by PB Vice Chair Normile in the last hearing; and noted that the review standards call for the applicant to prove that they have the financial capability to provide the required improvements, and in this case the required improvements are those to Beneva Road which are conditioned as part of the building permit. Mr. Norton introduced himself for the record and stated that his wife and he are the owners of the property at 9301 North Beneva Road, and they have been Sarasota residents for seventeen years; confirmed that they have the financial ability to complete the project, right now they have a loan of six milllion dollars from a private lender, and at this point they have utilized less than half of the amount of the loan, sO there are adequate funds to complete the building; added that they have relationships with a number of funds and financial institutions, including Regions Bank, where they work with Mr. Elliot West, whose office would vouch for Mr. Norton if needed; said that he has financed a number of projects; and noted that Kids R. Kids have 160 learning centers around the country, they are also vested in seeing that this takes place, and they are willing to offer their financial help, if necessary. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if he invests six million dollars in the project, where does the income come from. Mr. Norton stated that the income comes from tuition, which is on a sliding scale, the youngest pay the most, and it goes up to the four year olds who also get a subsidy from the state in the Pre-K program. PB Vice Chair Normile asked to whom does the income go. Mr. Norton said the income goes to the school which is a for- profit enterprise; explained that Kids R Kids started in 1961, as a family company, and the son is the Chief Operating Officer; stated that they have a team of specialists headed by a woman named Ronny Williams, who has a Master's Degree in Child and Family Development, whose staff makes sure that they recruit, train, and implement the program the way they want it, and will stay with this team until everything is up to snuff; and said that, normally, within a number of months, there is a waiting list to get into Kids R Kids. PB Member Ohlrich asked if Mr. Norton needs to apply for licensing by the Childcare Licensing Program oft thel Department of Children and Families from the State of Florida. Attorney Lincoln stated there are: several required licenses, including one. for the facility, which needs to be operated by individuals who have appropriate licenses at different scales; added that during the last public hearing, PB Member Ohlrich had questions about the size of the facility, and whether it would meet licensing requirements; noted that the revised architectural plans that the Planning Board received for this meeting, Sheet SK101.1A, Kids R Kids Daycare, Preliminary Plan, dated 10/22/2018, show the square footage; added that the licensing requirements, and the standards in the handbook, require 35 sq. ft. per student, in any maximum capacity, in any given room facility, capacity is based on the net, she did the math on the rooms, and there is capacity between 216 and 284 students in the facility, per this layout; added that since the internal layout is not part of the Conditional Use approval, this can be tweaked between now and the time it goes to building permit approval; and stated that some of the rooms in Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 43 this layout are inefficient, and at 34 feet you can only get 20 students per room, sO the capacity of the room will be tweaked. PB Member Ohlrich noted that, for new construction, the providers are encouraged to consult with the licensing officers as early as possible regarding layout, because decisions regarding placement of walls, classroom size, etc., can significantly impact the capacity of students that is approved, and asked if the applicants have been in consultation with licensing agents from the State of Florida. Mr. Losee stated that they have not been in contact with them but they have read all the statutes, and they understand the program; pointed out that this is not the first day care facility they have done in the State of Florida, he does not see any issue regarding the facility requirements; added that they have also collaborated with Kids R Kids and their program, they have done these facilities all over the country, sO they have made some minor modifications based on the thoughts and requirements of Kids R Kids; and concluded that they have done their homework. PB Member Ohlrich said that she also learned the capacity is the last thing they approve, they go through the building and carefully scrutinize usable square footage per room, and per the building at large; and added that she was glad that it was pointed out that it may not, and probably will not, be certified for 300 students, because the square footage that is shown on the plans does not allow that. Mr. Norton pointed out that Kids R Kids just completed new construction in Apollo Beach and in Kissimmee, and the same team that was working with the Department for those projects will be working on this project as well. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the applicant plans to apply for Gold Seal Quality status. Mr. Norton stated that they are applying for accreditation. PB Member Ohlrich explained that Gold Seal Quality status means that the applicants would meet the criteria established by national organizations, such as NAEYC and other national accrediting organizations; noted that this status allows you a little bit of flexibility with the Florida requirements, and asked again if the applicant plans to apply for Gold Seal Quality status. Attorney Lincoln said that the applicants have not made that decision yet, it will be made as the project goes forward, and with consultation with Kids R Kids, it is the kind of thing that would be addressed at a later stage; added that the planning of this facility is intended to make sure that you have the basic things that you need to meet all of those requirements; added that this is a good plan to meet minimum requirements; and added that the applicants will decide, as the process moves forward, whether they plan to meet maximum requirements, but this is not part of the Conditional Use review criteria. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she understands that. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she wants to go back to the finances; she said that it has been mentioned that it will be 300 children, but probably it is going to be less than 300 children; and asked why they mention 300 children if the number is less. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018. at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 43 Attorney Lincoln explained that in order to do the traffic analysis and the other analyses that are part oft the review process, the applicant has to set a target, and here the impacts of a daycare center are not measured by square footage, the way they would be in most commercial type projects, they are measured by the student load, therefore, for these analyses, one would use the high end of the number of students one would expect to see in the building, to make sure that there would be no constraints by that later; added that planning practice would be that you would want someone to plan this way, sO the application is for a facility for up to 300 students, the traffic analysis is predicated based on a facility of up to 300 students, the parking analysis, and the recreation and open space have been done for a facility up to 300 students, and what that means is that if there are: fewer students, then any oft these things are exceeding, rather that not meeting, the requirements. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that the applicant has received a six million dollar loan from a private lender, and asked if the applicant anticipates that this full amount will be required to build the childcare center, or is some of that on reserve for the additional building, which the applicant references in his materials, and you have applied for charter schools; added that she realizes that the Planning Board is looking at the daycare center, and asked again if the applicant is considering the six million dollar loan for the daycare center, or is the applicant going to hold some of that on reserve for the rest of the building. Mr. Norton stated that they are only focused on the learning center at this time, and if they were to do something else on the property, they would look at separate financing. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that when the applicant does his analysis of return on investment for the daycare center, does that cover his return of investment including taxes, upkeep the building, improvements, etc., for the daycare center, and is he able to maintain at that level without adding the additional school, or whatever else he wants to add, because there has been talk here about putting a second story on this building. Mr. Losee stated that the original building was a two-story building when they had a different layout with wings, they reduced it to one story, and they have no intention of putting a second story on this building. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if this is the only thing they plan to build on this property. Attorney Lincoln responded that the property has space to support other kinds of uses; added that based on the Zoning, these uses could be multi-family uses, or other Conditional Uses like a school, expanded day care, etc.; explained that any of the Conditional Uses would have to be presented to the Planning Board; noted that the site has been designed to allow this to be the first phase, and allow future development on the property, however at this time there are no current identified uses to be developed in a later phase. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she understands, and she is only trying to determine the financial viability of this project. Attorney Lincoln noted that the review standard is not to determine whether the project is financially viable in the long term, it is to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 43 determine if the project has the wherewithal to provide the improvements that are required by the stipulation, which in this case is the turning lanes and the other improvements required for the project; and said that the long-term viability of the project is not in the review criteria referring to financial capacity. PB Member Morriss noted that the applicants used the term expanded daycare as a possible future thing, and explained that the reason he asks this, is he wonders if in a few months the applicants will come in with a facility twice the size of this; and asked Attorney Connolly what are the parameters of defining a daycare center with this approval, and then embrace a future expansion of it. Attorney Connolly responded that all the Planning Board is reviewing today is a Minor Conditional Use application and a Site Plan application for up to 300 students; added that if anything else is going to happen in the future, it is either going to be a permitted use, which would not have to come to the Planning Board, or it is going to be a Conditional Use; and explained that the example of an expanded daycare, that is another Conditional Use, sO there will be another application, another community workshop, another Planning Board public hearing, and that will have to stand on its own, as far as approval under the same review criteria. PB Member Morris stated that in his ex parte explorations, he looked at the website at the facilities for Kids R Kids and noticed that all are pitched roof residential quality, yet what is presented here is very different from all the others; and asked why. Mr. Losee stated that they worked with the staff to come up with a site plan that would work both for a day care facility and the charter school, all in one building, and during that process, they worked around trees and other things on the site that were important to the City and came up with this U-shape configuration; added that when the charter school did not get approved, the applicants switched to a daycare facility, worked with staff on a new configuration and it was decided to use the front as the daycare facility, hoping that the wings will be built at a later date, since the engineering and planning was already done; said that this is the reason the daycare facility is in that configuration; and noted that the reality is that, if there are future phases to this, it will be a detached rather than attached to the daycare building, with some kind of roof connector. PB Member Morriss recalled that in the last meeting there was concern about the compatibility with the residential neighborhood in the area, and this plan has not changed a scrap: from the last time; and stated that the applicant is responding to a future expansion more than to the Planning Board's comments. Mr. Losee stated that they are showing improvements to the long wall facing Beneva Road, changed the window configuration, and the heights of the panels there to help break-up the long look, added additional trim, and there is a protruded black canopy along the same. Discussion ensued about the height of the windows. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 43 PB Vice Chair Normile asked if they have drawings of the changes Mr. Losee described. He responded that they are in the packet. Attorney Lincoln referred to Sheet SK-200A, Kids R Kids Daycare, 10/21/2018. PB Member Morriss noted that the play area has been modified significantly to make it more humane; and added that the images of the other facilities have a black picket fence. Mr. Losee noted that it is a chain link fence and one can see through it. PB Member Morriss stated that the last time he thought the playground would have opaque panels. Mr. Losee stated that the criteria for this area are still not totally defined; added that now that they have a different configuration for the outside fence, before they had talked about going around some trees, instead they put the trees in the play area and the jungle gym is on the south end of that; and stated they have a new configuration of the playground and have added 2,000 sq. ft. to it. PB Member Morriss stated that he comes back to the question that this does not have a residential look to it, the others have a pitched roof, and he thinks if he were a kid he would be scared to come up to this building; added that a pitched roof is more comforting, it has a more residential look to it; and asked why this design. Mr. Losee stated that they did not like the pitched roof look, and the future buildings will not. have a pitched roof either. PB Member Morriss asked if Mr. Losee thinks this is a compatible design with the surrounding area. Mr. Losey said "absolutely." PB Member Morriss stated that there is a difference of opinion here. Attorney Lincoln noted that City Planners think that this is compatible; pointed out that the only residential use in the entire area is the folks to the north of this site, and that the narrowest side of this building is facing north towards the residential use; noted that the building itself is not going to be highly visible by the neighbors due to the existing and the additional landscape buffers along the property lines; added that the building style and architecture is probably an upgrade from the K-Mart across the street, and the other buildings that are near: it; and concluded that, in terms of how the building fits in the overall mix, there is nothing significant on this building that impacts the residential folks to the north, it is highly buffered, iti is a tiny part of the building area, the architecture of the building and other things are barely visible to the folks to the north, sO it is not an issue. PB Member Morriss stated that using K-Mart as a bar it is a pretty low bar. Attorney Lincoln responded that if the question is compatibility with the neighborhood, there is a cemetery and a golf course behind it, and there is no issue of this being compatible on an architectural level with anything else; stated that he does not think that PB Member Morriss can articulate any adverse architectural impact from this building on the neighbors; added that the: idea that PB Member Morriss would have a subjective idea of the architecture and the architectural quality, or that he would personally want to see something different architecturally, that is not the review standard here; pointed out that the issue is whether or not the architecture is adversely impacting the neighbors, the staff's conclusion states it is not, given everything else that is on the site plan; and said that there is no way to get to the idea that a flat roof, as opposed to a pitched roof, has an adverse impact to the villa development to the north of it, which is going to be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 43 50 ft. away, and only facing a narrow portion of this one-story building behind buffers, which is not going to be visible. PB Member Morriss said that this is Attorney Lincoln's opinion, and he does not take staff S recommendation, that is why there are five Planning Board members Attorney Lincoln added that this is also Mr. Freedman's opinion, who is an expert planner, and he himself is also a Planner, and a Professor of Planning, and has been recognized as a planning expert in multiple circumstances and scenarios, and, as a planner he has worked exactly on these types of compatibility issues and other things for years; added that there is nothing PB Member Morriss can identify in planning theory or planning practice that would identify a reason this building is architecturally not compatible, or incompatible, and creates negative adverse: impacts on the: residential area to the north; and stated that if it is SO, PB Member Morriss needs to identify it in objective terms, not in terms of his subjective opinion; said that if PB: Member Morriss is going to deny the Conditional Use or the Site Plan application based on that criteria, he has to be able to identify objectively what it is that does not work. PB. Member Morriss stated that all the other facilities have a more residential look, they have pitched roof. Attorney Lincoln stated that the fact that the other facilities, in other jurisdictions, do not look like this building has nothing to do with the criteria for planning this building for this time and space in the City of Sarasota; added that reaching to other kinds of things to basically say "We [the Planning Board] want you to do a different building," - based on subjective preferences, is not what the review criterion is about. PB Member Morriss stated the Planning Board will take council's advice on that. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the K-Mart building is under renovation now, and will be greatly improved, and some fitness center, as well as a Big Lots, sO the state it was in as a K-Mart will no longer be. Attorney Lincoln said that it can still have a flat roof. PB Member Morriss stated that it is a commercial building. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she would like to say that she is very happy to see the very child-friendly playground equipment, but, even though she is not an architect, this is the only child-friendly thing she sees in this building; added that the building from the exterior as well as thei interior, looks very institutional, not child friendly, and that may not be part of the decision process this evening, but she sees it very clearly this is not child-friendly. Mr. Losee disagreed, stating thatif one were to walk into a Kids R Kids facility anywhere in the country, one would not be able to tell the difference between those buildings and this building. Mr. Freedman pointed out that the applicants are connected with Kids R Kids, who are experts in this, they have 160 facilities around the country, and he thinks that is what the Planning Board can rely on; and noted that the applicant cannot move forward if Kids R Kids are not happy with the design. Mr. Norton added that Mr. Ramos, an architect in Texas who is consulting with this team and is the main lead architect for all of the Kids R Kids facilities, and he has insisted that the interior be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018. at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 43 essentially identical to the other facilities, and there are things that make Kids R Kids special; added that the CEO, David Benson, has been personally involved in reviewing the plans, they are all very comfortable with the plans that are being presented, and they have to approve the plans. PB Chair Gannon stated that on the development application his company name is Charter School Beneva, LLC, and the company address is on Midnight Pass Road, but on the site plan presented to the Planning Board the company address is in Miami, and not the corporate address; and asked for an explanation. Mr. Norton stated that the company is bicoastal, they love to live in Sarasota but work in Miami, sO they have an office on Brickell Key, and that is probably why that address was submitted; added that the corporate address is with the state where it was registered, with the mailbox in Sarasota, on Siesta Key, that is for all of his companies. PB Chair Gannon stated that there was discussion about this in the last meeting, it was not changed, and he was wondering why. Mr. Norton stated that he would love to work here all the time, but it did not work out. PB Chair Gannon noted that listing the corporate address differently than what is on the state records is a misstatement to the record. Mr. Norton said that it was a mistake, the official address is 6547 Midnight Pass Road, #3. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if Mr. Norton has anything in writing from Kids R Kids indicating that they are happy with this project and its design, for the record. Mr. Norton said that the CEO David Benson visited the site, a long time ago: now; added that he and his wife already own a franchise with Kids R Kids, and the franchise agreement specifically states that Kids R Kids have certain rights and authorities over the process, noting he does not have a copy of that, but he can provide it. Attorney Lincoln stated that they can provide it, however it is a stretch saying that it is necessary for the record, because the application here is a valid application for a daycare center, regardless if it is run by Kids R Kids, and he does not want anything to be proffered because this is Kids R Kids; and concluded that it may be relevant for the building permit but not for the record this evening. PB Vice Chair Normile said that she understands, however if one is taking seven acres, near a major intersection, and building a facility that the applicant did not initially apply for, and there is a history with the School Board of three applications for charter schools, which were denied, her concern is if this application is technically sufficient for this school to actually come in and populate this building. Attorney Lincoln stated that there is nothing in the code that states you have to have an end-user in order to get approved for the use; added that the issue with the charter school [being denied] is actually not true; explained that, according to the statues, charter schools are relieved of certain obligations that might apply to any other applicant, and therefore it was relevant, and when the charter was not granted, it affected the ability to go forward with that application, but that is not the case with the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 43 daycare; added that the Planning Board cannot say that a business cannot be approved because another business was not successful there; added that the charter situation has no bearing on whether a daycare is appropriate on this site, or whether this applicant can do what is required, which is to fund the required improvements, that are: required by the approval, which is a separate issue; and concluded that the Planning Board does not sit here rationing daycare sites only to the people that are coming in with a contract, that is not the criteria. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the applicants understand that they are here for a Conditional Use, which is not a use as of right. Attorney Lincoln stated that the conditions go to whether or not it can be accommodated by the site, under the criteria that are set out in the Code; pointed out that the Conditional Use is not personal, it goes with the land, and has to do with the land, not the owner, not the operator, not a particular form of financing; noted that the criterion was met, because it has been demonstrated that the applicants can fund the improvements, but it is beyond the criteria to say, can you prove that you will have this daycare operator, that we like; said that: is not what the Conditional Use criteria ask; and added that he understands that in a community level there is concern about it. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that she did not say that they have tohave a daycare center that she likes, she wants to see that, if this moves forward, this is a seven acre site, there are sO many things you can do with a seven acre site, most of which do not cause sO much traffic, and if you are building a daycare center, it would be nice to know that it will be licensed, and operating. Mr. Norton stated that neither he or his wife, or anyone in his organizations had anything to do with the charter school applications that were denied noting they were totally independent of him and his organizations; and stated the charter school applicants approached him and said they wanted to have a charter school on this site, but it was not him or his organizations. Staff Presentation: Planner Greenberg introduced himself for the record and stated that after the lengthy presentation of the applicants he will just respond to questions. PB Member Ohlrich recalled that at the last meeting she had a number of questions about traffic; and asked if City staff has heard from Sarasota County regarding the proposed improvements to Beneva Road. Planner Greenberg stated that Sarasota County was involved in the latest design; added that he has an initial letter from Paula Wiggins, County Transportation Planning Manager, who stated that she has no issues with the concept of what is being provided, that any improvements within the County's right-of-way would require the applicant to submit construction plans during the development process, and to please contact Mary Stevens, Land Development Services Coordinator, when alli is ready to go through that process; explained that what this means is that she cannot give a formal response Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 43 until this is formally submitted; said that the City operates the same way, sO until they get this approval they are not going to proceed with the other applications; and added that they are waiting for the final construction application to be submitted to the County after the applicants get approval from the Planning Board. PB Member Ohlrich said that Paula Wiggins also wrote a letter to Planner Greenberg denying the traffic signal, because it would exacerbate the congestion at other points along the corridor; added that she thinks Ms. Wiggins was thinking, from a more macro perspective, about traffic flow on the street; noted that it is very clear to her that the proposal for the improvements to Beneva Road is being made from a micro perspective, to allow for traffic coming in and going out of this site, and also traffic going north and south on Beneva Road from the Commons; said that the improvements will indeed exacerbate the congestion and traffic problems at the light at the northern end of the Commons parking lot, across the street from the entrance to The Glen; added that she mentioned to Planner Greenberg, during their phone conference, that she happened to be in a line of sixteen cars at that spot, on October 30, 2018, at 5:35 PM, the sixteen cars were waiting to turn either north or south on Beneva Road, five cars were waiting to get in the line of the sixteen cars, three cars were at the bank waiting to get out of the bank, no one would let these people in, in addition there were three cars that had just turned in off of Beneva Road into that parking lot, and wanted to turn left to go either the bank or the grocery store, or one of the other establishments, but nobody would let them in either; added that she was there on election day, at 4:45 PM, and there were fourteen cars in the line, everybody is in a hurry to get out of there, nobody would let anybody in; and pointed out that it is being proposed that everyone who comes out of this site turn north onto Beneva Road, and make a U-Turn at that traffic light, SO that they can go south on Beneva Road; and concluded that this is really going to exacerbate the problems in this area. Planner Greenberg explained how the timing of the traffic signals would control the turns and the traffic; and added that the traffic engineers reviewed it and decided it was OK. PB Member Ohlrich noted that on the day she was there with the fourteen cars, she actually started as the fourth car in a line of eighteen cars, and because there were cars coming out of The Glen, one going across into the parking lot, and one turning left, only three cars got through that light coming out onto Beneva Road; and said that she had to stop at the red light, there were eleven cars left plus all the additional cars that built up because they could not get through, there were about twenty cars, she could not count, she was mad and went home. PB Member Morriss asked for Mr. Greenberg's opinion on the design appropriateness of this application; stated that probably Mr. Greenberg was focusing on the logistics of the site; read the design criterion in the Code, which states, - whether the application will be compatible with adjacent residential development, if any, based on the characteristics such as size, building styles and scale, whether such compatibilities are mitigated. such means as screening, landscaping, set backs and other design features.. ." Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 43 added that staff have said that the landscaping and the setback are mitigating things; and asked Planner Greenberg if he thinks the design features of the proposed building makes it harmonious with the adjacent residential uses. Planner Greenberg said that it is difficult for staff to answer the question of compatibility between two designs in a mixed use neighborhood, there is commercial across the way, residential to the north, golf course to the east, a cemetery to the southeast, commercial again to the south and residential in a building that people often think it is an office building, and prior to this proposal, the site had trailer homes; SO the character is evolving, it is wonderful that: new development is coming in; added that whether or not elements such as a pitched roof could be made more compatible is a good question, however, staff focused on the use, and it was deemed compatible; said that should itl be found incompatible, staff would have to determine what needs to be done to make it compatible; noted that with the type "C" buffer on this site, which is the most dense buffer that the City can require, whether that can mitigate noise, it is out there for the jury, whether: it can mitigate aesthetics it: is true, but to what extent, it: is quite subjective, and it is determined based on the denseness of that landscape. PB Member Morriss stated that this question has a subjective component to it. Planner Greenberg stated that, if it is incompatible, you have to say what mitigation measures should be used to make it compatible; pointed out that in addition to the dense landscape, the site has a required six-and-a-half foot solid fence, sO regardless of the landscape one cannot see through the fence; said that this discussion is about the north border where the residential uses are, and pointed out that the building is set sixty feet back, and it is well below the height limit, sO it is highly unlikely that they can see the building; and added that considering all those things, staff did not find it incompatible. PB. Member Morriss stated that he knows that he cannot talk about future phases, it has been clear that this application is for this building and site plan, and any future changes would have to go through the same process; and asked if therei is a change in the process if they go for a charter school versus a daycare center. Planner Greenberg stated that a charter school requires a Major Conditional Use process, sO not only they would have to come the Planning Board for recommendation, but they would also need to go the City Commission for approval; added there was so much history on this site, it was reviewed with the additional buildings that were initially proposed; said there was a loop around that was initially proposed, a lot of that came with proposed tree mitigation, because there is significant number of trees on the other areas of this property;noted that the applicants managed to keep all of those trees; said that staff did a site walk with the Director and the City Senior Arborist talking about each tree and how it could be saved either by moving the building or making other design changes, sO there have been a multitude of iterations of the design; and concluded that any future development not only has to come back through this process, but is going to have to answer the same questions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 43 PB Member Morriss asked if the applicant can do a multifamily project without going through this process. Planner Greenberg responded, potentially, yes." PB Vice Chair Normile asked about the K-Mart. Planner Greenberg stated that there is an interior build out going on. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that this is a large building, and, whatever is going on, is going to increase the traffic going in and out from that shopping center. Planner Greenberg said versus "no use" it will increase the traffic, but he cannot say if there will be increase versus the traffic of years ago. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that none of that has been factored into this study, which is going to generate Mr. Greenberg said that this is an interesting comment, because the study had to look at projected future, and what it would look like with the proposed development, and the traffic improvements at that specific ingress / egress, adding that it becomes a little difficult. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that the gentleman from Tindale said that 210 cars per hour, at peak hour, which is when students get out of school, intercepting when the people are on that road, and there are many failed intersections in the vicinity and all interact with each other. PB Chair Gannon referred to Sheet No. L-01, Sarasota Day Care Site and Development Plan, 10/22/2018, noted that this drawing shows the location of the fence around the children's outdoor play area, which now has been moved further north of tree #80, and the mitigation plan states that tree #80 is been mitigated because they would try to save it if they could; and asked given the redesign, is there any reason why tree #80 is still shown as mitigated. Planner Greenberg stated that this tree is very close to thel building, and they were: not sure if there would be root damage because of the construction here; added that the applicants used the mitigation in advance to determine where the trees should be placed, this plan shows that this tree is being preserved; stated should they decide to remove that tree in the future, they would have to come through the process again, and explain their decision; pointed out that considering the history of the site, and the fact there are 23 grand trees on the site that need to be protected, and the applicants are trying to save all of them, the Senior Arborist will be highly involved on this site, and there will be barriers around all of the trees; noted that Mr. Murphy stated that accidents can happen, however every possible measure will be used to prevent an accident, it is simply a matter of the location of the existing roots; and concluded that the applicants wanted to know where the mitigation trees would go should it become necessary, and noted they have provided more mitigation than required. PB Chair Gannon stated that the plan that the Planning Board is asked to approve indicates that if they decide to, they can still take them out. Planner Greenberg stated that they are proposing their mitigation calculations, should they get permitted to remove thei tree, this does not say they are alllowed to: remove the trees. PB Chair Gannon stated that he feels uncomfortable when the language on the plans say, "to preserve, if at all possible, and it is a subjective decision of whether to keep them or not. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 43 Public Input: 1. Forrest Paradise resident of The Glen, which is located immediately north of this project; expressed concerns about traffic. Rebuttal by the. Applicant: Attorney Lincoln introduce Mr. Phil Smith, Landscape Architect and Certified Arborist, to address the tree concerns. Mr. Smith showed a picture of tree #80, and stated that it is a live oak, it is not a grand tree, but it is a shrubby growth habitat, and it has several elongated stems, and those stems reach where the building is going to be placed; pointed out that when they tried to measure and stake where the building will go, they think the tree needs to be trimmed, but they are not certain if that would be sufficient; sO the purpose of the presentation in the drawing is that they want to save the tree, and they will do whatever possible to save it, but they are not certain; and added that it is needless to say that they do not want to go through the process again just to say that we wanted to save the tree but we they cannot. PB Chair Gannon stated that the branches extend to where the building will be, but it can be trimmed. Mr. Smith explained that in this case, because it is like a shrub, when the elongated limbs are trimmed, with no other lateral branches, it is like killing the tree. PB Chair Gannon asked what can be done with the root structure. Mr. Smith stated that the roots are far away, the concerns are with the branching of the tree. Attorney Lincoln introduced Mr. Robertson, the "other Norm," to comment about Sarasota County's views on what is being proposed. Mr. Robertson said that in addition to the letters that Planner Greenberg read earlier this evening, there was a DRC meeting, where there were no significant comments from the traffic and transportation group, the only thing that was brought up was that they have been working with this team during the entire process and they think the team is on the right track. Rebuttal by Staff Planner Greenberg said that the applicants did a lot to save the trees, given what they need and what they are going for, and confirmed the applicant's reasoning for the difficulty with preserving tree #80, that the majority of the canopy leans to the west. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss addressed Attorney Connolly and stated that the Planning Board was told that they cannot use subjective opinions, and asked for Attorney Connolly's opinion on item 2(c) in terms of the Conditional Use. Attorney Connolly stated that this relates to whether the application is compatible with the residential uses, etc.; added that obviously we all prefer to have things as objective as possible; added that one cannot say, "I don 't like blue buildings sO Iwill disapprove of this;" said that one has to do his best to apply it in such a way sO there can be a reasonable amount of objective discussion about it; noted that he is not willing to say that one cannot have Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018. at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 43 subjective aspects of it, but he will encourage PB Member Morriss to be as objective in his discussion as possible on this; stated that he does not care if PB Member Morriss votes up or down on a project; added that his preference is that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record to support the decision PB Member Morriss makes; and concluded that the more objective the discussion is, the more supportable it is if the judge has to look at it later. PB Member Morriss said that he agrees with PB Member Ohlrich that this is not a child friendly designed building, the inside might be fine, but the inside does not matter because the outside can be painted gold, but the only child friendly part of the exterior was the play area. Attorney Connolly stated that he does not see anything in the City's Zoning Code that would require the exterior to be child friendly, because the Planning Board is looking at the compatibility with adjacent residential development; pointed out that when the code refers to "building style," it is not because of a particular use in the building, but, is that building style compatible with the adjacent buildings; explained that this is in an effort to protect residential uses from the intrusion of commercial uses, and when you have a Conditional Use, generally speaking, that is bringing some non-residential use into a residential area; and stated that is the focus of the compatibility criteria. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Gannon stated that, in previous meetings, there were discussions about operations under Conditional Uses, and that the City Manager has the right to shut down an operation, if it does not operate according to the Conditional Use; asked if that would apply to the testimony they heard about the traffic in the area; and asked, if the traffic became such that, (most likely in the morning, when they drop kids off, or the afternoon, when they pick up the kids), that it creates traffic back-ups on Beneva Road, which is a major thoroughfare, if that became significant, and the neighbors complained, would that lead the City Manager to have grounds for ceasing operations because of the traffic impact. Attorney Connolly noted that they are obviously speculating, because they are talking about potential and future, and he would speculate "No;" and referred to criteria in Section IV-910 (b)(2)- Grounds for revocation - it states 1 that grounds for revocation may include but are not limited to the following (a) a change in intensity, character beyond what coas initially intended, which affects the public, health safety and welfare since the adoption of the conditional use. Attorney Connolly added that the Conditional Usei is for a daycare of 300 students, they cannot change that; and said that he: is making the assumption that the future situation is going to be no more than 300 students. PB Member Gannon stated that it comes down to how well it is operated; added that the reference to increased intensity is not necessarily related only to changing the business they are doing, but in fact the testimony the Planning Board has, both from the traffic studies and the layout of the traffic patterns inside, is what the Planning Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 43 Board has to base its decision on; said that what is the evidence if front of the Planning Board here, and that evidence given to the Planning Board says that under all expected operational conditions, we. should not have any safety issues on Beneva; noted that that there are safety issues occurring because of traffic, because the intensity is greater than the testimony said it should be, based on the evidence and the studies, they are all conjectures as to what the impact would be; and concluded that if operationally they have an impact, it seems to him that it would be a violation of the intensity. Attorney Connolly disagreed; explained that what the Planning Board is approving is up to 300 students, and that is not going to change. PB Chair Gannon asked what if operationally it creates a hazard. Attorney Connolly repeated "No," if this is approved for up to 300 students; added that the State of Florida has said that [a jurisdiction! cannot, under any circumstances, deny a development application based on traffic, sO the State will not allow [a jurisdiction to do that as of 2011. PB Chair Gannon added that they just have to pay impact fees. Attorney Connolly clarified that they have to pay proportionate fare share. PB Vice Chair Normile moved to deny the Conditional Use. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. Speaking to her motion, PB Vice Chair Normile said that her motion was based on safety, and the safety goes back to the traffic issues; added that it is based on: Section IV- 910 (2) (d), which states, I whether the application will have significant adverse impacts on the livability and usability of nearby land, etc., including safety issues; noted that she believes there will be safety issues, this area is already a safety problem, and questioned why one would approve a Conditional Use to exacerbate it; Section IV- 910 (3), which states, 1 whether the transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to the existing uses in the ared... said that the answer is "No;" noted that the traffic study is very clear as to what kind of mitigation should be done, and FDOT said "No;" pointed out that FDOT turned down the mitigation, and asked where does that leave the City of Sarasota; concluded that it leaves the city without the appropriate recommended mitigations; Section IV-9 910 (5) which states, W whether generally the public health, safety and welfare willl be preserved, and any reasonable conditions necessary) fors such preservation have been made.. pointed out that the mitigation did not happen, the conditions are already dire, and this use is adding a large number of cars per hour, creating an even more dangerous situation; and concluded that there is substantial and credible evidence to sustain this. Speaking to her second, PB Member Ohlrich said that PB Member Normile stated the standards for review, and the inconsistencies with the standards of review, quite well and that is why she seconds and supports the motion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 43 Motion to deny passed unanimously with a vote 4 to 0 (PB Member Blumetti recused himself). PB Member Blumetti returned to the chambers at 8:47 PM The Planning Board took a five-minute break at 8:47 PM; the PB meeting resumed at 8:54 PM. 3. Evolution (111 Golden Gate Point): Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-16 is a request for Site Plan approval for a nine story multi-family condominium structure containing 20 residential units with parking on the first level. The project, to be known as Evolution, is located in the Residential Multi-Family-5 (RMF-5) Zone District with street address of 111 Golden Gate Point. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Attorney Connolly stated the following seven persons have applied for affected person's status: M. L. Hartle, Wendell Anderson, Beverly Albertson, Kenneth Reese, George Carlino, Trevor Smith, and Linda Walker. Mr. Trevor Smith was present in the audience. Attorney Connolly recommended that only Mr. Smith, who qualifies and is present in the audience, be granted affected person's status. The Planning Board approved by consensus. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, agent for the property owner, Golden Pointe LLC, Mr. Mark Sultana, Project Architect, DSDG Architects, and Bobbi Claybrooke, AM Engineering, Project Engineer, introduced themselves to the record; Mr. Freedman stated that Mr. Smith, their Landscape Architect, is in the audience; noted that the property is located at 111 Golden Gate Point, at the entrance to Golden Gate Point, the property is 0.82 acres and is zoned RMF-5; pointed out that RMF-5 allows twenty five units per acre, which corresponds to about twenty units, and that is what is being proposed; stated that the project has met all the Code requirements; said that they held a neighborhood workshop, which was not required, he was unable to attend because of his situation, but Mr. Sultana attended, and will discuss that; and pointed out that RMF-5 allows significant heights, but after thirty five feet the building has to step back, and this is shown on the plans. Mr. Sultana stated that the project is called the Evolution, it is a twenty unit condominium project, it: meets all the zoning and building code requirements, including building heights, parking requirements, percentage of glass, driveways, setbacks and additional setbacks, and they are not asking for special exceptions, or variances, any special treatment, they are meeting the Code; pointed out that the building is eight stories over a level of parking, the parking level is alllowed to be up to fifty percent building coverage, and the tower of the building is allowed to be twenty five percent building coverage, and they meet all those regulations as well; noted that the lower levels of the building are three units per floor, ranging from 2200 sq. ft. to 2600 sq. ft., and the upper levels are penthouses, which are two per floor and are about 3500 sq. ft.; stated that there is a pool and amenities on the second floor, above the garage, at the first living level; said that all the units have enclosed garages for their parking, there is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 43 a large garage that you drive into, and then you drive to your own personal garage with a rollup door; added that there is also a roof deck that is accessible to the building owners, and roof top units can be privately bought by the owners of the building; stated that they have met with the Golden Gate Point Landscape Committee, because early in this process there was a problem with the way they were entering this building, and they would have to remove two of their trees; added that they met with them and redesigned the entry to this project to satisfy their concerns, and they received a letter from them stating that they are. happy with the way it was redesigned. PB Member Ohlrich noted that guest parking will be on-street parking, and asked if there is a way to provide some guest parking; pointed out that when she visited the site, she counted approximately 100 on-street parking spaces, some of them are designated for residential units that do not have garages, they were marked with numbers, sO she does not know what the actual count is, but a lot of those places were full already; and she was wondering if the applicant gave any consideration to providing guest parking. Mr. Sultana stated that they submitted an earlier plan to the DRC that had guest parking and unfortunately the Code does not allow parking in the setbacks, which eliminated a 30ft long swath on Golden Gate Point, a 20 ftlong swath on the east side of the building, and a 20 ft long swath on the south side of the building; and repeated that they wanted to provide parking there, but the zoning code does not allow that. PB Member Ohlrich noted that the ingress/egress to the garage is two-way; and asked if they have discussed or considered for it to be one way in and one way out. Mr. Sultana stated that the problem with doing that is that it would alter some of the landscaping that the Golden Point Landscape Committee did not want to alter; stated the Committee also did not want any parallel parking on the west side of the building, even though the applicant was willing to pay for it; and stated a driveway coming out at that location would be too close to meet engineering requirements. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the November 4, 2018 letter from 174 Golden Gate Association, which includes concerns that the Planning Board discussed with Mr. Litchet, Ms. DavisShaw, and Mr. Murphy earlier this evening relating to protections for the current residents on the street during construction; and asked if they had any communications with the residents on this topic, and how they were planning to protect them during construction. Mr. Sultana stated that this topic did not come up in the neighborhood meeting; pointed out that this is not a zero-lot-line project, there is quite a buffer between the building construction area and the sidewalk, the street and everything around them, anywhere from twenty to thirty feet; added thatin his opinion there is sufficient room to stage their crane, and the construction materials; and noted that he spoke to the contractors about it, who said this is "heaven" by comparison to other projects, because of the available on-site area around the building. Mr. Freedman added that any damage to the street during construction would have to be repaired by the contractor; and added that worker's S parking will be off site. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 43 PB Chair Gannon asked if during the construction they plan to have any of the sidewalks closed. Mr. Sultana stated that there will be a short closure when they improve the sidewalk to make the two curb cuts. PB Chair Gannon asked if they are making any other changes to the sidewalk where the driveways are. Mr. Sultana stated they were not. PB Chair Gannon summarized saying the sidewalks will be closed only during the improvements for the entrance of the driveway, and other safety measures. Mr. Sultana stated that currently there: is a chain link fence around the property line and that still gives them plenty of room to work. PB Member Blumetti asked how the applicant has met or exceeded the open space requirements. Mr. Sultana stated that the open space requirements are very minimal on this site, noted that the front of the building has a 30 ft wide landscaped area, and they far exceed the minimum requirements; added that, Mr. Smith, the landscape architect fori this project, was also the landscape architect for the Golden Gate improvements, and they feel there will be a coherent design in the landscaping. PB Member Blumetti said that he misspoke, he meant balcony space, actually part of the building, like exterior terraces. Mr. Sultana stated that every unit has balconies and exterior terraces, noting that they have exceeded the requirements by far; and pointed out that the balconies are over 200 sq. ft. per unit. PBI Member Morriss stated that this is a clean cut, handsome building, and he is curious as to the roofscape, with all the other taller buildings around, what it is going to look like. Mr. Sultana stated that the tallest element will be the elevator overrun, and there is a structure over it; noted that the entire roof is a deck, it is not like other roofs that have black tar and equipment everywhere; and said that they have some equipment on the roof that is screened and sits behind the elevator and the stair tower, noting it is in the most hidden place it could be for the taller buildings across the way. PB Member Morriss stated that the sections imply that this is usable outdoor space; and asked if it is for everyone to use. Mr. Sultana said that there are two roof decks, one will be sold to one of the unit owners, and the other will be shared among the rest of owners of the building; and pointed out each is about 3,000 sq. ft. At PB Chair Gannon's request, Mr. Sultana showed a drawing of the architectural view from the west elevation, coming in from the entrance. PB Chair Gannon asked if this view was available when the applicants met with the residents of Golden Gate. Mr. Sultana stated that when they met with the neighbors, they had three renderings, and the site plan and the landscape plan. PB Chair Gannon asked it the neighbors had any objections, because this will become the premier view into their community. Mr. Sultana stated that the most they heard was that they liked it; and added that they also heard that they wished it weren't sO tall, noting they are allowed to have that height and the project meets the code. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she is an affected party, she lives across the street and she will be able to watch everything the entire time; said that the biggest issue she has, and she says that because she walks her dog around there every day, is that driving in, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 43 you are looking at a wall; added that the applicant is trying to avoid that, but you do not drive into a community like Golden Gate, which is a lovely community, and face a wall. Mr. Sultana stated that this view will be enhanced by thel landscaping, which does not show on these drawings now, but the 30 ft. setback becomes a giant buffer; added that most of that wall, besides the left side where the signage is which also has a low planter underneath it, there are green strips along the rest of the wall to break it down. PB Vice Chair Normile asked when the Planning Board sees a rendering like this, how assured are they that the applicant will actually do that; added that she says that based on the Vue who had a lovely rendering, but the reality is not; and asked again how assured they are that if they approve a site plan, that the landscaping will be as depicted on the site plan, especially along the wall. Mr. Sultana stated that this is different than an office building, the developer has to sell it to people who pay a lot of money for these units, sO if they neglect, substitute, or not provide the images that the developer is showing them, they are not going to be happy, and you don't want twenty unhappy condominium owners. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that there are a few condominiums that have come in looking like Disney World, but then once they are built, they just somehow.. that is a concern. PB Vice Chair Normile continued, stating that another concern is the drainage; noted that as one walks around Golden Gate, it is all flat, this project backs up to these little houses there, and asked how they will be able to prevent the stormwater from inundating these houses. Ms. Claybrooke stated that the paver driveway has an aggregate base that has the capacity to hold water; explained that the space within the aggregate is rather significant in depth and can hold the volume of water generated by this site, and what would be considered a 25-year storm; added that they are also proposing 12 inch PVC perforated underground pipes that surround the building; said that the roof drain is tied into these pipes, all the water is captured underground, they have done a perk analysis based on the soil and the volume perks; added that everything here is contained up to the 25 year storm, which is what they are required to contain, and iti is more than what would currently run off the site, as the site currently has no capacity to hold, it is green space, but in a large storm event there is a decent amount of runoff that ends up in the street. PB Vice Chair Normile concurred that Golden Gate floods, she can see it from her windows that those roads flood, and the storm drains back up. Ms. Claybrooke stated that there is a certain volume for this site that they are containing and holding back, and the only way it leaves the site is to perk. PB Vice Chair Normile asked how much service vehicle parking this project has. Mr. Sultana stated that there is one loading space, but there are lots of driveways where multiple vehicles could park temporarily. PB Vice Chair Normile asked about the plumber or the air conditioning person who sometimes is there the whole day, stating thati inl her building with 80 units they have 30 service vehicles a day. Mr. Sultana stated that they could line up along the back side, but the zoning code does not allow parking in the setback. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that they have one service parking space, and no guest parking, and asked if they did not have the enclosed garages, would they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 43 have guest parking. Mr. Sultana said they would not because of the column grid inside the structure. PB Member Blumetti stated that he was one of the architects for the Aqua, and he recalls that they had to put in a huge concrete vault underneath the drive; and asked if they needed or explored something like that. Ms. Claybrooke stated that they did not need one; added that the site was previously permitted through the City and the Water Management District for an alternate footprint, and they followed a similar drainage design; explained that they used the capacity of the voids within the stone, installed piping around, and a volt was not needed; and noted that they can prove through calculations that the water for a 25 year storm can be retained, and perks within the 72 hour requirement. Director Cover asked if the people entering Golden Gate see, as the focal point, the sign of this building. Mr. Sultana said, "Yes." Mr. Sultana pointed out that neither the building, nor the site, are centered on the street, they are off to one side. PB Member Blumetti asked if they meet the sign requirements. Mr. Sultana said, "Yes, it was a DRC requirement." 1 PB Chair Gannon referred to Sheet A1.00, Site Plan, Evolution, Golden Gate Point, Sarasota, and said it is showing 38 parking spaces for the nineteen units. Mr. Sultana said that there are twenty units and 40 parking spaces, 38 of which are regular spaces and 2 handicapped spaces which are not numbered, noting one of them is in a garage and one is not in a garage, per the code requirements; and added that all the garages have chargers and there is a location for charging electric cars. PB Chair Gannon asked about the two guest spaces. Mr. Sultana said that they no longer have the two spaces; explained that they had proposed six parking spaces in the setbacks, but the DRC said they could not do that, and it was not something the Planning Board could approve, and they have no room on the parking level. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the handicapped spaces will be assigned to the people in the building regardless if they have a handicapped parking permit. Mr. Sultana stated that these spaces are open until someone comes in with handicap needs, and they are given this space; and added if the space is assigned to someone in the building who is not handicapped, when a handicapped person moves in, they get the handicapped space. Staff's Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the: record; stated that this application is for site plan approval for the construction of twenty residential units, located in a single building, containing one level of enclosed parking and eight floors of habitable space above; stated that there is one two way driveway on the east and one two way driveway on west side of the building, noting that is a reduction from the four existing driveways; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 43 pointed out that pedestrian access is taken from the east and the west portion of the site, from the public sidewalk, on Golden Gate Point; added that the proposed building is 90 ft high, from the first habitable floor, and it meets the Zoning Code requirements; stated that all landscape requirements have been met, including a five foot landscape buffer provided around the southern property line, and approximately 958 sq. ft. of landscape for the interior of the parking lot driveway aisle; said that there is a total of 48 trees on site, 23 trees will remain, and 25 trees will be removed, there are no grand trees on site, and the applicant is exceeding the required tree mitigation; noted that a voluntary community workshop was. held on September 20, 2018 and approximately 18 persons were in attendance; added that the sign-in sheet, the minutes, as well as additional community correspondence are provided as part oft the staff report; said that the project meets zoning code requirements such as parking, loading, RMF-5 development standards, landscape standards, refuse collection standards, etc.; concluded that staff has found that the site plan meets the criteria of the Tree Protection Ordinance, and staff recommends a motion for approval subject to two conditions; and responded to the concern of assurance of what is actually going to be built, by referring the Planning Board to recommended Condition 1, which states that: "The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Evolution, received by the Development Services Department on October 10, 2018.. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 89 of the staff report, an email message to Chief Planner Panica, from Lisa McLennan; noted that in the email, Ms. Mc Lennan addressed what she thinks is the ideal vision for the this strip of land in Golden Gate Point, and that approving projects individually, on a piece meal basis, without regard to the greater vision will result, in time, in a solid block of tenement story buildings around the perimeter as well as in the center; stated that there is nothing in the Zoning Code, that states a vision for Golden Gate Point, or that requires the Planning Board to look at the Golden Gate developments as a group rather than individually, when property owners apply for projects; and asked if that is accurate. Chief Planner Panica stated that is accurate; added that about ten years ago Golden Gate Association looked at some development standards and that is how the alternative standards came about; and stated they looked at Golden Gate holistically, and they wanted the option of using either the RMF-5 standards or the alternative standards, that was the vision at that time, and is continuing now. PB Chair Gannon stated that there was an email from the Golden Gate Association, and as he understands it they are not commenting on the site plan, just on the landscape plan, because they have a say sO in the street trees; noted that their comment was whether the trees that are to be removed by the entrances on both sides are in locations where there are current trees; and pointed out that they are only weighingin on whether they agree to allow these trees to be removed to allow for the driveways. Chief Planner Panica confirmed that that letter was from the Landscape Committee, and addressed only landscaping, because they have a special taxing district for the streetscape. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 43 Affected Persons: Trevor Smith, representing the Board of Golden Gate Point, appeared and expressed safety concerns relating to the steep turn on the west side of the subject site; lack of markings on the road within the community; difficulty exiting the community during season, and the STOP sign not being observed by drivers. Public Input: Joe Level, President of the Golden Gate Association, appeared and expressed concerns about flooding, the steep turn on the west side of the subject site, parking, the height of the proposed building being at the entrance of the neighborhood, and livability, as the center of Golden Gate Point develops. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman stated that the drainage issue has been addressed; added that the City can help with the management of the on-street parking concerns; noted that he appreciates Ms. Level's comments, however the Association did not take a formal position, the application meets the requirements, it is a beautiful building, and hel hopes it is approved. PB Member Ohlrich urged the applicant team, if this is approved this evening, to develop a clear line of communications with the existing residents, sO that during construction they know ahead the time what problems may arise with traffic and other issues, because clear lines of communications really help minimize problems. PB Chair Gannon agreed with what wasj just said; and added that public workshops are not required but they are good planning practice, and in this case are well called for; suggested that the applicants create the staging plan that meets all the requirements, and then have a workshop before they submit the staging plan, because that is the only way for opportunities for dialog and change that is going to affect the residents. PB. Member Blumetti stated that the problems thatwere presented are: not related to this site plan and should be addressed by the Association; noted that the building has approximately a 40 ft setback on the west side, and there should be enough room to widen that turn should the association decide to do so. Affected Persons Rebuttal: There was none. City Staff Rebuttal: Chief Planner Panica stated she will bring the parking situation to the attention of the City Engineering and Parking Departments, and will encourage them to communicate with the Association. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 39 of 43 PB Member Ohlrich asked if there has ever being a discussion about making Golden Gate Point a one-way street. Chief Planner Panica responded "No," noting thatit would not relieve the traffic concerns. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if this is an opportunity to get in touch with the County to talk about the drainage concerns in this area. Chief Planner Panica said she will bring this to the attention of the City's Engineering Department. PB Member Morriss commented that these have been RMF-5 for a long time, and this is a problem that they did not think through back in the day; asked if there is a way that the City can work with the developers to mitigate, for example a bigger vault under the building; said that there are different types of solutions to mitigate these problems, and suggested to be creative about the remaining sites that are still open, sO they can become part of the solution not the problem. Director Cover stated that staff can look at the big picture and work on water management solutions, however it is hard to correct the problems on existing development, and it is not easy to ask new development to meet and exceed the requirements, SO there have to be incentives, or people who are willing to do it from the goodness of their heart. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss made a motion to find Site Pan 18-SP-16 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 Site of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Evolution, received by the Development Services Department on October 10, 2018. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Development Services. 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 obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violation of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that the community comments are well taken, but at this point they are not applicable, because this is an RMF-5 district, and the proposed application has complied with the Code; recommended to see if there is a way to make the future sites part of a solution, which means the City may Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 40 of 43 have to give something, but he thinks it is worth it; added that the project meets the criteria and it is a handsome project, his only reservation is the location of the sign, but he understands why it is located there, and he feels comfortable supporting it. PB Member Ohlrich, speaking to her second, stated that the application meets all the review standards. PB Chair Gannon stated that he agrees with these comments; added that he understands the struggles of the neighborhood associations, iti is a continuing struggle given the Zoning Code; and added that this is the reason for the earlier discussion about the Planning Board, as the Local Planning Agency, looking for the things to which they could initiate changes, in order to relieve some of the issues that come before them during public hearings. PB Member Blumetti stated that the drainage issues on Golden Gate may be due to the older buildings that may not have not adequate drainage systems, but he is not concerned about the proposed building. The vote passes unanimously, (vote of 5 to 0). IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: AT THIS' TIME CITIZENS! MAY. ADDRESS' THE PLANNING BOARD ON TOPICS OF CONCERN. ITEMS WHICHHAVE BEENI PREVIOUSLY! DISCUSSED. AT PUBLIC. HEARINGS MAYI NOT BE ADDRESSED. AT THIS TIME. (A: MAXIMUM 5-MINUTE TIMEI LIMIT.) There was no citizen' S input V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 12, 2018 PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she has submitted to the record her revisions; and shared a copy of them with the Planning Board Members. PB: Member Ohlrich revised page 36 of 38, paragraph 1, line 8, to read as follows: ".. : 920, she said 902, is as valid as the proffers and stipulations.. 1 PB Member Normile moved to approve the minutes with the previously stated corrections. The minutes were approved with the corrections by consensus. VI. PRESENFATONOETOPCSBKSFAFF- (MOVED TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA) kemspresemtedareinfemmaiemalemlyfeniake-Aryiseprsmidhstmayregerefafureactionwillbe iedemstssiaewmardsw. 1. CenstruetienSlagings Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 41 of 43 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. PB: Member Blumetti requested City staff make a presentation about the requirements for submittal to the City for conditional use and site plan approval, and how that relates to Florida Statutes, and licensed professionals. Attorney Connolly stated the license professional issue is a building official question; noted that Mr. Murphy was here this evening, and he knows that there have been times that Mr. Murphy has called either the Board that regulates engineers or the Board that regulates architects when he had had such a question; stated that his personal opinion is that this is not part oft the criteria for the review of the application for a conditional use, or the Planning Board's decision on it; and added that the building official, who is also a licensed professional and has to protect his license, cannot issue a building permit on something that is not signed and sealed by someone competent to sign and or seal it. PB Member Blumetti noted that the City's decision does not supersede Florida Statutes. Attorney Connolly agreed. PB Member Blumetti said if an applicant submits an architectural drawing that is not by an architect, that is violating Florida Statutes; and asked how the Planning Board can approve something that is a violation of Florida Statutes. Attorney Connolly pointed out that it is the policy of the State to limit people at the City. level, for example in Section 1.6.6.033 Florida Statutes, Subsection 4, adopted in 2012, states: " : for any development permit application filed with the municipality after July 1, 2012 - A municipality may not require, as a condition for processing or issuing a development permit, that an applicant obtain a permit or approval from any state or federal agency, unless the agency has issued a final agency action that denies the federal or state permit, before the municipal action on the development permit.. Attorney Connolly explained that in essence, he takes this to mean that the State is telling the City "it is none of your business," and that is why he thinks that it is the business of Mr. Murphy, the City's Building Official; said that he had in mind the earlier discussion, about who has the right to sign the drawings on the second publichearing, and noted that this is not something that the Planning Board can consider in the Conditional Use approval. PB Chair Gannon pointed out that PB Member Blumetti requested a presentation, but he does not want to get into the presentation this evening; and asked if there is a topic that needs to be brought back for a presentation. Attorney Connolly said that he jumped in because he thinks that there is nothing to present; noted that PB Member Morriss disagrees with it; and stated that is fine; and repeated that the State has said "it is none of your business." Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 42 of 43 PB Member Morriss said thati if the Planning Board is to rely on competent and substantial evidence, one can claim that a person who has signed the documents and claims to be, but is not, an architect, this is perjury when they say they are an architect, when in fact they are not, then the Planning Board cannot rely on anything they are submitting. PB Member Blumetti added that this applies to everything, for example the drainage engineer, if she were not a licensed professional, and she signed, the Planning Board cannot trust that information; said that it extends to all the information on the site plan; noted that he disagrees with Attorney Connolly, and thinks that it is very important that the correct licensed individual presents the drawings; and added that these drawings cannot be submitted by non-licensed professionals, it is illegal. Attorney Connolly stated that he understands; stated that the Planning Board members have to focus on the fact that they have the job of aj judge, in a quasi-judicial public hearing, and as he explains at the beginning of the quasi-judicial public hearings, there are parties to these hearings; added that, if there are defects in the documents, iti is the job of the party on the other side to point it out to the Planning Board; said that, when we watched Perry Mason, the judge never did the investigation, it is Perry Mason who proved the fallacy in what they have done; added that the Planning Board has to count on, in this particular case that would be the City; noted that the City would be the adverse party to the applicants, and if an applicant has submitted something that is noti in compliance with the Florida Statutes, iti is the City'sjob to raise that issue, and the Planning Board, as thejudge, has to rule on that issue. PB Member Blumetti said that it [the application] goes to the DRC for review, it goes to the Building Official for review, and there should be something reliable, SO they can say that the right professionals are in place. Attorney Connolly stated that he has personal knowledge that the City's Building Official does that; and added that there have been times that the City's Building Official has called the Board that regulates professional engineers or architects, because he has had questions whether this person is competent to submit what he was submitting. PB Chair Gannon asked what PB Member Blumetti is looking for, does he want a staff person to come, or has he gotten his answer. PB Member Blumetti stated that he would like to change the... he thinks it should be more in line with Florida Statutes, the Code...; said that he does not understand the criteria, what they [staff] are looking at, and asked if there are criteria that tell them these documents need to be submitted by a professional engineer. Attorney Connolly stated that Mr. Murphy is familiar with the statutes; added that based on conversations he has had with Mr. Murphy on other projects, he knows; and said that the very discussion PB. Member Blumetti is having now, Attorney Connolly has heard from Mr. Murphy. PB Member Blumetti stated that this is very rare, and he does not expect it to happen again. PB Chair Gannon pointed out that, Attorney Connolly has said, if PB Members see something in the submitted documents, and have questions, they need to direct the questions to staff, staff will go back to the applicants, and staff will see that the applicants correct the problem; added that PB Members have the dialog with Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 43 of 43 staff, not directly with the applicants; and asked again if there is something they should put on the schedule. PB Member Blumetti said he has an issue, because he had an hour-long discussion about this with City staff the day before this meeting.. PB Chair Gannon interrupted, and stated again that he does not want this discussion to take place this evening. PBMember Ohlrich asked if this topic can be brought back for discussion, because she has some questions, and this topic is not on the agenda for discussion this evening. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if this can be placed on the agenda for discussion and a way to resolve this, sO that something is in writing and says that someone will check the credentials; asked if they could bring this topic back for discussion, SO that it does not happen again; and concluded that it: is a good idea to have credentials checked. Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] stated that he does not think it is necessary to have a full discussion, if what they will be talking about is confirming, when the applications come in, that the plans are submitted by professional engineers and registered architects. PB Vice Chair Normile said that the Planning Board probably needs something in writing; and pointed out that the PB Members are not supposed to discuss it this evening. PB Chair Gannon said that it could be on the Planning Board's Agenda under Presentations of Topics by Staff or Presentations of Topics by the Planning Board, and they can invite Mr. Murphy, or whoever is the appropriate staff person. PB Member Blumetti said that this is definitely something he wants to discuss, because there is a gray area that needs to be clear. Discussion ensued about inviting Mr. Timothy Litchet, Director, Development Services, and Mr. Lawrence Murphy, Building Official, Development Services to discuss the matter at a future meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Planning Board meeting adjourned at 10:07 PM. hhinul Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Eileen W. Normile, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]