CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Planning Board Damien Blumetti, Chair Members Present: Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, Terrill Salem Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services David L. Smith, AICP, Manager Long Range Planning Chris Brown, Development Review Senior Planner Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Kelly Fearon, Kimley Horn (Consultant) Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 1:35:30 PM PB Chair Blumetti called the meeting to order and Director Cover [acting as the Planning Board's! Secretary] read the roll call. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were none. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE. PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct 1:36:10 PM Secretary Cover administered the Pledge of Conduct. PB Chair Blumetti apologized in advance for any issues that may occur, noting this is the first Zoom meeting the Planning Board has held; and requested participants mute their devices when not speaking. Attorney Connolly recommended presentation times for the petitions that will follow, and PB Members accepted them by consensus. Attorney Connolly administered the oath for all present who intended to speak. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 2 of 16 B. Legislative Public Hearings 1:41:22 PM 1. New College Campus Master Plan Development Agreement (5800 Bay Shore Road): Application No. 19-DA-01 is an update to the New College Campus Master Plan. The property is presently occupied by New College of Florida (NCF) campuses. The NCF east campus is bound by Sarasota Airport on the east; by General Spaatz Boulevard on the north sides; by University Parkway to the south and US 41 on the west side. The NCF west campus is bound by US 41 on the east side; by Sarasota's northern city limit on the northside; by Sarasota Bay on the west side; and by Ringling Museum property on the southside. Bayshore Road traverses north and south through the west campus. The NCF Caples campus is bound by Bayshore Road on the east side; by Ringling Museum on the north side; by Sarasota bay on the west side; and by Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood on the southside. The development uses for the property are Governmental/Institutional (G) including administrative facilities, Educational for NCF academic facilities in the NCF west and Caples campuses, and Residential mixed-use for the dorms on the east campus. The current student resident population is 726, with an additional daytime population including staff and faculty of 341. NCF plans on growing to 1,600 students within the next 15 years. In accordance with the NCF Master Plan, buildings on the campus reflect a limitation of height of no taller than two to three floors, except where towers reach 4 floors. The proposed Campus Development Agreement is authorized by the provisions of Sections 163.3220- 163.3243, Florida Statutes, also known as the "Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act" as well as Section 1013.30, Florida Statutes regarding University campus master plans and campus development agreements. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning) Staff Presentation: Manager Smith introduced the applicants; discussed the statutory requirements for updating Campus Master Plans; stated the Planning Board's role is to review the proposed Development Agreement for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and make a recommendation to the City Commission; said staff has concluded their review of the proposed Development Agreement and finds it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; noted the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposed Development Agreement and determined all Levels of Service (LOS) will be met; pointed out the City does not have jurisdiction over New College as it is a State entity; and stated staff recommends approval of the proposed Development Agreement. 1:44:42 PM PB Vice Chair Ohlrich pointed out the statement that reads "further evaluation of the lifts stations may be required as additional facilities are anticipated" and questioned who does the evaluation, when is the evaluation performed, and who pays for it. Manager Smith stated New College performs the evaluation in conjunction with the City of Sarasota Utilities staff and the consultants; and said New College pays for the Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 3 of 16 evaluation. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned if the Recreation and Open Space area on New College are included in the City's acreage calculations of 10 acres per 1,000 resident population. Manager Smith stated the City's calculations do not include the New College areas as they are not open to the general public. PB Member Gannon stated he agrees there are no negative impacts on the City's LOS; said he recommended the City's Comprehensive Plan policies as they relate to conservation be included in the analysis; and suggested a section dealing with transportation, specifically pedestrian and bicycle policies, be added to the analysis as well. Manager Smith stated he would update the document to include those prior to going to the City Commission, noting staff anticipates the item to go before the City Commission on October 19, 2020. PB Member Morriss questioned why the proposed dock on New College was not included in the analysis, noting the potential impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. Manager Smith stated the City has no jurisdiction and New College will be following State rules. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich requested the PB members be provided with a copy of the additional analysis per PB Member Gannon's comments, and questioned if the City had jurisdiction over the proposed dock or not. Manager Smith stated he would provide the PB members with the additional analysis and said he would defer to Gretchen Schneider as to who has jurisdiction over the proposed dock. PB Chair Blumetti questioned if the open space is intended to be open to the public. Manager Smith stated he would defer to the New College representatives. 1:56:18 PM Applicant Presentation: Mr. Alan Burr discussed the process used in developing the updated Campus Master Plan noting the coordination between New College, the City of Sarasota and the State of Florida; discussed the Recreation and Open Space component stating the open areas of the campus are available for public use from dawn to dusk while the indoor recreation facilities are limited to students and staff; discussed the issue of bicycle lanes on Bayshore Road stating pedestrian access and traffic calming are the primary focus of the road improvements and noting that part of the program has been delayed due to funding constraints; discussed the proposed dock stating it is for educational and research purposes and provides additional waterfront recreation opportunities, noted the area closes at sunset, and pointed out New College had worked with the State and Federal governments for over two years to get the required permits for the dock. Mr. Chris Kinsley noted the open space has been used extensively by the community during the shutdown and there have been no issues; and discussed the environmental benefits to the seagrasses of using a dock versus launching vessels from the shoreline. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 4 of 16 PB Member Salem questioned if New College has explored the use of reclaimed water. Mr. Burr stated there is a process in place, and noted New College received points towards their LEED certification as a result. PB Member Salem questioned if the kayak area is available to the general public. Mr. Burr stated that area is only open to the students, staff, and faculty. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned what the content of "Exhibit B" was, noting the next page is labeled "Exhibit C". Mr. Kinsley stated "Exhibit B" is the Level of Service analysis followed by the Stantec traffic report. Manager Smith noted "Exhibit C" needed to be stricken. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich noted the Campus Master Plan includes an action item that reads "Establishing a residential permit system (if and where desired by neighbors) for neighborhoods surrounding the campus to discourage college-generated parking in off campus locations" and questioned if there was any data that identifies the number of students that live off campus, the number of students that live on campus and the number of students that drive versus using public transportation. Mr. Burr stated there is sufficient parking for the campus noting New College inherited the parking that was previously reserved for USFSM; said student parking on neighboring streets was not an issue; and stated they did not have specific data. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich said she read that 79% of the students live on campus noting if that is correct then the action item she pointed out was not necessary. Mr. Burr stated commuting information will be included in the next update of the Campus Master Plan. PB Member Gannon said there needs to be better coordination with the City regarding transportation options for pedestrians and bicycles. Mr. Burr stated that has not been identified as an issue, noted Bayshore Road is a low traffic area; and pointed out that students can use their College IDs as a pass for the Sarasota and Manatee bus systems. PB Member Gannon discussed the Cross-College Alliance and questioned how cross connection for students accessing the campuses as well as students traveling from the campuses to downtown was being addressed. Mr. Kinsley noted most activities have been suspended due to the current circumstances. PB Member Gannon stated the need to coordinate with the City once things get back to normal. PB Member Morriss stated he lives in the area, has no issues with New College, and questioned ift the proposed dock was consistent with Policy 13.6.2: in the Campus Master Plan that calls for minimal visual impact on the area, and noted area residents are concerned about the visual impacts of the proposed dock. Mr. Burr pointed out that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the proposal and ruled there would be no impacts. PB Chair Blumetti noted there is a goal to reach 1600 student capacity and questioned what the long-term goal is once that is met. Mr. Kinsley noted attendance has not increased as much as anticipated due to the level of remote learning being used at this time; said if the campus were to reach the 1600 capacity no capacity improvements were proposed, and pointed out the future is remote learning. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 5 of 16 PB Member Gannon noted the update was a 5-year plan (2015 -2020) and questioned what happens after October 2020. Mr. Kinsley stated as long as the caps in the exiting plan are not exceeded there will be no need to modify the updated plan. Discussion ensued regarding an unfunded State mandate for future updates. Manager Smith stated the Campus Master Plan and Campus Development Agreement would stay in effect unless superseded in the future. 2:23:17 PM Citizen Input: There was no citizen input. Rebuttal: PB Vice Chair Ohlrich requested Ms. Schneider respond to her earlier question regarding who regulates the dock. Ms. Schneider stated the City has no jurisdiction of the dock. Attorney Connolly announced the Florida Statutes require that the second public hearing for the proposed Development Agreement be announced at the first public hearing, and stated for the record that the second public. hearing will be held by the City Commission and is scheduled for October 19, 2020 in the evening session that begins at 6:00 PM; and noted it is unknown at this time if the public hearing will be virtual or in- person. 2:55:04 PM PB Chair Blumetti closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss made a motion to find 19-DA-01 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030), that City provided levels of service will be maintained, and recommend the City Commission approve the Campus Development Agreement. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5/0). C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 2:26:57 PM 1. Circle K - Dog Track (5400 Old Bradenton Road): Site Plan Application No. 20-SP-06 is a request for Site Plan approval to redevelop an existing surface parking lot in the Commercial Intensive (CI) zone district with a street address of 5400 Old Bradenton Road into a motor vehicle fuel station with a 4,350 sq.ft. retail building and a self-service carwash. The Site Plan requirement is triggered by the proposed carwash use. A total of seven (7) fuel pump islands and 41 parking spaces are proposed. (Chris Brown, Development Review Senior Planner) Attorney Connolly summarized the procedures for the quasi-judicial public hearings that will follow, noted there were requests for affected person status for both quasi- judicial public hearings, and reiterated the proposed time limits. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 6 of 16 PB Chair requested the PB members disclose any ex-parte communications. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she had done site visits with Ms. Panica. Mr. Gannon stated he did a site visit to the proposed Circle K site. PB Chair Blumetti stated he met with staff and did a site visit alone. PB Member Salem stated he did site visits alone as well. 2:29:38 PM PB Chair Blumetti opened the public hearing for 20-SP-06. Attorney Connolly called the following that had applied for Affected Person status to determine if they were present: Gerri Holmes, Pat Echenique, Irvin Mann, Sandra Mann, Joyce Yoder. Attorney Connolly recommended Pat Echenique be granted Affected Person status and the four others be denied since they were not present to participate. The PB: members agreed by consensus. Applicant Presentation James Herston, Project Engineer, stated he has been sworn; identified the project team, noting all were available to answer any questions; and stated the team has reviewed the staff report and agrees with staff's S recommendations. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned the discrepancy in the number of new trips cited in staff's S analysis compared to the number of new trips cited in the Kimley-Horn report. Mr. Herston stated the key word was "new" trips; stated gas stations generate passerby versus new trips; and said the 158 new trips cited in the Kimley-Horn report was accurate. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich noted the reference to HB 7207 in the staff report and questioned what that was. Mr. Herston stated HB 7207 relates to the provision of infrastructure noting adequate infrastructure has to be available to support the project. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich noted there was only one email submitted under public input and questioned what kind of outreach the applicants had engaged in. Mr. Herston stated nearby Homeowner Associations as well as surrounding homeowners had been contacted and no feedback was received other than the one email; and noted as the Agent he had not received any inquiries. PB Member Gannon questioned what the width of the sidewallks were and what the plan for planting street trees was. Mr. Herston stated the sidewalk along University Parkway was 8' noting staff had requested the sidewalk be located as far from University Parkway as possible; and said a new sidewalk and trees were proposed for Old Bradenton Road as well. Phil Smith, Landscape Architect for the applicants, stated the sidewalks were originally proposed along the edge of University Parkway but after further analysis the sidewalk was moved closer to the property line in order to provide for a continuous landscape area between the property line and University Parkway;and pointed out the continuous landscape area would be provided along Old Bradenton Road as well. Discussion ensued regarding the need for shade trees along the sidewalks. PB Member Morriss stated it was his understanding that the addition of the car wash facility to the project is what triggered the need for Planning Board approval and Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page! 7 of 16 questioned what the relationship between the proposed Circle K and the remaining acreage of the old dog track site was. Mr. Herston confirmed the car wash triggered the need for Planning Board approval and stated there was no relationship between the Circle K project and the balance of the old dog track site. PB Chair Blumetti questioned why the car wash was placed where it is on the site. Mr. Herston stated City regulations requirements related to stacking and travel lanes necessitated that location for the car wash. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich requested confirmation of the width of the sidewalk along Old Bradenton Road. Mr. Herston confirmed both the sidewalk along University Parkway and Old Bradenton Road would be 8' wide. PB Member Gannon questioned if any improvements to the bike paths along Old Bradenton Road were proposed. Mr. Herston stated the 8' wide sidewalk would accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. Discussion ensued regarding the City's Transportation Master Plan and the provision of bicycle racks at Circle K. 2:56:18 PM Staff Presentation Development Review Senior Planner Brown discussed the proposal noting 1200 University Parkway is the correct address for the project and will be corrected upon submittal of the building permit; noted the proposed car wash is what triggered the requirement for a public hearing before the Planning Board; stated staff performed a detailed analysis of the entire site; discussed the proposed site improvements noting the majority of those go beyond what is required; pointed out the site is zoned Commercial Intensive with a Future Land Use classification of Community Commercial noting the proposed uses were permitted in that zone district and Future Land Use classification; and concluded by stating staff recommended approval with the three conditions listed in the staff report. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich requested Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein address the discrepancy in the number of new trips that would be generated. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated a total of 325 trips are anticipated to be generated; said all of those are not new to the system because the passerby trips going in and out of the site are included in that number; and confirmed 158 new trips would be generated. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned if the recommendations in the Kimley-Horn report had been incorporated into the project. Senior Planner Brown confirmed those were incorporated with the exception of the SCAT bus shelter, noting the County determined there was no need for the bus shelter. PB Member Gannon questioned if a Community Workshop was held. Senior Planner Brown stated a Community Workshop is not required for site plans. PB Member Gannon questioned if any future improvements to the right-of-way along Old Bradenton Road were proposed. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discussed the Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 8 of 16 City's multi modal transportation plan noting the existing conditions meet the criteria; pointed out that University Parkway is a County road; said the bike lanes meet the adopted plan and therefore no additional bicycle land improvements are necessary. Discussion ensued regarding the applicant's responsibilities versus the responsibilities of the applicants for any future development on the remaining part of the old dog track site. PB Chair Blumetti requested confirmation that the car wash could encompass a maximum lot coverage of 25% of the parcel however the proposal only encompassed 1.49%. Senior Planner Brown confirmed that was correct, noting only the portion of the property subject to this application was used in those calculations. 3:09:16 PM Affected Persons Mr. Pat Echenique stated he owned property nearby and needs to hook into the City water system; said the City provided him with a cost estimate of $27,000; and requested the applicants work with him since they will be doing improvements to the system. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated the issue was not applicable to the quasi- judicial public hearing for the car wash. Mr. Echenique was provided with the contact information for City Utilities staff; Mr. Herston provided his information and offered to assist if possible. Public Input Ms. Peg Buckley, resident of Village Gardens, stated she had concerns regarding the increase in traffic in the area. 3:21:00 PM Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Herston stated the applicants enjoyed working with City staff and had no further questions or comments. Staff Rebuttal There was none. PB Member Gannon questioned if the additional water usage for the car wash was included in the DRC review of the project. Senior Planner Brown stated it was and the impacts were minimal at best. Discussion ensued. 3:25:40 PM PB Chair Blumetti closed the public hearing. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to find Site Plan 20-SP-06 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the petition, subject to the three conditions. PB Member Salem seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5/0). Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 9 of 16 THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A TEN MINUTES RECESS 3:38:20 PM 2. Raffurty's LLC (1888 Main Street): Site Plan Application No. 20-SP-12 and Major Conditional Use Application No. 20-CU-04 are a request for Site Plan and Major Conditional Use approval for an existing restaurant located at the southeast corner of S. Links Avenue and Main Street in the Downtown Core (DTC) zone district, with a street address of 1888 Main Street. The Future Land Use classification of the property is Downtown Core. The applicant is requesting approval of a "nightclub" use as defined in the Zoning Code to allow operation with a 4COP Quota license. The current operation of a restaurant is not proposing to change. (Chris Brown, Development Review Senior Planner) APTUCANTHASHEQUISTED THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 14, 2020) Attorney Connolly stated Application Nos. 20-SP-12 and 20-CU-04 were advertised for today's Planning Board meeting; noted the applicants have requested a continuance to the 10/14/20 Planning Board meeting; said if announced at this meeting there would be no need to readvertise the public hearing; stated the 10/14/20 Planning Board meeting may start at 1:30 PM or 6:00 PM and may be live or virtual by Zoom; and pointed out that will not be known until such time the Governor extends, or does not extend, the ability to hold virtual Planning Board public hearings. 3. Executive House (1000 N. Lockwood Ridge Road): Rezone Application No. 20-REN- 01 is a request to rezone property with a street address of 1000 N. Lockwood Ridge Road from Residential Multiple Family-3 (RMF-3) zone district to Residential Multiple Family-4 (RMF-4) zone district with a proffer of no more than 45 feet in height. (Chris Brown, Development Review Senior Planner) 3:40:40 PM Attorney Connolly stated there were three applications for Affected Person status; called Eric Jason, Selma Castro and Janet Jackson who were not present; and recommended since the parties were not present and therefore could not participate in the proceedings they not be granted Affected Person status. The Planning Board agreed by consensus. Applicant Presentation: P. David Greenberg, representing the owner of the property, discussed the proposal stating Executive House is an affordable apartment complex that was built in 1972 and contains 88 one and two bedroom units; noted the existing zoning allows for 77 units however they are grandfathered in at 88 units; said the request will allow for the development of approximately 20 additional units; pointed out the additional units would be constructed on the existing tennis courts; pointed out the residents are primarily working class citizens; and stated there was no intention to construct those additional apartments at this time. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 10 of 16 PB Vice Chair Ohlrich noted there was no sign-in sheet for the Community Workshop that was held on January 17, 2020 and questioned how many citizens attended. Mr. Greenberg stated there were two attendees that lived across the street and stated their objections to the RMF-5 zoning that was proposed at that time due to the allowable 90' height in the RMF-5 zone district; stated he agreed that 90 was: not compatible with the area and agreed to limit the development to 3 stories; stated staff recommended the request be changed to RMF-4 to which he agreed and subsequently proffered a maximum height of 45. PB Member Gannon questioned if the increase in allowable density was the reason for rezoning the property at this time. Mr. Greenberg stated the increase in allowable density would provide for approximately 20 additional units. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the existing structures. PB Member Morriss noted that although there was no site plan submitted at this time, a site plan would have to be approved by the Planning Board before future development could occur; commended the applicants forward thinking; and questioned if the new units would be comparable to the existing units. Mr. Greenberg stated the new units would be oriented towards working class citizens; and noted Executive House is the most reasonably priced apartment complex in North Sarasota. PB Chair Blumetti stated he was happy to see affordable housing; said he appreciated the fact the applicants planned to maintain that; and noted the proffer of a maximum height of 45' was beneficial to the project. 3:55:18 PM Staff Presentation: Chris Brown, Development Review Senior Planner, discussed the proposal stating that the subject property is 6.109 acres and if rezoned just under 110 units would be allowed; said the proposal is compatible with the Future Land Use classification; noted the rezoning would allow for a maximum height of 70 however the applicants have proffered a maximum height of 45'; said the existing zoning is non-conforming and rezoning the parcel to RMF-4 would bring it into compliance; and pointed out future development could be up to twenty units and would require site plan approval. PB: Member Salem noted the City Utilities Department has stated they have the capacity to serve the development and questioned if that was based on the existing conditions or worst-case scenario. Senior Planner Brown stated the analysis was based on the existing conditions noting the number of additional units that will be constructed is unknown at this time. Discussion ensued regarding utilities capacity available for future development; the maximum development that could occur in the future; and analyzing capacity based upon the Future Land Use classification versus zoning. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 11 of 16 PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated the response to the Standards for Review from the Utilities Department were misleading and requested Senior Planner Brown define what a zoning enclave is. Senior Planner Brown stated a zoning enclave is a small area of parcels, normally only one or two, that are zoned differently than the surrounding parcels, noting those typically existed prior to the adoption of existing zone districts. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich discussed the zoning of the parcels depicted on the Future Land Use and Zoning Map provided in the staff report and questioned if any parcels other than the Executive House were part of the zoning enclave. Lucia Panica, Director of Development Services, stated the parcel zoned RMF-1 was part of the zoning enclave and: noted the implementing zone districts are. RMF-4 and RMF-5. PB Vice ChairOhlrich pointed out the action strategy on page 39 of the staff report regarding zoning enclaves and questioned how rezoning the Executive House property makes it compatible with future uses. Senior Planner Brown stated the existing zoning of RMF-3 is non- conforming with the Future Land Use classification of Multi Family-Medium Density, noting the RMF-4 and RMF-5 are the implementing zone districts for the Multi Family- Medium Density Future Land Use classification. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned if a proffer could be rescinded, revoked, etc. Attorney Connolly stated the proffer will be incorporated into the ordinance approving the rezoning and noted in changing or eliminating the proffer would require additional public hearings before the Planning Board and City Commission. PB Member Gannon questioned what the rationale for the proffer of 45' maximum height was. Senior Planner Brown stated that the height limitation was proffered in order to maintain compliance with surrounding area. Discussion ensued regarding maximum heights in other zone districts. PB. Member Gannon noted the review criteria requires the most intense use be considered, and noted the proffer allows for changes only to the maximum density and height. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct. PB Member Morriss questioned if the daylight plane requirements were applicable. Senior Planner Brown stated there is a super setback standard for the property that supersedes the daylight plane requirements. PB Member Morriss questioned if the City would be held responsible if the capacity for providing water and sewer was not available at such time the site plan was processed due to approving the rezoning. Senior Planner Brown stated the issue would be addressed as part of the site plan review process. Discussion ensued regarding staff's responses to the Standards for Review being based upon existing versus maximum allowable development. Director Cover and Attorney Connolly stated they presumed the analysis were based upon maximum allowable. PB Chair Blumetti stated that needed to be made clear in the analysis. 3:57:43 PM Public Input Eric Jason who was not present earlier had joined the meeting; was granted Affected Person status; and Attorney Connolly administered the oath. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 12 of 16 Mr. Jason stated he lives in Ramblewood just south of the subject property and expressed his concerns that the height of the existing buildings that face Ramblewood would be increased; noted any new units would have to provide for additional parking; and expressed concerns over the increase in traffic on Lockwood Ridge Road. PB Chair Blumetti stated the Planning Board does not normally respond to public input however said he felt it was important to note that all of the buildings on the site could potentially be 45' in height; and said perhaps City staff could address his concerns regarding traffic. PB Member Morriss requested staff also address how the super setback applies to the entire property. PB Chair Blumetti noted there are approximately 20 new units proposed and therefore should not have a major impact on traffic. Mr. Jason requested information as to the applicability of the super setback as well. Ms. Dee Charlton stated the proposal had changed between the Community Workshop in January and today's hearing and questioned how many changes would be made in the future. PB Chair Blumetti noted the applicants would have to go through the same process they are, going through now in order to make any changes. Mr. Norman Dumaine appeared and stated since there are no plans to develop the additional units at this time he did not understand why the request to rezone the property is being considered and requested the rezoning be delayed until such time the applicants are ready to proceed with site plan approval. 4:38:29 PM Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Greenberg stated he discussed the proposal with Mr. Dumaine at the Community Workshop and had indicated at that time that although they were requesting RMF-5 at that time the applicants were limiting the additional units to three stories; noted anything higher than that would not be compatible with the surrounding area and would be more costly; said Mr. Dumaine recommended the request be reduced to RMF-4; pointed out staff had suggested RMF-4 as well and requested the building be measured by height versus: number of stories; noted the existing zoning is non-compliant with the Future Land Use classification; stated if the existing buildings were to be redeveloped the density would not change; said there were no plans for development at this time; and pointed out any issues with utilities, traffic, etc. would be addressed during the site plan approval process. Mr. Jason questioned why the rezoning was being processed at this time. Discussion ensued regarding future processes for development of the property. 4:46:16 PM Staff Rebuttal: Senior Planner Brown noted traffic generation would be analyzed at the time of site plan review; and stated the super setbacks combined with building height minimizes the Corrected Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 13 of 16 impacts on the surrounding buildings, noting the surrounding buildings were all across a street from the subject parcel. Director Panica discussed the super setbacks stating that for structures over 35' in height an additional 12' setback is required. Attorney Connolly discussed the Future Land Use classification and implementing zone districts noting the existing zoning is non-conforming: and stated Florida law requires consistency with the Comprehensive Plan sO the parcel has to be rezoned to either RMF- 4 or RMF-5. Discussion ensued regarding processing a rezone request without an associated site plan. Attorney Connolly stated the City cannot mandate site plan approval concurrent with a rezoning request. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned if the property could be redeveloped under the existing zoning of RMF-3 if the rezone application was denied. Attorney Connolly stated if the rezone application had not been filed the property could be redeveloped under the existing zoning, however since a rezone to an implementing zone district was requested and Florida law says the result of the review has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan the only options are to rezone the property to RMF-4 or RMF-5; and noted to deny the rezoning would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ensued. 4:57:41 PM PB Chair Blumetti closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss made a motion find Rezone 20-REN-01 consistent with Section IV- 1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition with the following proffer: 1. Development upon the subject property will be limited to no more than 45 feet in height PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss stated he had no concerns with the rezone without a site plan noting the utilities, traffic etc. would be addressed at site plan review. PB Member Gannon stated the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; with the proffered height is compatible with the surrounding area; and stated he wants clearer statements from staff. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated rezonings, with or without site plan, are complicated and that she supported the motion because any future development will have to come back before the Planning Board. Discussion ensued regarding 3 stories versus 45' in height. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 14 of 16 PB Chair Blumetti commended the applicant for the proffered height and agreed the process is complicated. The motion passed unanimously (5/0). 5:04:35 PM IV. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICE TOTHE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no citizen's input V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5:05:10 PM 1. March 11, 2020 PB Member Gannon requested the following revisions: p.9/25 - 2:54:56, Affected Persons, 3rd line: change "grand" to "grant" p.9/25 - 2:54:56, Affected Persons, 6th line: add "and" between "clean" and "help" p.24/25 - 7:30:48, 1st line: delete "a" after "Director Cover stated" 2. June 10, 2020 PB Member Gannon requested the following revision: p.1/16 - "City Staff Present": suggest deleting "(via Teleconference)" for Staff as it implies that Staff participated via Teleconference and PB Members were present in person. The first heading at the top states that the Workshop was held "Via Teleconference", SO the 2nd refto staffis confusing and unnecessary. The Planning Board approved the minutes with the requested revisions by consensus. VI. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOR SELBY GARDENS DEVELOPMENT PETITIONS 1. Discussion regarding potential Special Planning Board Meeting regarding the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens Phase 1 applications for Site Plan, Rezone, Street Vacation and Zoning Text Amendments. 5:07:05 PM Secretary Cover requested the Planning Board consider holding a special meeting regarding the proposed Site Plan, Rezone, Street Vacation and Zoning Text Amendment for the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens-Phase 1 project; proposed September 23rd starting at 1:30 pm with a backup date of September 24th if need to continue the meeting; noted Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 15 of 16 the meeting(s) would be held virtually; and pointed out if the special meetings do not occur before October 2020 there was a risk that the meeting would have to be held live. Discussion ensued. The Planning Board members agreed by consensus to hold the special meeting on September 22nd starting at 1:30 pm with a backup continuance date of September 23rd at 1:30 pm also. Ms. Jennifer Rominiecki, CEO of Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, thanked the Planning Board members for the previous efforts and stated the applicants look forward to presenting their Compromise Master Plan. Mr. Robert Bernstein discussed the previous hearings noting the proposal is still controversial; stated the public hearing should be delayed until the Planning Board meetings are held live again; and suggested should the Planning Board decide to move forward with the virtual meetings significant restrictions should be placed on the Zoning Text Amendment regarding sound and commercial activity issues. PB Chair Blumetti noted the meetings would begin earlier in the day than before and as a result the Planning Board should be able to hold the hearings within the two day timeframe discussed; and pointed out there is no timeline for going back to holding live meetings. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich noted the massive amount of emails the Planning Board members received last time and requested if there was a way to limit those; pointed out the plans being reviewed changed between each meeting last time; and stated she would like to see the same plan be considered from start to finish. PB Member Salem requested earlier start times for the hearings in order to avoid late evenings. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Blumetti stated he felt the 1:30 start time was adequate. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 5:24:53 PM Secretary Cover stated the importance of completing the 2020 Census forms; provided the website address for doing so; and noted the deadline is September 30th, VIII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 5:27:56 PM Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 16 of 16 PB Member Gannon thanked staff for the wealth ofinformation that has been posted to the Sarasota In Motion website; and questioned the status of the initiatives the Planning Department had outlined in their work program presented to the Planning Board earlier this year. Director Cover noted many issues have been delayed due to COVID-19 and stated staff would provide an update at the next Planning Board meeting. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich requested an item be placed on a future agenda to discuss developing a process or procedure for communicating the Planning Board recommendation to the City Commission when it differs from staff's recommendation noting she does not feel the Planning Board's discussion is given enough weight when it differs from staff's. PB Chair Blumetti noted there was no notice of the public hearing posted on the Circle K site and expressed the importance of noting the public hearings; and stated he wished to commend the Public Works Department for their quick response to his call regarding a non-functional crosswalk signal in his neighborhood. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:36 PM Note: The City's Website address is sarasotaf.gov. Select the meeting under MiadagAemdahwrnen the Main Web Page to view agendas, videos ofmeetings, and minutes. Bha SteverR. Cover, Planning Director Damien Blumetti, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]