CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY November 12, 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 of Development Services Briana Dobbs, Development Review Planner, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 1:41:43 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti callled the meeting to order and Director Cover acting as the Planning Board's Secretary) read the roll call. PB Chair Blumetti thanked former City Mayor Ahearn- Koch for her gifts to the Planning Board. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. 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. Rending of the Pledge of Conduct Secretary Cover administered the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly briefly explained the procedures for Quasi-Judicial public hearings, recommended time limits for the presentations in petitions that will follow, and administered the oath for all present who intended to speak in the following public hearings. PB Chair Blumetti, PB Vice Chair Ohlrich, and PB Members Gannon and Morriss disclosed ex-parte communications. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 2 of 11 B. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. Extended Stay Hotel (1515 and 1551 Fruitville Road): Adjustment Application 20- ADP-03 is a request for approval of an Adjustment from Section VII-206(8), Zoning Code (2002 ED.) for property with street addresses of 1515 and 1551 Fruitville Road. The applicant is requesting to allow access from 4th Street, a primary street, to a proposed Extended Stay Hotel parking garage in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Planner) 1:47:40 P.M. Applicant's Presentation: Ms. Carol Williams, Vice President of Development, RK Hospitality Development, introduced herself, Mr. Ken Martin, Vice President and Architect for the project, and Ms. Brenda Patten, Land Use Attorney, Berlin, Patten, Ebling. Mr. Martin stated that the proposed Adjustment application relates to a 136-room hotel for an extended stay that Hilton is considering building on that site; briefly described the project; pointed out that it is replacing an existing vacant commercial structure; presented an overview of the site plan; discussed the location of the entrance to the hotel; and stated that access from 4th Street is needed in order for Hilton to construct the hotel. Attorney Patten pointed out that the request is for an Adjustment; referred to Section IV-1902 of the City's Zoning Code and noted that if the proposed Adjustment is approved, the proposed development will provide benefits to the surrounding community including a safe traffic pattern separating vehicle and pedestrian circulation; improves livability, appearance and the character of the area because it replaces a vacant structure; referred to a memo from Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein, which states that it is not advisable to locate the entrance to the proposed hotel off Fruitville Road or Lemon Avenue; pointed out that the applicants have worked closely with the current residents in the area and addressed their concerns; and noted that they respect the historic significance of this area and will incorporate artwork that will honor the former residents of Overtown. 2:09:27 P.M. Attorney Connolly pointed out that this is a quasi-judicial public hearing for an Adjustment, and the discussion that will follow needs to address only the Adjustment request and not the site plan. 2:10:48 P.M. Responding to PB Member Gannon, the applicants stated that they could not use the smaller parcel, located east of the alley on Fruitville Road, to create an appropriate entrance for the hotel, because the traffic would be backing up on Fruitville Road; and added that they could not use the existing curb cuts on Lemon Avenue for access due to an existing median that would require one to make a U-Turn on Fruitville Road in order to access the hotel. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 3 of 11 2:17:21 P.M. Responding to PB Member Salem, Ms. Patten stated that the park to be created on the smaller lot on Fruitville Road will be owned and maintained by Hilton, but they will provide public access; and stated that Hilton will not build the hotel if the Adjustment is not granted, because it is against industry standards to have a hotel entrance on a service alley. 2:20:18 P.M. Responding to PB Member Morriss, the applicants stated that the approval of this Adjustment is a "deal killer". Discussion ensued regarding the traffic patterns and the primary check-in times for Extended Stay Hotels. 2:24:34 P.M. Responding to PB Vice Chair Ohlrich, Mr. Martin explained that they are hotel developers, therefore they did not consider another land use on the property; and added that widening the alley to create an appropriate entrance along Fruitville Road is not economically viable, noting that would also reduce the number of parking spaces. 2:28:56 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti stated that access off 4th Street would negatively impact pedestrian circulation in the area. Discussion ensued. 2:33:54 P.M. PB Member Gannon expressed concerns about reducing the opportunities to plant trees on 4th Street because of the location of the hotel entrance. Discussion ensued. 2:37:48 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Planner Dobbs introduced herself for the record; stated the provision of the pocket park allows for two additional stories on the proposed structure; pointed out the proposed additional public art, canopy trees, 8' clear space and 4' green space are requirements in the Rosemary Residential Overlay District; noted that Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that access from Lemon Avenue or Fruitville Road is not advisable, but he did not state that it is prohibited; stated that many recent developments have access on Fruitville Road; and concluded that staff found that this Adjustment application was not in compliance with the City Code and therefore staff recommended denial of the application. 2:48:25 P.M. Development Review Planner Dobbs agreed with PB Member Morriss that there is a curb cut on 4th Street, which if abandoned, could be planted with shade trees for pedestrian traffic. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated that she is concerned about pedestrian safety. Responding to PB Member Gannon, staff stated that Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein was not present to discuss his comments. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 4 of1 11 Responding to PB Member Salem, Development Review Planner Dobbs stated that the applicant could use the existing driveway on 4th Street, if they do not make any improvements to the driveway. 3:01:56 P.M. Public Input: Stan Rutstein, Debbie Trice, and Howard Davis spoke in support of the application. 3:14:26 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Ms. Patten noted that access from 4th Street is not prohibited, rather the Code states "when possible" access should be from a primary street; and noted that the applicants will have to update the current driveway on 4th Street as an entrance to the hotel. 3:21:40 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Development Review Planner Dobbs noted that walkability happens over a long time with the implementation of the Code; and suggested if the hotel entrance is on 4th Street, then it should be one-way, with an exit on the alley. PB Member Salem questioned the reason the applicants are not allowed to use the existing driveway. PB Member Gannon noted that there are other projects that have access on Fruitville Road. PB Member Morriss asked if"way finding" signs are allowed in the area. PB Chair Blumetti asked if there are examples of 20-ft. curb cuts on primary streets. Discussion ensued. 3:29:41 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti closed the public hearing, and asked for a motion PB Member Morriss moved to find Adjustment 20-ADP-03 consistent with Section IV- 1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to the proffers and staff proposed conditions provided in the staff report. PB Member Salem seconded the motion. 3:33:02 P.M. Attorney Connolly pointed out a conflict between Proffer 1 and Staff Recommended Condition 1; and suggested that the motion maker and motion seconder reconsider their motion. Discussion ensued. Amended Motion: PB Member Morriss amened his motion to state as follows: Find Adjustment 20-ADP-03 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the. Adjustment, subject to the proffers and staff proposed conditions 21 through 4. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page5 5 of 11 PB Member Salem seconded the revised motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that the area will be greatly improved by this project. Speaking to his second, PB Member Salem stated that the property would not be properly developed without appropriate access. PB Member Gannon stated that he opposes the Adjustment because they could have access on Fruitville Road. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated that she opposes the Adjustment because all reasonable economic uses have not been considered or exhausted for this property. PB Chair Blumetti stated that he will support the Adjustment because of the traffic patterns at that location, Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein's comments, and the support of the Rosemary District Association. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Vice Chair Ohlrich and PB Member Gannon voting no. 3:39:08 P.M. 2. En Pointe (509 Golden Gate): Site Plan Application 20-SP-05 is a request for Site Plan approval for development of a 4-unit multi-family condominium project on approximately 0.16 acre property located in the Residential Multiple Family (RMF-5) zone district, with street address of 509 Golden Gate Point. The applicant proposes to utilize the Alternative Development Standards for Golden Gate Point. Eight parking spaces are proposed on the ground level. The existing building will be demolished. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Planner) Attorney Connolly called the names of those that had filed for affected person status. The following were present and therefore were granted affected person status: Joan Lovell, Golden Gate Pointe Association, Joan Lovell resident, Catherine Antunes, George Loesel, Waldron Kraemer, William Noonan, and Judith Mower. Attorney Connolly also established time limits for the presentations. 3:43:20 P.M. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Anthony Ambler, representing the developers, introduced Ms. Kortnee Gonzales, Echt-Arthiects, and Mr. Steven Reese, Attorney. Ms. Gonzales stated that the exiting four-unit rental residential structure will be replaced by the proposed four-unit rental residential structure; said on-site parking will be located on the ground level with two lobbies at the parking level, one: for motorists and the other for pedestrians; pointed out that the proposed design limits hardscapes, increases greenscape and has no parking impact on the street; and noted that the artwork for the front of the building will be chosen in the future with input from, and in coordination with, the neighborhood. 3:55:06 P.M. PB Member Gannon, PB Member Morriss, PB Vice Chair Ohlrich, and PB Chair Blumetti expressed concerns regarding the internal traffic flow of the on-site parking, pointing out the potential damage to the landscape; residents parking on the street as a solution to the challenging internal traffic flow; the potential for an accident between outgoing Minutes oft the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 6 of 11 and incoming cars on the single lane entrance/exit of the on-site parking facility; and asked if the developers have considered other designs. Ms. Gonzales responded that the developer will replace any damages to the property should they happen;r noted the limited street parking is not created by this development, rather the demand for on-street parking is reduced by the proposed on-site parking facility; pointed out residents will receive instructions on how to use the parking facility safely and efficiently and they will be able to communicate so as avoid accidents at the entrance of the facility; and stated this design is the most effective, it meets Code requirements, and has been approved by the DRC. 4:10:40 P.M. Planning Director Cover suggested making the structure available for 55+ SO as to reduce the parking requirement to 1.5 spaces/unit noting that this would result in 7 required parking spaces; and noted that the eighth parking space near the entrance of the parking facility could be eliminated, allowing the use of the two-car driveway at the entrance, increasing the safety of out-going and incoming traffic. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A TEN MINUTE BRAK 4:26:51 P.M. Affected Person Ms. Joan Lovell, Golden Gate Point Association questioned the applicant regarding their proposed changes to the streetscape noting the Golden Gate Point residents pay for the streetscape via a special taxing district. Affected Person Antunes questioned the size of the proposed units compared to the size of the existing units. Discussion ensued. 4:33:06 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Planner Dobbs introduced herself to the record; described the Zoning classification of the property; noted that the Code does not allow backing up onto public streets; stated that the buttonwood tree will be relocated; pointed out that the developers and the Golden Gate Point Association have unresolved differences about the streetscape in front of the property; said that the residents are paying though a special taxing district for the implementation of the streetscape plan; pointed out that typically 4-unit projects in Golden Gate Point can be developed based only on administrative review and approval, this property's small size (7,200 sq ft) makes it necessary for this development to comply with the Alternative Golden Gate Standards, which do not have minimum lot requirements but include a Planning Board public hearing; stated that the parking facility meets the Codes' dimensional parking standards, and has received DRC sign off; added that due to the small number of units the number of trips will be small and only few people will be entering and exiting the on-site parking facility; and concluded that staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 7 of 11 4:40:53P.M. Development Review Planner Dobbs responded to questions from the Planning Board members regarding the internal circulation in the parking facility; the Planning Board's jurisdiction on potential accidents on-site; if a site plan can be approved while there are parking concerns; if the applicant can request a Variance; the reasons for which this parcel is developing under the Alternative Golden Gate Standards; and the possibility of doing a second level of parking. Development Review Planner Dobbs explained that the applicants would not be granted a Variance because they cannot prove hardship, and that they cannot do a second level of parking. 4:51:56 P.M. Affected Persons: Ms. Joan Lovell, President of the Golden Gate Point Association (GGPA); described the function/responsbltes of the Association and its public-private partnership with the City; provided background information about the development of the Streetscape Plan, and the cost to develop it and maintain it; pointed out that there is a special taxing district for paying these costs; spoke in opposition to the application, based on objections to the parking facility, the design of which could have a negative impact on street parking; added that she is concerned about the proposed revisions to the community's streetscape plan in front of this development; and noted that if these revisions are allowed, it will set a precedent for future revisions, which would undermine the multi-million Streetscape Plan that the community is still paying through self-taxation. 5:14:46 P.M. Responding to PB Chair Blumetti's questions, Ms. Lovell stated that they do not have an agreement with developers to refrain from changing the streetscape, and that the City does not subsidize the implementation of the Streetscape Plan nor the maintenance of the streetscape. Responding to PB Vice Chair Ohlrich's questions, Ms. Lovell stated that there was another developer who did not agree with the streetscape design in front of their property; and explained the process a developer must follow if they want to do something different in front of their property. 5:24:22 P.M. Ms. Judy Miller spoke in opposition to the application, stating that the proposed development is too much for a small lot, has limited landscape, and too many trash cans. Responding to PB Member Gannon, Ms. Miller stated that they have not met with the developer to discuss these concerns, other than a phone call to discuss the relocation of a buttonwood tree. 5:32:25 P.M. Mr. William Noonan spoke in opposition to the application expressing concerns about the internal circulation of the on-site parking facility. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 8 of 11 5:38:14 P.M. Mr. George Loesel, President of the La Bellasara Condominium Association, spoke in opposition to the application, based on traffic circulation concerns; and described the types of vehicles that need to use the street for the maintenance of the buildings in this neighborhood, such as tall cranes, and service trucks. 5:45:51 P.M. Ms. Catherine Antunes spoke in opposition to the application, stating that the proposed development is incompatible with the Streetscape Plan, and that the on-site parking is a limiting factor. 5:51:22 P.M. Mr. Waldon Kraemer spoke in opposition to the application, based on the intensity of the proposed use, the unsafe on-site parking which will result in residents parking on the street, and the elimination of affordable housing (the four existing 600 sq.ft. units). 5:56:21 P.M. Public Input: Denise Watermeier spoke in opposition to the application, due to its incompatibility with the streetscape. 6:02:46 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Ms. Gonzales stated that the problem with on-street parking is not caused by this development; the proposed development is replacing something that is unattractive with a more attractive solution; testimony has been based on opinion and not facts; the applicant has not requested any variances unlike other developments in Golden Gate that have requested as many as seven variances; the number of trash cans is required; that developer's repeated attempts to meet with the community and the Golden Gate Point Association were turned down; and that they intend to add to the beautification of the street, which is the reason they chose to provide artwork on-site, to be selected with resident input, rather than to contribute money to the Tree Fund. Mr. Reese stated that the testimony included speculations about the size of the cars; noted that the applicant could volunteer a proffer to restrict the size of the car to be parked in the on-site parking facility; and added that testimony referred to things that are not proposed, such as a pool. 6:14:23 P.M. Responding to PB Vice Chair Ohlrich, Ms. Gonzalez stated that the units are not designed to be occupied by 5 persons each. Responding to PB Chair Blumetti, Ms. Gonzales noted that there are a couple more infill developments in Golden Gate, and that the developer's communications with the Golden Gate Point Association were limited to phone calls and the required community workshop. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 9 of 11 6:18:57 P.M. Rebuttal by Affected Persons: Ms. Joan Lovell stated that the streetscape varies in depth depending on the available land in front of each development; and repeated that not adhering to the Streetscape Plan will set a precedent that will undermine the cohesiveness and the integrity of the Streetscape Plan. Ms. Catherine Antunes stated that compatibility with the Streetscape Plan is required in order to maintain the deliberate look for which the community is paying; and added the intensity and density of the development is inconsistent with the Code, which calls for convenient and safe access. Mr. Waldon Kraemer stated that at the public workshop he told the applicants how to design the on-site parking for 8 spaces and have safe access, but the applicants did not listen to him. 6:30:13 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that transportation is not a concern in the proposed development for the following reasons: Due to the small number of units and the number of trips they generate, the probability of incoming and out-going cars to meet at the entrance of the on-site parking facility is once in 6 years. There are 3 on-street parking spaces now, and the applicants propose 8 on-site parking spaces. Pedestrian safety is not a concern because the sidewalk is not changed. The parking spaces are tight, however, the spaces in the City garages are even tighter. The parking spaces are meeting the size required by the Code. Parking for special events can be met by alternative transportation modes (taxi, Uber, carpooling, etc. The streets are City rights-of-way, and the City can manage the on-street parking and install signs to control traffic. 6:36:45 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. PB. Member Gannon moved to find the petition inconsistent with the applicable sections of the Zoning Code and deny the request. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Gannon stated that the petition is inconsistent with Section IV, subsection 5 relating to vehicular safety. Speaking to his second, PB Member Morriss stated that he is concerned with the traffic flow. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 10 of 11 Responding to PB Chair Blumetti's question, Attorney Connolly described the options available to the applicant following a vote to deny the application as opposed to a vote to continue the public hearing and give the applicant the opportunity to resolve the problems. PB Member Salem supported the idea for continuation. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon and PB Member Morriss withdrew their motion to deny the project. PB Member Gannon moved to continue the public hearing for this application, in order to receive further information regarding revisions to the design of the internal circulation of the on-site parking facility, and revisions to the proposed landscape in front of the property, that will be reviewed by the Golden Gate Point Association. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. The motion for continuation of the public hearing passed unanimously (5/0). Attorney Connolly stated that the public hearing for 20-SP-05 is continued to January 13, 2021, at 1:30 PM, in the City of Sarasota Commission Chambers/ZOOM. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO1 THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was none. 6:55:43 P.M. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. October 14, 2020 PB Vice Chair Ohlrich identified necessary revisions to the October 14, 2020 minutes. The Panning Board adopted the revised minutes by consensus. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were: none. 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. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 12, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 11 of 11 7:01:18 P.M. 1. Rules of Procedure (Damien Blumetti, Chair) PB Chair Blumetti stated that the PB public hearings are getting longer and longer, and suggested a couple of ideas that would help reduce the length of public hearings: reduce the time of public input presentations in the legislative public hearings to 31 minutes per person, the same as the public input presentation time in the quasi- judicial public hearings; and set a time limit for the questions by Planning Board Members. PB Chair Blumetti stated the benefits to these changes are less time in public hearings, focused responses, and the public can estimate when their petition will be discussed SO they come to the hearing closer to that time, rather than waiting in the Commission Chambers for a long time prior to their petition. Discussion ensued. The Planning Board will try these ideas out in the next public hearings, and then decide. Planning Director Cover stated that verbatim minutes are costly, especially for the long PB: meetings and proposed a briefer format of minutes for the record; suggested that, if details are needed, one can listen to the video. Attorney Connolly stated that the legal requirements include the motions, the vote, and justification for the motions. PB Members agreed to the briefer format for the minutes and requested that at least a draft of the minutes be included in the City Commission's packets. Mr. Cover stated that it is not possible for long meetings. Discussion followed regarding the change of the time for PB Public Hearings, from 6:00 PM to 1:30 PM, and the format of the public hearings being "in person" VS. ZOOM, while COVID 19 restrictions are in effect. Attorney Connolly stated that SO long as there is an in-person quorum, the other PB Members may participate in the meeting via ZOOM. There was also discussion about testing for COVID191 prior to the meetings, related costs, and the air quality equipment in the City Chambers. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM. Kau Shl SteveRCover, Planning Director Kathy KelleyOhlrich, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]