CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY June 10, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the SRQ Studio, City Hall Annex Planning Board Vald Svekis, Chair Members Present: Robert Lindsay, Vice Chair Members Chris Gallagher, Patrick Gannon, and David Morriss Planning Board None Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, AICP, General Manager/Integration Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Svekis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY General Manager Smith stated that there was a change to the Order of the Day; explained that Item III.B.1. had been cancelled, and added that if it comes back, it will be advertised and notices will be sent out. 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 of the Pledge of Conduct General Manager Smith, (as Secretary to the Planning Board), recited the pledge of conduct. B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL URGENT CARE FACILITY (500 JOHN RINGLING BLVD): Site Plan Application No. 15-SP-05 requests approval to construct an Urgent Care Facility on property located in the Office Professional Business (OPB) Zone District with a street address of 500 John Ringling Blvd. The proposal is for a two story medical office building over parking. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS CANCELLED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 10, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the SRQ Studio, City Hall Annex Page 2 of 6 PB Chair Svekis welcomed the new Planning Board members Gannon and Morriss, and invited them to provide a brief informal introduction of themselves. PB member Gannon stated that his professional background was in the field of information technology; added that he has worked in programming, sales management, has started companies, did software start-ups in Silicon Valley, then moved into managing non-profit organizations (primarily technology consortiums) dealing with national and international governments, regulators, business companies, utilities, and public service commissioners; added that he retired from that a year ago, and decided to get more actively involved, SO he served on his condo board for the last five years, and a couple months ago he became President of the Downtown Condominium Association. PB: member Morriss stated that he is a licensed architect in Florida and has lapsed licenses in Colorado and Ohio; has served on the Board of Adjustments for 6 years; is affiliated with the North Trail Redevelopment Partnership; is President of the IBSSA Neighborhood Association; he is a member of the Enterprise Zone Board and the Board for Alliance of Historic Preservation; he has an art background; and he enjoys being involved. IV. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICETOTHE 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 input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. The May 13, 2015 minutes were approved with the following corrections: p.4 4 line 2, " isit itis the largest provider p.7 paragraph 5, end of line 9, u PB member Lindsay argued that this would net create an entertainment district... 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. General Manager Smith discussed the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the City's Comprehensive Plan, which will be presented to the Planning Board in September, 2015; demonstrated the last EAR, which was adopted in 2005; explained that the state requirements have changed and this year's EAR will not be as voluminous; added that the state requirements have been provided to the PB members, and directed their attention to requirement #5, which states: "The evaluation and appraisal should address changes in state requirements since the last update of the comprehensive plan and update Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 10, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the SRQ Studio, City Hall Annex Page 3of6 6 the plan based on changes to local conditions" explained that the City staff has to look at changes to state law that have occurred since December 1, 2008, when the Comprehensive Plan was last changed; added that he is in the process of reviewing the plan now, to identify areas that need to be revised; and offered some examples: Mass Transit concurrency - the new state statutes exempt mass transit from concurrency, therefore the City's concurrency policies in the Future Land Use Chapter of the comprehensive plan will need to be revised accordingly; Water Supply Plan - The Southwest Florida Water Management District recently adopted an updated Regional Water Supply Plan; staff will review it and identify potential revisions to the City's Water Supply Plan; Environmental Protection Chapter - staff recently received the latest revisions to the state environmental laws, which will take effect on July 1, 2015, and staff needs to identify potential revisions to the Environmental Protection Chapter; Transportation Chapter there could be revisions to transportation based on last year's proposed amendments; staff is currently working on the revisions to the Transportation Chapter and the Mobility Study with the Urban Design Studio, who recently made a presentation on this topic in to the City Commission in a workshop; General Manager Smith stated that, unlike previous experiences, the EAR will be brief this year. Responding to PB Chair Svekis' question, General Manager Smith stated that he will present the EAR to the Planning Board in September; the EAR is due to the State on December 1, 2015, and he plans to bring it to the City Commission in November, SO the Planning Board will have the months of September and October to review the report. PB member Lindsay asked for clarification regarding mass transit; stated that removing mass transit for concurrency means that, in order to meet concurrency, the City does not have to upgrade mass transit; and asked if mass transit can be considered as an offset for constrictions in other areas of transportation. General Manager Smith stated that it could be done if there are multi-modal regulations in place; added that staff is working on the Mobility Study which is multimodal; explained that the current Comprehensive Plan includes the old way of doing transportation concurrency, and it does not have the multi- modal aspects in it; stated multi-modal impact fees can be applied to improvements for road, mass transit, sidewalks, etc.; and stated that eventually the City's Comprehensive Plan will include multi-modal transportation review. PB member Gallagher asked about the relationship of the Comprehensive Plan and the EAR, and what drives what. General Manager Smith explained that once the City has sent the EAR letter to the State identifying proposed revisions, the State has to accept what is submitted, then the City has one year to incorporate the proposed revisions into the City's Comprehensive Plan and submit it to the State for review, and then it comes back to the City for adoption. PB: member Gallagher asked about the length of the EAR cycle. General Manager Smith explained it is a seven year cycle. PB member Gallagher asked if the purpose of the EAR was to identify what needs to happen with the Comprehensive Plan. General Manager Smith explained that according to State rules, every seven years a local government must do an EAR to review changes to State laws that impact the local Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 10, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the SRQ Studio, City Hall Annex Page 4 of 6 Comprehensive Plan, and identify how to change the local Comprehensive Plan to bring in in compliance with the State laws. PB member Gallagher asked if the focus of the EAR is purely to make sure the local plan is in compliance with State law, or if the City could identify changes to the Comprehensive Plan that relate to other community issues. General Manager Smith responded that compliance with State law is the State requirement and the main focus of the EAR, and strongly recommended the City stays within this requirement. PB member Gallagher asked if updates to the Comprehensive Plan that are not tied to the EAR are also on a cycle and if there was a State requirement that the Comprehensive Plan be changed every sO many years. General Manager Smith stated that there is no such requirement, the Comprehensive Plan can be changed every year; and added that the EAR could turn out to say that the Comprehensive Plan is fine and in compliance with State Law. PB: member Gallagher asked if the Comprehensive Plan could be revised every year, if necessary, but the state requires the EAR every seven years. General Manager Smith agreed. PB member Gannon asked for clarification on the reference to "changes to local conditions" in EAR requirement #5. General Manager Smith explained that this relates to changes required by State law and how the local community will address those changes. Attorney Connolly stated that following the changes to State law in 2011, the State does not have control over the Comprehensive Plan, therefore the City could change the Comprehensive Plan as many times as it wants annually, it defines "local conditions," and determines how and when to deal with them. PB member Gannon asked if, at the time of the EAR, the City would consider reporting other identified changes to the Comprehensive Plan that are not related to the EAR requirements. General Manager Smith stated that he would not want to do that, because it would lock those changes in the EAR schedule, and sometimes Comprehensive Plan amendments require more time. There was a discussion about the way changes are reported in the EAR, concluding that the EAR is a brief report listing the identified proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan by chapter, page, and policy number, however the proposed revised language will not be presented at this time, but a year from now. Attorney Connolly explained that the EAR will list the areas where State law has changed and will identify the areas where the City's Comprehensive Plan will need to be changed in order to be in compliance with the revised State law; added the EAR goes to Tallahassee and the City has one year to revise the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the changes identified in the EAR, including the drafting of the text changes, the public hearing process before the Planning Board, the public hearing process before the City Commission, transmittal to the reviewing agencies, having it come back to the City, then the adoption public hearing, etc. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 10, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the SRQ Studio, City Hall Annex Page5 of 6 VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD PB: member Gallagher asked a question about the chart comparing the Planning Board actions and the City Commission actions, which was prepared as requested by a PB member long ago; added that it appears that the City Commission' S actions are consistent with the PB's S action; and asked if there was something else that PB members were interested in finding out. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that when he requested the information be provided he wanted to see how the City Commission actions compared to the PB: actions in order to identify any areas of disagreement in actions, and to work towards solutions that could align the thinking of the Planning Board and the City Commission; stated that, if necessary, the Planning Board and the City Commission could hold a joint meeting to discuss areas of concern and reach solutions, or discuss changes to the Code; and concluded that it is important for the PB to have this feedback and know if the City Commission agrees with the PB findings or overrules them. PB member Gannon stated that after reviewing the preliminary materials provided to the new PB: members and listening to Ms. Murphy, Director of the Urban Design Studio at the City Commission workshop about the Mobility Plan, he needed clarification on the way specific parking space allocation requirements are addressed. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay suggested that all members read the Duany Plan because many of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan stem from that plan, for example that plan recommends reduction of parking spaces for office buildings SO that people park farther away, walk to their destination and interact with the downtown; continued stating that the flip side of that is that the City has to make a commitment to provide the parking and build parking garages to provide the spaces the offices would have; added that the easiest thing for the City is to require the developer to provide that, but if we do a lot of that, everyone would vanish from the downtown area at night, resulting in an empty and unsafe downtown. General Manager Smith stated that a lot of what Ms. Murphy spoke about will be presented before the Planning Board within the next year, and then the link between transportation and land uses will be accomplished with the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically to the Transportation Chapter and Future Land Use Chapter; pointed out that parking requirements are not in the Comprehensive Plan, they are in the Zoning Code, and any changes would have to be addressed through zoning text amendments, which will follow the Comprehensive Plan amendments; and added the Urban Design Studio is developing a form based code, and in order to be implemented, it will require a few changes to the Comprehensive Plan and to the Zoning Code. PB Chair Svekis suggested that further clarification requests on this topic be addressed to Ms. Murphy. PB Chair Svekis referred to his letter dated April 22, 2015, regarding PB member conduct during the PB: meetings, and reviewed the main points of the letter, such as following Robert's Rules of Order, a speaker must be first recognized by the Chair, and no one has the right to interrupt a person who has the floor; added that PB members need to use civility when addressing staff and citizens, because they have valuable input to offer; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 10, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the SRQ Studio, City Hall Annex Page 6 of 6 recommended the PB follow the City Commission's example and avoid discourse with the citizens during their presentations; and stated that cell phones need to be silent and stowed away during the PB meetings. Attorney Connolly strongly suggested that PB members use their City email address for PB matters, because communications are saved on the City server, and emphasized the importance of never using their personal email address for PB matters; added that if someone sends something to a PB member's S personal email address, the PB member should immediately forward it to his City e-mail address and respond from there. Discussion ensued about different e-mail scenarios. PB Chair Svekis stated that most of the public hearings are quasi-judicial and usually Attorney Connelly explains the rules to follow according to the Zoning Code. Should, however, a PB member conduct additional research, for clarification on the terms, this constitutes ex-parte communication, and the PB member must declare it as such at the beginning of the quasi-judicial public hearing; and added that if a PB member receives a FAX, he must make sure the other PB members receive a copy. Attorney Connolly explained that it is important to give it to Ms. Grassett sO she can make sure it is entered into the record; and pointed out that the important thing to remember is that the decisions PB: members are making in a quasi-judicial public hearing must be based on the evidence provided in the record of the public hearing. PB Chair Svekis stated that a PB member can ask questions during the hearing, which then becomes part of the record of the public hearing, but if they do research outside of the public hearing they must report it; and added that it is prohibited for two or more members of the Planning Board to discuss any topic that may come before the Planning Board in the future. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay suggested that, during the public hearings, the PB Chair should not call up more than one citizen at a time to speak in order to avoid hostility problems resulting from persons who support opposing views being seated next to each other. PB member Gallagher agreed. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Svekis agreed to try it out. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:52. PM Cade25 - Klk David Smith, General Manager - Integration Vald Svekis, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]