CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., 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 Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Jim Koenig, Senior Planner, Planning Department Briana Dobbs, Development Review Planner, Development Services Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 1:37:55 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti called the meeting to order and Director Cover [acting as the Planning Board's Secretaryl read the roll call. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY 1:38:46 P.M. 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 thel Planning Board.) 1:38:54 P.M. A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Cover administered the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits, and PB Members accepted them by consensus. Attorney Connolly administered the oath for all present who intended to speak. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 20-ZTA-03: The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Overlay District (ADOD) Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) would allow for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on residentially zoned lots within the Arlington Park, Bayou Oaks and Central Cocoanut neighborhood boundaries. The zoning text amendment also proposes additional provisions for all accessory dwelling units. The proposed ZTA would require either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU to be owner-occupied and prohibit ADUS within the boundary of the Coastal Island Overlay District. Consistent with State statutory requirements, the proposed ZTA would require an affidavit from the applicant of a building permit that the ADUbe rented at an affordable rate to person(s) with a household income at or below 120% of the Area Median Income. Additional design standards have also been added to ensure the Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 2 of 13 ADU is compatible with the desired character and livability of the City's residential neighborhoods. (Briana Dobbs, Development Review Planner) 1:40:54 P.M. General Manager Chapdelain introduced himself and Development Review Planner Dobbs; discussed the background of the proposed zoning text amendments noting the definition and development standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUS) already exist in the Zoning Code; stated staff's recommendations are based upon the Local Affordable Housing Strategy the City Commission approved in December 2018 as well as the Blueprint for Workforce Housing prepared for Sarasota by the Florida Housing Coalition; pointed out the Accessory Dwelling Unit Overlay District (ADOD) will not be applicable to all neighborhoods since some neighborhoods do not support the proposed zoning text amendments; stated both documents recommended expanding opportunities for ADUS including increasing the allowable square footage; noted staff has concerns with increasing the square footage due to potential compatibility issues with the surrounding residences, pointing out the existing limit on square footage has been in place for some time and has worked well sO staff does not recommend expanding; and discussed the various types of ADUS. General Manager Chapdelain reviewed the public participation process stating staff did a presentation before CCNA and established an email account specific to this proposal for public input; pointed out three neighborhoods, Arlington Park, Bayou Oaks and Central Cocoanut, expressed interest in participating sO staff was starting with those three; presented a graphic depicting where ADUS are currently allowed; presented a map showing the three neighborhoods the ADOD would be applicable to noting other neighborhoods could be added in the future; and discussed the benefits and purpose pointing out the primary citizens that could benefit by being able to remain in their homes are senior citizens, single parents, and families with grown children. General Manager Chapdelain reviewed the proposed zoning text amendments stating the recommendation that affordable housing must be rented out to households with incomes at or below 120% of AMI is mandated by House Bill 1339; noted staff's S proposal requires the owner to reside on-site; said the proposed design standards would ensure compatibility with the surrounding area; noted ADUS are prohibited on the coastal islands; pointed out additional parking for the ADUS will only be required for new construction; stated the ADUS cannot have more than one bedroom; and presented a graphic depicting local examples. 1:51:36 P.M. PB Member Morriss questioned if the language in the design standards was adequate to protect against bad designs and why the maximum state mandated household income levels were being used, noting housing geared to that income level would not be affordable. General Manager Chapdelain noted the household income could be lower. Attorney Connolly read the State requirements and stated the household income could be lower however need to consider if the market would respond well to that. PB Member Morriss questioned if the overlay were to be adopted then the neighborhood decided they did not want that after all would that lead to a Bert Harris claim. Attorney Connolly stated it could possibly, noting the claim was not likely to succeed. 1:55:57 P.M. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 3 of 13 PB Member Gannon questioned what process was used for the three neighborhoods to opt in; references Action Strategy 6.2 and questioned how compatibility would be ensured; and who decides if iti is compatible or not. General Manager Chapdelain stated the three neighborhoods contacted staff after staff' S presentation to CCNA, staff subsequently made a presentation to those specific Neighborhood Associations, and the process went forward from there. Discussion ensued. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff was working on a standard application form, noted any additions would have to go before the Planning Board and City Commission to amend the Zoning Code to add those; stated the proposed general provisions and additional design standards go to compatibility; and stated Development Services staff would review the building permit for compatibility with materials, etc. of the principle dwelling. 2:03:22 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned if neighborhoods that are currently allow ADUS were excluded; if the Newtown area wished to opt in would they have to go through the public hearing process, what constituted a geographic area; and how the regulations would be enforced. General Manager Chapdelain stated neighborhoods that allow ADUS can continue to provide them; confirmed Newtown would have to go through the public hearing process in order to opt in; noted a geographic area refers to areas that do not have an established Neighborhood Association; said Code Enforcement would investigate any complaints; and noted property owners provide affidavits as to the income level and residing on-site that are recorded in the Official Records; and pointed out that additional parking is not required. Discussion ensued regarding geographic areas". . Attorney Connolly stated anyone can ask to opt in; noted the City Commission would have to approve the zoning text amendment; and said if the request was approved there would be public hearings before the Planning Board and City Commission. 2:09:51 P.M. PB. Member Salem questioned if there was any documentation that: neighborhoods had decided to not opt in; and asked if the area south of Myrtle Street, west of US 301, north of 10th Street and east of Central Avenue had elected to not opt in. General Manager Chapdelain noted that area is part of Gillespie Park, Central Cocoanut, and Amaryllis Park; and noted staff had discussed opting in with the Amaryllis Park Neighborhood Association however the Neighborhood Association does not have documented support at this time. Discussion ensued regarding the most affordable areas in the City; excluding the area with the lowest rental rates; ADUS increasing the property values and associated tax base; regulating airbnbs; and allowing investors to participate. PB Member Salem questioned how the AMI could be met if investors cannot participate, stating investors provide most of the affordable housing. General Manager Chapdelain noted ADUS can be rented below the 120% AMI. PB Member Salem questioned what the setbacks for the ADUS were. Development Review Planner Dobbs stated the setbacks are the same as the underlying zone district. 2:17:43 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti stated he liked the: idea; stated the reference to any abutting street should be changed to an abutting street; said it needed to be made clear that if the ADU is detached from the main structure the rear setback would be 5 ft. rather than 10'; noted under those circumstances a landscape buffer should be required along the rear property line; stated he understood the rational for not allowing windows on the back of the ADU however he felt Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 4 of 13 clerestory windows on the back of the unit should be allowed; and questioned if the ADU would be on a separate meter from the main structure. General Manager Chapdelain stated he was unsure if there would be separate meters, noting the main structure and the ADU are considered two separate units. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Blumetti noted the 600 sq. ft. maximum pertained to the living space that is under air conditioning and suggested the maximum sq. ft. should be increased to 650 with the additional 50 sq. ft. being used for an entryway. 2:24:26 P.M. PBI Member Morriss questioned how many ADUS have been constructed and what the process was. General Manager Chapdelain stated roughly 27 ADUS have been constructed and a building permit must be submitted for approval. PB Member Morriss questioned how the requirements would be enforced. General Manager Chapdelain stated enforcement is complaint driven. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss asked why the sq. ft. of the ADU was not part of the maximum lot coverage. General Manager Chapdelain stated the ADU is part of the maximum lot coverage of the underlying zone district. 2:27:36 P.M. PB Member Gannon questioned if an owner could occupy the ADU and rent the main structure out. General Manager Chapdelain stated that was correct. Director Cover noted an ADU cannot be constructed without the required affidavits. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon questioned if manufactured homes on wheels such as tiny homes would be permitted. General Manager Chapdelain noted the Florida Building Code requires a foundation and said the building types allowed are the same that are allowed under the particular zone district, noting the ADU must be compatible with the main structure. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Blumetti stated it was not likely that a manufactured home could meet the Florida Building Code. Development Review Planner Dobbs stated modular homes are permitted in the single-family zone districts while manufactured and/or mobile homes are not, noting the difference is whether it is on wheels. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon asked from a planning standpoint what areas does staff feel workforce housing is appropriate. Director Cover stated staff wished to see workforce housing citywide. PB Member Gannon stated an educational program needed to be established for those neighborhoods that did not opt in and questioned if ADUS were allowed in the downtown neighborhoods. Development Review Planner Dobbs stated ADUS are allowed in the DTN zone district; noted ADUS are not allowed in the RSF-E, RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3 and RSF-4 zone districts; and said ADUS will be allowed in those zone districts if the zoning text amendment is approved. Discussion ensued regarding individual neighborhoods that could opt in. PB Member Morriss stated his neighborhood, Indian Beach- Sapphire Shores, does not want to opt in as written; and said needs to be adaptable to individual neighborhoods. 2:39:40 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned if the height of the ADU had to be less than that of the main structure. General Manager Chapdelain stated for a detached ADU that was correct. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned if a neighborhood wished to opt in would they have to go before the Planning Board and City Commission and if sO at what cost. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff would work with the neighborhood and there would be no cost to the residents. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 5 of 13 Director Cover stated there has been a lot of discussion regarding neighborhoods that have not opted in; and noted the Planning Board could recommend ADUS be allowed citywide. 2:42:29 P.M. PB Member Salem stated he felt the size was restrictive; suggested the allowable sq. ft. of the ADU be based on the size of the main structure; and asked if language could be added that requires the owner to live on-site if renting as a short term rental. General Manager Chapdelain noted the Code does not allow for rentals of less than 7 days; and stated the intent is for the ADU to be an accessory use. Discussion ensued regarding allowable sq. ft. and eliminated the reference to number of bedrooms allowed. 2:47:23 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti suggested keeping the 600 sq. ft. maximum but eliminating the reference to the number of bedrooms, noting the Florida Building Code will regulate; and stated he does not see any problem with an owner occupying the ADU. 2:49:28 P.M. PB Member Morriss stated his neighborhood has concerns regarding the need to police to ensure ADUS do not become an Airbnb and on-street parking being burdensome to the neighbors; and suggested each neighborhood be allowed to develop standards for ADUS specific to their neighborhood. Director Cover stated the perception that ADUS will be widespread is inaccurate and pointed out the concept was adopted in the City of Atlanta and within 2 years only 39 ADUS had been constructed. Development Review Planner Dobbs stated the City of Portland and City of Seattle have had ADUS as an option since 1994 and since then less than 2% of property owners have exercised that option. PB Member Morriss questioned if existing non-conforming ADUS can be made conforming under this process. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff would look into that. 2:53:17 P.M. PB Member Gannon questioned if a kitchen facility is required. General Manager Chapdelain noted an ADU has a kitchen while guest homes do not. PB Member Gannon questioned how the Blueprint for Workforce Housing document was used in drafting the proposed zoning text amendment. General Manager Chapdelain stated the document is a guidebook. PB Member Gannon questioned how development review costs would be reduced. General Manager Chapdelain stated no publichearings are: required, the owner only needs a building permit. PB Member Gannon asked if a Site Plan was required. General Manager Chapdelain stated the ADUS would be treated the same as a single- family home which does not require Site Plan approval. PB Member Gannon questioned what steps are being taken to train employees to combat neighborhood opposition noting that was a suggestion in the Blueprint for Workforce Housing document. General Manager Chapdelain stated no steps are being taken, and again noted the document serves as a guidebook. PB Member Gannon questioned if tree mitigation requirements would be lowered since the ADU is considered affordable housing. Discussion ensued regarding how the building permit would be reviewed as it relates to tree mitigation requirements. 3:02:58 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated the Planning Board had discussed the Blueprint for Workforce Housing document previously, noted the inclusionary zoning section is no longer valid; and Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 6 of 13 questioned what other sections were no longer valid. General Manager Chapdelain stated no other components were invalid, noting some sections may be more applicable than others. 3:06:24 P.M. Ms. Mary Anne Bowie questioned if the Planning Board members had reviewed the three page document she had submitted; stated the. Arlington Park Neighborhood wants to move forward; and stated the City needs to allow ADUS citywide with an opt out rather opt in provision; and reviewed several of the ten recommendations from the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association. Senior Planning Technician Grassett read correspondence from Ms. Elaine Silver, who supports the proposed zoning text amendment, into the record. 3:13:02 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti closed the public hearing. 3:13:32 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti re-opened the public hearing for staff rebuttal. General Manager Chapdelain noted staff considered citywide; however, was aware of some neighborhoods that specifically do not want ADUS; discussed the statement made by Ms. Bowie regarding recommendations that differ from the two guideline documents stating staff will revise the language to note is consistent with those documents; stated in response to the letter that was read into the record that an attached ADU could address the issue; and noted a property owner could request a variance also. Director Cover stated he agrees the owner occupying the ADU could be a good thing; and noted the 120% AMI for a two income family is $68,000 and $60,000 for an individual, and the 100% AMI for a two income family is $57,000 and $50,000 for an individual. PB Member Morriss questioned if there was anything that precluded the owner to request a variance before the Board of Adjustment. General Manager Chapdelain stated there was not. PB Member Gannon questioned why not increase sq. ft.to 650. Director Cover stated 600 sq.f ft. is what is currently used and said staff1 had no problem increasing that to 650 sq. ft. PB: Member Gannon stated he still had concerns and unanswered questions that he would address later. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she agreed there are unanswered questions and stated that while the Planning Board was supportive of the concept there were loose ends and uncertainties that call for an alternative motion. PB Member Salem questioned if staff agreed to remove the reference to the number of bedrooms. PB Chair Blumetti questioned if a motion were made to go citywide would that create a noticing issue. Attorney Connolly stated the proposed zoning text amendments would create an overly; noted if. ADUS were permitted citywide that would not be an overlay; said an overlay required enhances noticing and two public hearings before the City Commission however if the provisions applied citywide only the tables in the Zoning Code need revised; and pointed out Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 7 of 13 what is being proposed is not the proper vehicle to go citywide. Director Cover stated if the Planning Board voted to allow ADUS citywide while staff is recommending the overlay both proposals would be presented to the City Commission; and stated if the City Commission preferred the Planning Board' S recommendation staff would rewrite the document and go back through the public hearing process. Attorney Connolly noted two ordinances could be brought to the City Commission. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Blumetti discussed the comments made under citizen's input stating he felt the appropriate sections of the Zoning Code were being revised; stated he felt if the maximum building area has been used an ADU should not be allowed, particularly if new construction; questioned if staff had looked at increasing the maximum building area; and if sO, what would the impacts be. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff considered excluding the ADU in the maximum building area and concluded it would not be appropriate. PB Chair Blumetti stated the use of shipping containers as suggested under citizen's input would not be an option as those would not be compatible with the surrounding area. General Manager Chapdelain stated shipping containers are specifically prohibited by the Code. PB Chair Blumetti stated it makes sense that the ADU must match the surrounding area. PB Member Gannon noted the existing tree protection regulations refer to reduced mitigation if for sale and suggested if the ADU is to be rented the full mitigation would be required. General Manager Chapdelain agreed. 3:30:50 P.M. PB Chair Blumetti closed the public hearing. PB Member Salem stated he felt the maximum sq. ft. needs to be increased to 800 sq. ft.; the reference to the number of bedrooms needs to be eliminated; ADUS should be allowed citywide; investors or non-owner/occupiers need to be included; and noted the owner occupied requirement would be difficult to enforce PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she supports expanding to citywide; said the sq. ft. needs to be increased, 800 may be too much; noted the full discussion is on the record; and stated she was ready to make a motion. PB Member Morriss stated there were too many loose ends; said he supports the concept; questioned if certain adjustments could be built into the zoning text amendment; would like to see the clerestory option; said he can't support as written; requested case studies from other jurisdictions be provided to the Planning Board; and noted he did not feel any sense of urgency. PB Member Gannon commended staff for their efforts; stated he favors a maximum of 650 sq. ft.; said he was not sure the number of bedrooms needs to be identified; and stated he does not support non-owner occupied. PB Chair Blumetti stated he would like to see the sq. ft. increased to 650; said the reference to the number of bedrooms needs to be eliminated; said he would like to see ADUs allowed citywide; said he does not support non-owner occupied; stated he likes the clerestory option and/or a landscape buffer; and said he felt a parking space should be provided on-site if on- street parking is not permitted on that street. 3:38:55 P.M. Corrected Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 8 of 13 Attorney Connolly pointed out that the City previously processed zoning text amendments annually that consisted of several amendments in one public hearing; suggested the Planning Board could make a recommendation on each proposed zoning text amendment with a separate motion for each amendment. General Manager Chapdelain stated that would provide clarity; and stated going citywide versus an overlay district was the most pressing issue. Discussion ensued regarding separate motions. PB Member Salem questioned if the proposed maximum sq. ft. encompassed the entire footprint of the structure. PB Chair Blumetti stated the maximum applies to the floor area that is under air conditioning. PB Member Salem questioned if a 2-story, 1300 sq. ft. structure could be constructed. Director Cover stated that would be prohibited for an ADU. Attorney Connolly noted the current code uses the term "habitable space" and suggested the same be used fori this zoning text amendment. 3:44:13 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she was ready to make a motion as she felt that due to the number of uncertainties the proposed zoning text amendment should come back before the Planning Board for further review prior to going to the City Commission. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to continue the public hearing sO that additional information regarding allowable square footage, number of bedrooms, clerestory windows, parking requirements, possibility of expanding to citywide, and owner-occupied VS. non- owner occupied can be provided. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The motion failed 2/3 with PB Chair Blumetti, PB Member Gannon and PB Member Salem voting no. Discussion ensued regarding discussing then voting on each issue individually. 3:53:48 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to: increase the allowable square footage to 650 sq. ft. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to remove any reference to the number of allowable bedrooms. PB Member Salem seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to allow clerestory windows. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Member Salem requested discusion/dlarifation. General Manager Chapdelain stated the intent is to minimize or prevent a blank wall look for the second story that is within the ten foot setback requirement; suggested language that reads "only clerestory windows are allowed above twelve feet of finished grade on any façade of an ADU that encroaches into the required rear or side building setback of the underlying zone district". Director Cover noted the clerestory windows would be allowable rather than required. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of clerestory. The motion passed 5/0 3:56:21 P.M. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion that a landscape buffer be required if the ADU encroaches into the required setback. PB. Member Gannon seconded the motion. Development Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 9 of 13 Review Planner Dobbs noted: if the zoning text amendment were expanded citywide properties in the downtown that have a 3' setback would not be able to meet the requirement. PB Chair Blumetti noted the requirement would only apply to RSF zone districts. Discussion ensued regarding the need to buffer between adjacent properties and if the encroachment requires a Variance from the Board of Adjustment. General Manager Chapdelain stated if the zoning text amendment is adopted the encroachment would be a matter of right. PB Chair Blumetti noted the landscape buffer would not be necessary if the ADU was within the setback for the underlying zone district. The motion passed 5/0. Discussion ensued regarding parking requirements. The consensus was no changes were needed to the parking requirements. PB Member Salem made a motion to reduce the maximum AMI from 120% to 100%. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to retain the owner-occupied requirement. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. PB Member Salem stated if the owner-occupied requirement were removed it would allow for more workforce housing in various neighborhoods, in keeping with HUD guidelines; said investors are more concerned with renters ability to pay their rent versus their actual income; and noted houses are sold which would create an enforcement nightmare. PB Chair Blumetti questioned if neighborhoods that opt in in the future could wave thatr requirement. Attorney Connolly stated the City only enforces City rules noting if it was a HOA rule the HOA can enforce. Discussion ensued regarding owners with multiple properties, the impact on the neighborhoods, and the need to keep corporations out of the process. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Member Salem voting no. PB Member Salem made a motion to expand the zoning text amendment to citywide. The motion failed for lack of a second. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to keep the ADU option as an overlay. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Member Salem stated neighborhoods were being excluded because staff did not engage with each individual neighborhood; and noted the ADUS increase property values. PB Chair Blumetti agreed noting it citywide neighborhoods could opt out if SO desired. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she agreed that the outreach to neighborhoods was haphazard; said if the zoning text amendment is adopted she wants a concerted outreach to all neighborhoods; and said she felt going citywide at this time would be too massive. PB Member Morriss stated it is more appropriate to have neighborhoods opt in rather than opt out, noting that allows for better representation from the entire neighborhood. Director Cover stated staff took the proposed zoning text amendment to CCNA sO most all of the neighborhoods are aware; said it is not feasible to go to the other 50 +/- neighborhoods in the City individually; and said the goal is to move forward with the neighborhoods that have expressed interest. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich noted neighborhoods that wanted to opt in later could do sO at no cost to the neighborhood. PB Member Gannon sated he felt further discussion with individual neighborhoods was warranted; said certain areas needed to be targeted; noted if passed other neighborhoods might want to opt in after seeing successful implementation in participating neighborhoods; and said he prefers to stay with the overlay. PB Member Salem requested the Newtown area be included. PB Chair Blumetti stated that would be a separate motion. PB Chair Blumetti questioned how many residents of a neighborhood must agree in order for that neighborhood to opt in. General Manager Chapdelain stated the proposalwould be fully vetted Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 10 of 13 with the Neighborhood Association; and pointed out the Neighborhood Association would hold multiple meetings then bring forward the documented support to the City. PB Member Gannon stated the request should only be accepted if the Neighborhood Association's Board brought forward a resolution requesting to opt in noting that would protect the City. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Member Salem and PB Chair Blumetti voting no. Discussion ensued regarding if additional motions were needed. General Manager Chapdelain noted PB Member Salem had mentioned the Newtown area; said the Economic Development Division would be meeting with the Amaryllis Park Neighborhood Association in the near future; and suggested if it was determined that neighborhood wished to opt in that change could be made to the ordinance prior to the City Commission meeting. Attorney Connolly confirmed that would be appropriate SO long as the area defined in the public hearing notice for the City Commission meeting included that area. PB Member Salem made a motion to add Newtown to the ADOD. The motion failed for lack of a second. 4:31:37 P.M. PB Member Gannon made a motion to find 20-ZTA-03 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval to the City Commission with the five changes the Planning Board recommended. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich seconded the motion. PB Member Gannon said he felt the discussion was helpful and resulted in a clearer package moving forward. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she agreed with PB Member Salem regarding adding Newtown however felt there needed to be discussions with the neighborhood first; and strongly encouraged staff to move with great haste sO the neighborhood could be added prior to the City Commission meeting. PB Member Salem stated that community has been disenfranchised for a long time; said this was an opportunity to increase the tax base and property values; and said with proper information and education no neighborhood would oppose. PB Member Morriss stated the need to address how to monitor the process and requested an amendment to the motion to require that the affidavit be provided annually versus one time only. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich seconded the motion. Attorney Connolly clarified the vote was to amend the current motion to require the affidavit annually. The motion failed 2/3 with PB Members Gannon and Salem and PB Chair Blumetti voting no. The motion to recommend approval to the City Commission with the inclusion of the five changes the Planning Board recommended was passed 4/1 with PB Member Salem voting no. PB Chair Blumetti questioned if it was appropriate for the Chair to second a motion. Attorney Connolly stated it was. PB Chair Blumetti apologized to PB Member Salem for not seconding his motion to add Newtown and requested PB Member Salem make the motion again. PB Member Salem made a motion to add Newtown to the ADOD. PB Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she supported the motion since it does not preclude staff from making haste to have a discussion with the Amaryllis Park Neighborhood. Discussion ensued regarding the boundaries of the area to be added. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 11 of 13 PB Member Salem defined the area as being bounded by the railroad tracks at the eastern City limits, west to Tamiami Trail, Myrtle Street to the north and 10th Street to the south. Director Cover noted that would be a geographic area versus a neighborhood. Discussion ensued regarding the zoning of the property within those boundaries. Attorney Connolly noted the overlay would only apply to those parcels zoned RSF. Discussion ensued. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Member Gannon voting no. The Planning Board Took a Ten-Minute Break 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.) 4:57:09 P.M. Senior Planning Technician Grassett read a letter from Ms. Suzanne Lynch regarding the proposed Bay Park zoning text amendments into the record. V. 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. 4:59:51 P.M. 1. Newtown CRA Plan Update Director Cover announced this presentation has been moved to the October 14, 2020 PB meeting agenda. 2. Planning Department Initiatives Update Director Cover reviewed the Planning Department's upcoming projects noting there are approximately twelve zoning text amendments dealing with various issues; said in addition there are several zoning text amendments relating to The Bay Park Phase 1 project; said there are approximately fifteen projects in addition to The Bay Park Phase 1 Site Plan review, the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens applications, Bath and Racquet Rezoning and the Quay Blocks 4 &55 Site Plan; and noted some of those will move forward this year while others will not move forward until 2021. PB Member Gannon questioned what the status of the Primary Grid Street Comprehensive Plan Amendment is. General Manager Chapdelain stated the item was delayed due to the pandemic; said staff anticipated the item would go before the City Commission next month for transmittal to the State; pointed out after that there would be adoption public hearings before the City Commission; and noted once that process was complete, zoning text amendments would be required to expand the primary streets. PB Member Gannon questioned if the revisions the Planning Board requested at their February 12th public hearing would be included in the materials provided to the City Commission. Discussion ensued. Director Cover stated staff would review that discussion. Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 12 of 13 VI. 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. 5:06:45 P.M. 1. Discussion regarding developing a process or procedure for communicating the Planning Board recommendation to the City Commission when it differs from staffs S recommendation. (PB Vice Chair Ohlrich) PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she had reviewed the backup materials for an upcoming City Commission hearing regarding the expansion of valet parking citywide; noted the Planning Board recommended denial 4/1 while Planning staff recommended approval; said the agenda request for the City Commission public hearing contained one sentence that said the Planning Board recommended denial and staff recommended approval; noted draft Planning Board minutes were included in the backup materials; questioned if this practice is in writing or just the way it has always been done; and requested the other Planning Board member's thoughts. Attorney Connolly noted the City was the applicant for the item PB Vice Chair Ohlrich referred and as such it was appropriate to communicate their recommendations to the City Commission. Director Cover noted staff put in the cover sheet for the City Commission agenda item that the Planning Board did not support the recommendations; and said in the future staff will put the actual vote in the cover sheet. PBI Member Salem suggested one or two Planning Board members present the Planning Board's position to the City Commission. PB Chair Blumetti noted the Planning Board vote may not be unanimous and it would be difficult to articulate that to the City Commissioners and stated the Planning Board's work is done once they vote. Discussion ensued regarding only scheduling items for a City Commission meeting agenda once the Planning Board has approved the minutes; the fact video of the meeting is available; delays that would occur if waiting until the Planning Board approves the minutes prior to an item going before the City Commission; the difference between watching several hours of video versus having a Planning Board representative at the dais for the City Commission meeting; more than one Planning Board member attending a City Commission meeting if the Planning Board vote was not unanimous; the infrequency of differing recommendations from the staff versus the Planning Board; the inappropriateness: of Planning Board members becoming witnesses at a Quasi-judicial hearing before the City Commission; and the impact of delaying City Commission public hearings for applicants as it related to the recent processing requirements in the Florida Statutes. PB Member Morriss suggested the Planning Board could take time to clearly state their reasons for their votes at the end of the discussion on the topic. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated although it does noth happen often, a procedure is necessary for when it does; and noted the Planning Board cannot mandate that the City Commission read the minutes. General Manager Chapdelain suggested any items going before the City Commission where the Planning Board's recommendation differs from the staff recommendation could be delayed until such time as the Planning Board has approved the minutes related to those items. PB Chair Blumetti stated he also liked PB Member Morriss' suggestion. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated there was some Corrected Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 13 of 13 clarity based upon tonight's discussion regarding how to make this better and suggested moving forward and see what happens. PB Member Salem stated he agreed. PB Member Salem thanked the Planning Board for including the additional geographical area in the ADOD. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meetingladjourned at 5:09:10 P.M. B2ua. StevenR. Gover, Planning Director Damien Blumetti, Chair PlanningDepartment Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]