CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Terrill Salem, Chair Members lresent: Dan Clermont, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Doug Christy, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: Michael Halflants City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Lucia Panica, Director of Development Services Kevin McAndrew, General Manger, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department David L. Smith, Manager of Long-Range Planning, Planning Department Briana Dobbs, Senior Planner, Planning Department Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services 1:36:47 PM I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Salem called the meeting to order. General Manager McAndrew [acting as the Planning Board's Secretary] welcomed new Alternate PB Member Christy; noted PB Member Halflants was not present; and called the roll. 1:38:48 P.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1:37:27 P.M. III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Attorney Connolly stated that after consulting with the Applicant and staff it is recommended that the Legislative and Quasi-judicial public hearings regarding Hansen Street Housing be consolidated into one Quasi-judicial public hearing. The Planning Board agreed by consensus. IV. 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.) 1:39:16 P.M. A. Reading ofthe Pledge of Conduct Secretary McAndrew read the Pledge of Conduct. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2of 17 Attorney Connolly stated the suggested time limits; administered the oath to those wishing to speak at today's public hearings; and explained the procedures for Quasi- Judicial Public Hearings. The PB members approved the time limits by consensus. PB Chair Salem requested disclosure of ex-parte communications. PB Member Ohlrich, PB Vice Chair Clermont, and PB Chair Salem stated they had visited the sites and had discussions with staff. PB Members Blumetti and Christy stated they had none. 1:42:28 P.M. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 22-ZTA-06 - Request for Zoning Text Amendment approval to draft a definition for terms: " Animal Day Care", "Bay Window", "Recovery Elevation", and "Wet Bar"; to clarify definitions for terms "Habitable Space" and "Height"; to update the zoning lot width definition with an illustration; to clarify front façade design standards for the RSM-9 zone district; to draft a definition and use standards for medical massage therapy and to permit medical massage therapy as an accessory use to medical office; to add a definition and use standards for visitor center and to permit visitor centers in the CBN, CT, and NT, G, and Downtown zone districts; to permit museum use in Commercial zone districts; to remove language that allows access through a private driveway easement; to permit lease hold use by-right for existing buildings within the G-zone district; to make minor text revisions to North Trail Overlay District (NTOD) design standards to be consistent with Downtown zone districts and remove the NTOD sunset date; to add language that provides for greater screening height between registered vacation rentals and single family uses; to update the minimum parking dimension graphic to reflect the correct numerical standards; to exempt all publicly accessible open spaces types within the downtown from frontage regulations; to modify the definition for restaurants and add language to facilitate outdoor seating areas of restaurants; to permit mobile food trucks as a permitted use in DTC zone district and revise language to help simplify site owner approval process; and to make minor text revisions to site plan criteria, site plans in the downtown, and conditional use criteria. (Ryan Chapdelain, AICP, General Manager, Planning Department) PB Chair Salem opened the public hearing. Attorney Connolly announced item number five was being removed entirely; stated the struck-through provision in item number thirteen that states "no amplified music or amplified entertainment shall be permitted" will remain; and noted the reasoning. General Manager Chapdelain and Senior Planner Dobbs appeared. General Manager Chapdelain provided an overview of the proposed zoning text amendments and discussed staff's s recommended approach to the discussion. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff proposed adding a definition for Animal Day Care facilities. Senior Planner Dobbs distributed materials relating to the proposed addition of a definition for Animal Day Care. Discussion ensued regarding continuing this item to allow the PB members time to review the proposed language. The PB agreed Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 17 to proceed with the discussion. PB Members questioned where the use would be permitted; compatibility with residents living in downtown condominiums; if the number of animals permitted would be unlimited; and if outdoor access would be required. Staff responded by stating the use would be permitted in the commercial, industrial, and downtown zone districts; said the use would only be permitted in the ground floor retail area of condominiums; and pointed out condominiums have their own rules that would apply. Discussion ensued regarding allowing the use in all zone districts through the conditional use process. After further discussion PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to remove the discussion regarding the definition and regulations regarding Animal Day Care facilities under item number 1 from consideration today. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The motion passed 5-0. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff proposed adding a definition for bay windows. Discussion ensued regarding bay windows encroaching into the required setback; the structure of bay windows; and glazing. General Manger Chapdelain stated staff proposed revising the definition of habitable space sO that it is applicable outside of downtown; said clarifying language was added to the definition of height regarding point of measurement; and stated definitions for Medical Centers, Recovery Elevation, and wet bars were being added. Discussion ensued regarding how the recovery elevation is measured, and using the term 'counter space" versus "bar" in the definition of wet bar. General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed revision to the definition of Zoning Lot Width noting an llustration was added for clarity; stated language clarifying the placement and point of measurement was added to the definition of] Front Façade; and said a definition for Medical Massage Therapy was added to clarify the use is accessory to a medical office and the provider must be licensed by the State. PB Chair Salem questioned if the service must be under the direction of a medical professional. PB Member Blumetti questioned if a licensed provider could open a business without being associated with a medical office. General Manager Chapdelain stated the proposed language was consistent with state statutes. Discussion ensued. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff proposed allowing museums as a permitted institutional use in commercial zone districts; noting that is consistent with where libraries are permitted. PB Member Ohlrich noted the Commercial Tourism zone district (St. Armands Circle) is the only commercial district where museums would not be permitted. Discussion ensued. Senior Planner Dobbs stated private driveway easement" is proposed to be struck from the Access Standards; stating that ensures zoning lots remain accessible if an easement is rescinded. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if that would eliminate flag lots. PB Member Christy questioned if this has been a problem in the past, noting easements are not usually rescinded. Senior Planner Dobbs stated flag lots would still be permitted; and said this addresses concerns regarding issues that would arise from an easement being rescinded. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of17 General Manager Chapdelain stated staff was proposing to allow leaseholds by right in the G Zone District in an existing building if there are no changes to the structure; and pointed out the City Commission currently must approve the leasehold agreement then subsequently approve the required conditional use. Discussion ensued. Senior Planner Dobbs discussed the proposed revisions to the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD) stating the sunset provision is proposed to be removed; language clarifying front setback requirements along side streets that intersect with North Tamiami Trail was added; and pointed out the revisions would make the NTOD more consistent with the Downtown regulations related to habitable space, adjustments, and windows. PB Member Ohlrich questioned at what point citizen input would be permitted regarding these proposed zoning text amendments. Attorney Connolly stated that would occur after the PB discussion and before any votes are taken. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated this was a land use issue and therefore citizens should have been permitted to apply for Affected Person status. Attorney Connolly stated the items are considered legislative since the language is in the zoning code; noted there will be two public hearings before the City Commission; and pointed out enhanced notification will be required for those hearings due to the addition of a parcel of land. General Manager Chapdelain stated a Community Workshop was held regarding the proposed site plan thati included the addition of the parcel;noted that parcel could only be used for parking or stormwater management due to the residential zoning of the parcel; and pointed out the issue was discussed at the Community Workshop. PB: Member Blumetti questioned allowing for reduced front setbacks; asked what pedestrian space standards are; and what incentives would be available. Senior Planner Dobbs stated pedestrian space standards are the enhance sidewalk requirements; pointed out additional height was one incentive. General Manager Chapdelain noted the daylight plane requirement is a component of the additional height incentive. General Manager Chapdelain discussed fences and walls stating a requirement for an eight-foot-high fence between single family properties and registered vacation rentals; and noted those are limited to the Coastal Island Overlay District. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if provisions were made for reducing the height of the fence if the vacation rental use ceased. Discussion ensued regarding how that provision would be enforced. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the dimensional standards for parking were updated to provide more appropriate urban standards; and noted this provision minimizes the land used in the urban area for parking. General Manager Chapdelain stated parks and open space types was proposed to be amended to include exemptions from frontage regulations in the downtown zone districts for publicly accessible greens, squares, plazas, and playgrounds. Discussion ensued regarding if the property had to be publicly owned; if the regulations applied to properties in the downtown zone districts or properties that have a Future Land Use classification of recreation and open space. General Manager Chapdelain stated the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 17 regulations would apply to all parks, etc. in the downtown; and pointed out those are defined in the zoning code. Discussion ensued. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff proposed to revise the definition of restaurants to allow for outdoor restaurants; noting no outdoor bars would be permitted. Discussion ensued regarding access to facilities such as restrooms; building code requirements versus zoning code requirements; use of right-of-way for outdoor restaurants; and sidewalk café permits. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff proposed allowing food trucks as a permitted use in the downtown zone districts noting the permission process would be simplified. PB Member Ohlrich thanked staff for their efforts and questioned how parking would be regulated. General Manager Chapdelain stated the food trucks must be located on private property; and noted one parking space for every two food trucks is required. Discussion ensued. General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed revisions to the Site Plan amendment process noting any increase in open space and landscaping, internal traffic patterns, and an up to ten percent change in the location of a building would be considered a minor modification. PB Member Blumetti questioned if a tree that was supposed to be saved was unsavable, would the site plan amendment have to go back through the public hearing process. Development Services Director Panica stated the tree would have to be mitigated. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff proposed to apply the same standards for amendments to site plans to be applicable to administrative site plans in the downtown. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if this would expand administrative site plan approval outside of the downtown. General Manager Chapdelain stated it would not, noting the standards do not currently exist. General Manager Chapdelain discussed minor revisions to conditional uses stating the proposed language mirrors the minor revisions to site plans and alllows for an increase in floor area of up to 500 square feet to be approved administratively, consistent with Zoning Code Section IV-501(c)(5). 2:53:27 P.M. Citizen Input: Mr. Kevin Stone appeared and stated the notice for the Community Workshop relating to the NTOD zoning text amendments was posted three days prior to the meeting and therefore the neighbors did not have adequate time to prepare; stated their concerns were the removal of the sunset clause and the addition of a parcel that is zoned RMF-2 into the NTOD; and requested that portion of the zoning text amendments be tabled for six weeks and a redo of the Community Workshop. Ms. Linda Haller Sloan appeared and stated her concerns regarding the proposed outdoor restaurant provisions saying the provisions are too broad and confusing; noted major usage changes are included; said key issues have not been addressed; and listed Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of17 her concerns regarding the cumulative affects of the proposed changes on area businesses, residents, etc. The Planning Board Took a Ten-Minute Recess 3:10:45 P.M. PB Chair Salem requested Attorney Connolly address the issue that was raised regarding the notification of the Community Workshop. Attorney Connolly stated the Community Workshop was not related to the discussion today; stated there is a pending site plan application that it relates to; and stated it would be wise for the applicants to hold an additional Community Workshop to ensure due process. General Manager Chapdelain noted a mailing was sent within the established deadline. Discussion ensued regarding posting requirements, notifying Neighborhood Association presidents; the implementation oft the NTOD, and the removal of the sunset provision. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out that there will be two public hearings before the City Commission where citizens can provide input. Attorney Connolly noted one of those hearings must occur after 5:00 PM. General Manager Chapdelain pointed out the parcel proposed for inclusion in the NTOD will have to come before the Planning Board for site plan approval. Senior Planner Dobbs stated staff will expand the definition of outdoor restaurant to include all the functions discussed; and noted proposed outdoor restaurants will be reviewed via the Administrative Site Plan process if within the downtown and the Site Plan process if outside the downtown. Discussion ensued regarding staff bringing the revised language back to the PB prior to submittal to the City Commission. General Manager Chapdelain recommended those revisions be outlined in the motion. 3:21:13 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to confirm the removal of item la (Animal Day Care) in addition to item #5 (Visitor Center) and divide the question sO that item numbers 9 (NTOD), 13 (restaurants) and 15 (minor revisions to site plans) could be considered individually. PB Vice Chair Clermont seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The motion passed 5-0. Discussion ensued regarding item number nine (NTOD). PB Member Blumetti stated he agrees that that the sunset provision should be removed; and noted the posting issue is not related to the zoning text amendment. PBI Member Ohlrich requested staff address the addition of the residential parcel into the NTOD. General Manager Chapdelain pointed out the existing zoning of the parcel allows for nine dwelling unit per acre; said the added parcel will be used as parking for a proposed apartment building if added to the NTOD; and noted there are other residentially zoned parcels within the NTOD. Discussion ensued regarding the purpose of the community workshop; citizen's ability to comment on the addition of the residential parcel; and the notification process for zoning text amendments versus site plan applications. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned why there was no proffer that the parcel would only be used for parking. General Manager Chapdelain reiterated that residentially zoned parcels in the NTOD can only be used for parking or stormwater. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 17 PBI Member Ohlrich made a motion to continue item number 9 for further consideration by staff and discussion with the neighborhood. PB Chair Salem seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-3 with PB Members Christy and Blumetti and PB Vice Chair Clermont voting no. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to recommend approval of item number 9 as written. PB Vice Chair Clermont seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-2 with PB Member Ohlrich and PB Chair Salem voting no. Discussion ensued regarding item number 13 (restaurants). Attorney Connolly reiterated the struck-through provision in item number thirteen that states "no amplified music or amplified entertainment shall be permitted" is no longer stuck out. PB Member Ohlrich stated the PB should be explicit in their recommendations to the City Commission. PB Chair Salem: recommended language stating outdoor restaurants must have the same amenities and facilities as indoor restaurants with the exception of indoor seating. After discussion regarding the appropriate wording for the motion, PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to recommend to the City Commission approval of item number 13 with the understanding that outdoor restaurants must have the same amenities and facilities as an indoor restaurant, including but not limited to bathrooms for patrons, deleting only interior seating, but all other amenities and facilities must be provided. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Discussion ensued regarding item number 15 (minor revisions to site plans). PB Member Ohlrich requested clarification as to how the proposed language will expand administrative site plan approval outside the downtown. Further discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly pointed out administrative site plan review is not being expanded; used the revisions to the St. Armands parking garage as an example; discussed the difference between major and minor revisions to site plans; and stated the proposed zoning text amendment clarifies that difference. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to approve item number 15 as written. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings (Note: The below public hearings were consolidated into a single Quasi-judicial public hearing under Changes to the Order of the Day with item number three under Quasi-Judicial public hearings moved to the beginning) 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 21-PA-02 - Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to amend the Future Land Use map from Neighborhood Office to Multiple Family - Medium Density for seven parcels collectively totaling 50,688 t square feet with street addresses of 1707, 1715, 1721, 1735, 1743, 1803, and 1807 Hansen Street, and approval to amend the Future Land Use Chapter, Action Strategy 1.10, Site Specific Limitations. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of17 3. Hansen Street Housing (1721and 1807 Hansen Street): Rezone Application No. 21- REN-05 is a request for Rezone Without Site Plan approval to rezone subject parcels with street addresses of 1721 and 1807 Hansen Street from Office Neighborhood District (OND) to Residential Multiple Family-4 (RMF-4). (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) 3:48:37 P.M. Attorney Connolly called the following citizens that applied for Affected person status: Jean Ruff, Randolph Walling, Tylor Hyslop, and Scott Perrin. None were present SO therefore could not be granted Affected Person status. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Agent for the Applicants and Attorney Charlie Bailey appeared. Mr. Freedman discussed the proposal noting the request is for a small-scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning of two of the subject parcels. Attorney Bailey pointed out the subject parcels on a graphic; stated the seven parcels are collectively owned by the Geyer family that owns Sunset Chevrolet; said five of the parcels have existing duplexes; stated the seven parcels were annexed into the City in 1997 and were designated and zoned Neighborhood Office as part of that process; discussed the requirements for Neighborhood Office Future Land Use and zoning; stated the owners want to provide housing for young adults that are aging out of the foster care system; and stated the intent is to allow single family housing with or without accessory dwelling units on the two vacant lots. Mr. Freedman discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment noting the applicant's S proffers; pointed out two of the seven lots are vacant; discussed compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan; said approval will provide for additional housing; pointed out the concurrency review found there would be less impacts than the existing Future Land Use and zoning; said the proposed use would be more compatible with the neighborhood; stated the applicants were in agreement with staff's s findings and recommendations; discussed the Standards for Review for the rezoning noting those have been met, the impacts are minimal at best; and is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Attorney Bailey pointed out the proffers will ensure the parcels remain single family and requested the PB recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Member Ohlrich stated the last minute changes were confusing to her and asked why the applicants were not requesting RMF-1 zoning; stated there was no guarantee that housing will be increased; and questioned if the applicants were willing to hold off until the adoption of the proposed Missing Middle Zoning Text Amendment. Attorney Bailey stated lot width and area along with density requirements in RMF-1 would not be consistent with the proposed use. Mr. Freedman pointed out the Missing Middle Zoning Text Amendment had not been processed yet; said there is no guarantee that it will be approved; and said the applicants are filling an immediate need. PB Member Blumetti stated the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area; and pointed out the proposed use would provide the same amount of open space as the surrounding properties. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 17 4:06:45 PM Staff Presentation: David Smith, Manager of Long-Range Planning, and Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner, appeared. Manager Smith reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment stating the proposal would change the Future Land Use classification from Neighborhood Office to Multi Family - Medium Density; discussed the reasons for the request; pointed out the location, existing zoning; and existing Future Land Use classification; discussed the findings of the Public Benefit Review and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; noted a Community Workshop was held in July of 2021; stated the proffers ensure compatibility with the surrounding area; and said staff recommends that the Planning Board recommend approval to the City Commission. Development Review Planner Pintus reviewed the rezoning request noting four citizens attended the Community Workshop that was held on July 22, 2021; said the traffic analysis had found the project to be di minimis; pointed out a non-conforming use would be removed; stated the proposal is consistent with the surrounding housing types; and said any future development must be in compliance with the current codes. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the proposed height had been proffered. Development Review Planner Pintus stated a height of 35 feet was proffered. Manager Smith discussed the proposed Missing Middle Zoning Text Amendment that PB Member Ohlrich had referred to stating an overlay district would be created that is specific to the Park East area; pointed out that was not related to this proposal; said if approved the zoning text amendment would allow for duplexes, small apartments, triplexes; and quadplexes; said staff anticipates the overlay will be expanded in the future; and pointed out it would allow for an overall increase in residential density. PB Member Ohlrich stated two motions are required, one for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and one for the rezoning; and questioned what the impact on one would be if the other did not pass. Attorney Connolly stated the rezoning cannot occur with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 4:21:13 P.M. PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find that Petition No. 21-PA-02 amending the Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Office to Multiple Family - Medium Density and adding Future Land Use Action Strategy 1.10 (6) to the Future Land Use Plan is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is in the public interest and recommend that the City Commission approve the petition. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the proposal would be an improvement to the neighborhood. PB Member Ohlrich stated she could not support the motion because the Comprehensive Plan is a big picture document, and this project is not; said the proposal is inconsistent with the Neighborhood Plan; said citizen involvement has been minimized; and said there is no assurance that affordable housing will be provided. PB Member Blumetti stated the proposal was compatible with the surrounding area. PB Chair Salem questioned if the public hearings had been properly noticed, and if ZOOM participation in the meetings was still an option. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 17 Attorney Connolly confirmed both were correct. Discussion ensued. The motion passed 4-1 with PB Member Ohlrich voting no. PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find Rezone 21-REN-05 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the proffers submitted by the applicant and conditions from City Staff. PB Member Christy seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1 with PB Member Ohlrich voting no. 1. Residences on Datura (2338 Datura Street) [Continued from 1/12/22): Subdivision Application No. 21-SUB-01 is a request for subdivision approval to construct four single-family homes on a 1.25-acre lot with a street address of 2338 Datura Street. The subject property currently consists of two vacant lots. All access is taken from a proposed private Right of Way off Datura Street. The properties are zoned Residential Single Family 3 (RSF-3) and the Future Land Use classification is Single-Family (Low Density). (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) 4:28:38 P.M. Attorney Connolly called the following citizens that applied for Affected person status: Daniel Kennedy, Kathleen Sherrow, Laura Sperling, Thomas Holderness, and Mark Libowitz. None were present sO therefore could not be granted Affected Person status. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Phil Smith, Landscape Architect, and Ms. Erin Tumolo, PE, Morris Engineering, appeared. Ms. Tumolo stated the request is for a four lot subdivision; noted the item was continued from the 1/12/22 PB meeting; said concerns from the previous public hearing related to the existing trees and roadway have been addressed; pointed out the applicants have worked with the neighbors and City staff; stated the waterline in the cul de sac has been adjusted to be further away from a grand tree; said the swale at the entrance and some stormwater structures have been adjusted away from a grand tree; noted the roadway has been reduced from 24' to 20, the minimum allowed; and presented a sketch showing the buildable area of each proposed lot. Attorney Connolly requested PB Member Christy confirm for the record that he has reviewed the record and video from the January 12, 2022 public hearing regarding this matter. PB Member Christy acknowledged that was correct. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what the elongated oval with the dotted line was; pointed out that trees, flooding and runoff were primary concerns at the previous meeting; and noted the swales have been reduced. Ms. Tumolo stated the swales had been revised; noted there was additional volume originally;and said State requirements are being met. PB Member Christy questioned if an ERP from the Southwest Florida Water Management District would be obtained. Ms. Tumolo confirmed that was correct. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 17 PB Member Blumetti questioned who prepared the sketch showing the buildable area of the lots; stated only two of the four lots were actually buildable; and questioned if the applicants were willing to reduce the number of lots. Mr. Smith stated he prepared the sketch based upon the existing trees and required setbacks. Ms. Tumolo stated the four lots were necessary to support the infrastructure; and noted the cul de sac would be required regardless of the number of lots proposed. Attorney Connolly pointed out the: number of lots was: not a considerationnoting the State Fire Code requires any dead- end street that exceeds 150' requires a turnaround for a hook and ladder truck. Discussion ensued regarding where that measurement was shown on the plans; how the 150 is measured; and the cost of reducing the number of lots. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned why lot number 4 was the only lot without an adjacent swale; stated he agreed that only two of the proposed lots were buildable; and discussed current versus previous setbacks from trees. Ms. Tumolo stated there is a swale that runs the full length of lot 4. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the PB approves the subdivision and the applicants can only put a mini house on a lot is the City liable. Attorney Connolly stated the City would not be liable. Discussion ensued regarding State regulations regarding trees and the impacts on development. PB Member Christy questioned if the PB could add a condition of approval that would hold the developer to stricter tree removal requirements. Attorney Connolly discussed the Standards for Review for subdivisions and noted conditions can be placed on the development if the reasons for those conditions are stated.; and noted the City Commission will have the final say. Responding to a question from PB Member Blumetti staff acknowledged any trees that are removed will require mitigation. 4:50:02 P.M. Staff1 Presentation: Development Review Planner Pintus appeared and summarized the revisions the applicants had made regarding tree mitigation and stormwater management; and noted there is a 7% reduction in the impervious surface. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if a variance to the 20' setback from a tree could be obtained; and asked if City staff was satisfied with the stormwater plan. Attorney Connolly stated a variance could be requested, noting variances to save trees are easier to obtain than other types of variances. Development Review Planner Pintus noted the City Engineering staff has signed-off on the stormwater plan; and pointed out a permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District is also required. Discussion ensued regarding the use of the W.A.N.E. tree feeder system and the size of the off-site grand oaks. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what Florida Statute 177 that is reference in the proposed motion was. Development Review Planner Pintus stated that is the State requirements for recording plats; and pointed out the City surveyor: must sign-off on the plat before it is recorded. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12of 17 PB Member Blumetti questioned what the tree mitigation requirements are. Director Panica stated 3 seven-inch canopy trees must be planted for every grand tree that is removed. PB Vice Chair Clermont pointed out an arborist could declare trees unhealthy sO they could be removed under the existing circumstances. 4:57:02 P.M. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the PB could recommend a reduction in the setback from the trees. Attorney Connolly stated that was a different process. PB Member Ohlrich stated this is a difficult application; said the PB had made their preferences regarding saving trees clear; and noted although the PB cannot demand the applicants apply for a variance however can strongly encourage them to do SO. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly pointed out the PB cannot make that a part of the motion. PB Member Blumetti stated two of the lots are not buildable; noted it is inappropriate for the PB to critique the application; and pointed out the required mitigation trees will eventually replace the canopy. PB Vice Chair Clermont said it is helpful to know a variance is an option; and noted the homeowner versus developer could request the variance. General Manager McAndrew clarified that the stated mitigation applies to trees removed as part of the City's process, not the State Statute. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find Subdivision 21-SUB-01 consistent with Section IV-1007 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the one condition as written. PB Vice Chair Clermont seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti stated he hoped the developer would attempt to obtain a variance. PB Vice Chair Clermont noted the Affected Persons that attended the previous public hearing on this matter were not present today; pointed out their concerns regarding the trees and stormwater runoff have been addressed; and stated the proposal is consistent with the surrounding area. PB Chair Salem stated the residents concerns regarding runoff and flooding have been addressed; noted the owner of the property is looking to create a subdivision rather than develop the individual lots; said the eventual homeowner would determine the size and location of the building; noted what is before the PB today is the creation of the subdivision; and stated he supports the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The Planning Board Took a Ten Minute Recess Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 17 2. Corona Cigar Company (22 North Lemon Avenue) Continued from 2/9/22]:Site. Plan Application No. 22-SP-02, Major Conditional Use Application No. 22-CU-01 are a request for Site Plan and Major Conditional Use approval to establish cigar retail sales with a bar holding a 4-COPI liquor license: in an existing 4,400 square foot building space with a street address of 22 North Lemon Avenue. Adjustment Application No. 22-ADP- 02 is a request for Adjustment approval to allow a 318 foot reduction to the 500 foot required separation distance between a bar, tavern, or nightclub and an alcoholic beverage store as required by section vii-602(r) of the zoning code. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) 5:16:26 PM Attorney Connolly called the following persons that had applied for Affected Person status: Laura Maniglia, Patricia Harmon, Gregory Perrone and Theresa Skahilll. None were present and therefore were not granted Affected Person status. Applicant Presentation: Joel Freedman, Agent; Chris Gallagher, Architect; and Jeff and Tanya Borysieica, owners, appeared. Mr. Freedman noted the location and size of the proposed Corona Cigar Company; stated the applicants were requesting Major Conditional Use and Site Plan approval to operate the proposed use; pointed out the 4COP liquor license associated with the operation requires Major Conditional Use approval; and stated two adjustments were also required, one administrative and one requiring Planning Board approval. Mr. Borysieica stated the owners have four existing stores, 3 in the Orlando area and one in Tampa; stated the proposal is for a premium cigar retail operation; discussed the history of the business; said the ability to serve cocktails along with the retail sales of cigars was important; and discussed the ventilation system. Mr. Freedman discussed the required adjustments and how the distance is measured; stated the proposal is not for a nightclub but rather a retail establishment that serves alcoholic beverages; discussed the applicant's 5 proposed proffers noting those run with the store; and pointed out two letters of support that were included in the materials. Mr. Gallagher stated the request is for a retail establishment with daytime hours; said the applicants would be applying for a sidewalk café permit; said the ventilation system will maintain the humidity in addition to cleaning the air; and pointed out the operation is high-end and different than a nightclub. 5:32:09 PM PB Member Ohlrich questioned if all of the locations combine premium cigar and alcohol sales; and asked how the cigar smoke from the sidewalk café would be contained. Mr. Borysieica stated the smoke dissipates; pointed out the bus terminal across the street does not interfere with the restaurant across the street because the fumes dissipate; and stated the architect designed the space to minimize the smoke. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 17 PB Member Blumetti stated he like the concept; said it would be an asset to the downtown; noted the liquor license complements the cigar sales; stated he loathed outdoor smoke; and questioned if the intent was to have outdoor smoking. Mr. Borysieica stated outdoor seating is proposed; said that encourages people to smoke on- site rather than walk around downtown smoking; and pointed out outdoor smoking is legal. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if the proposed sidewalk café was within the Planning Board's purview. Attorney Connolly stated that is a separate permit that is reviewed and issued administratively. PB Vice Chair Clermont pointed out pedestrians currently avoid that area due to the homeless population; and said the location was ideal versus being mid-block on Main Street. PB Member Ohlrich stated that smoking while seated is different than walking around smoking; and pointed out the sidewalk café was not part of the applications the PB was considering today. Discussion ensued. 5:46:25 PM Staff Presentation: Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner, appeared and stated three applications were included in the request; pointed out Major Conditional Use approval is required for a bar/nightclub use; said a Site Plan application is required to accompany a Major Conditional Use application; said a Community Workshop was held and attendees expressed concerns regarding outdoor smoking and the hours of operation; stated the traffic review found the proposal to be di minimis and the three concerns had been addressed; noted the Development Review Committee signed off on the project on December 28, 2021; pointed out the Standards of Review for the requested adjustment require distances to be: measured as the crow flies, noting the linear pedestrian distance is 480 feet; and stated staff had concerns with the applicant's proffer regarding no amplified entertainment would occur, noting difficulties with enforcing that proffer. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if the City had issues with the proximity of other bars in the downtown; and if any other proposals for this site had been made in the past couple of years. Development Review Planner Pintus stated she was not aware of any. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti discussed the Standards for Review for Site Plans and stated staff did not address the issue of odor. Development Review Planner Pintus pointed out odor would be associated with the sidewalk café which is not part of what is being considered today. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the PB could proffer that the sidewalk café has to come before the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated a proffer to change the City Code would not be appropriate. PB Member Christy questioned if the PB condition the location of the sidewalk café. Attorney Connolly stated the Planning Board reviews zoning related issues on private property while the City Engineering Department regulates uses in the right-of-way. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 17 PB Member Ohlrich questioned if staff could limit the location; and questioned what the three issues in the traffic analysis were. Attorney Connolly stated staff reviews sidewalk café permits as they relate to pedestrian's ability to navigate the sidewalk; and pointed out the three issues are identified on page 60 of the staff report. Discussion ensued. 5:58:45 PM Citizen Input: Mr. Lou Donato, landlord, appeared and stated he owns several downtown properties; discussed difficulties inl locating a tenant for this site due to the bus station and homeless population; said he researched the business model that is proposed; and pointed out the applicants were being honest by disclosing the proposed sidewalk café. Mr. Cole Crews appeared and stated he is a resident of Sarasota; said he has worked for the Corona Cigar Company in the past and there has never been issues with outdoor seating at the other locations; and noted there is a smoking establishment on Main Street that does not deter pedestrians. 6:03:15 PM Staff Rebuttal: There was no staff rebuttal. 6:03:40 PM Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Borysieica stated they disclosed the proposed sidewalk café for transparency purposes; stated the operation is wholesome; pointed out the conditions at the site when he looked at it; said the concept dos not work without the outdoor seating; said he has not had issues with his other locations; and stated he felt he was being singled out. Ms. Borysieica noted there would be two chairs that would seat two people rather than many people standing around. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem noted the applicants were not being singled out; the PB members were looking for mitigation opportunities for dispensing of the smoke. Discussion ensued. PBMember Blumetti stated the applicants had not demonstrated the mechanical system would handle the indoor smoke either. Mr. Freedman pointed out that is addressed during the building permit review process. Attorney Connolly stated two motions were required, and recommended a motion relating to the adjustment application be first. 6:11:25 PM PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find adjustment 22-ADP-02 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the petition for adjustment, subject to the condition listed. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of17 PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find Major Conditional Use (22-CU-01) consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code, and Site Plan (22-SP-02) consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code, and recommend that the City Commission approve the petitions, subject to the proffers provided by the applicant and the conditions proposed by staff. PB Member Christy seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he was in favor of the proposal noting it is a high-end amenity that is needed in the downtown; stated some people object to smoke emanating from a business while others object to music; stated he felt a high-end operation would have a high-end HVAC system; pointed out weather can be a deterrent from outdoor smoking; pointed out other venues such as airports and stadiums have designated outdoor smoking areas; and noted downtowns have various activities. PB Member Christy stated he shared PB Member Blumetti's concerns however the issue is outside the PB's] purview. PB Member Blumetti stated he had no issue with the establishment at that location; said it would be great for downtown; stated his issue is with the outdoor smoking; said outdoor smoking is not a good image for the downtown; and disagreed that the sidewalk café was necessary to make the business model work. PB Chair Salem noted the site has been vacant for a long time; pointed out residentially challenged people hand out there now; said the use is much better than the current conditions; and noted it will be a high-end operation. The motion passed 4-1 with PB Member Blumetti voting no. 6:20:06 P.M. V. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICE' TO 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 no citizen input. 6:20:17P.M. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 9, 2022 PB Member Ohlrich stated she had submitted three non-substantive changes. The PB approved the minutes as revised by consensus. 6:20:48 P.M. 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. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 17 Secretary McAndrew stated there are two legislative public hearings scheduled for the next meeting, including the Missing Middle Zoning Text Amendment. Discussion ensued regarding the associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 6:23:53 P.M. 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. PB Member Blumetti requested a staff presentation regarding sidewalk cafes. Secretary McAndrew stated staff would schedule that. PB Member Blumetti questioned how sidewalk cafes could be incorporated into site plan approval. Attorney Connolly that would not be feasible noting the PB applies the Zoning Code to private property and the City Engineer applies the City Code to sidewalk cafes. Discussion ensued. PB Members Ohlrich and Blumetti questioned when their terms were up. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly confirmed both were six year terms beginning in 2017 and ending in 2023. Discussion ensued regarding the: need to notify staff as soon as possible if not attending a meeting in order to provide alternate PB. Member Christy with advance notice that he will need to attend. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:29 P.M. hu M6Andlu Kevin McAndrew Terrill Salem, Chair Development Services Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]