CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE. PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Terrill Salem, Chair (arrived 9:16 a.m.) Members Present: Dan Clermont, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Michael Halflants, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Alternate PB Member Christy Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Myra Schwarz, General Manager, Development Services Alison Christie, AICP, Chief Planner Tom Sacharski, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services 9:15:15 A.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Vice Chair Clermont called the meeting to order. General Manager Schwarz [acting as the Planning Board' S Secretary] called the roll. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. CHANGES TO' THE ORDER OF THE DAY 9:16:48 A.M. Attorney Connolly stated it is recommended that the Bath & Racquet public hearing be moved to the top of the agenda since Alternate PB Member Christy was filling in for PB Member Halflants who is anticipated to participate in the deliberations regarding the remaining agenda items. PB. Member Blumetti moved to approve the change. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. 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.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Schwarz read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for the presentations that will follow; and administered the oath to those wishing to testify at the public hearings. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 25 B. Quasi-ludicial Public Hearings 9:19:16 A.M. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out a revised Site Plan had been submitted since October, and questioned if the Development Review Committee (DRC) had reviewed the revised Site Plan. Chief Planner Christie distributed a revised staff recommendation sheet; and stated the DRC had reviewed an electronic version of the revised site plan and had no issues with the changes. Discussion ensued regarding the documentation not being in the record and continuing the item until the PB members have had an opportunity to review the DRC review. Chief Planner Christie stated there was an issue with the balconies encroaching into the setback for Building A and as a result Building A had been shifted to the west by 6' to address. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to continue the item until the PB has access to the DRC review and sign-off. Further discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem seconded the motion noting he did not want to have to revisit the item in the future or set a precedent. PB Member Blumetti questioned if there were any legal concerns. Attorney Connolly stated it is a factor but is allowed procedurally. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he did not support the motion noting it is a technicality that is not significant enough to cause a continuance. Discussion ensued regarding putting the information on the record; reordering the agenda again to allow staff time to provide the materials; if the applicant and staff presentations would suffice for putting the information on the record; and continuing the item. Per PB Chair Salem's request, PB Member Ohlrich restated her motion is to continue the. hearing to later in the day after thè PB members have had an opportunity to review the second DRC sign-off emails. The motion failed 3-2 with PB Chair Salem and PB Member Ohlrich voting yes. 9:38:02 A.M. Attorney Connolly called the persons that had requested Affected Person status noting most of those were being represented by Mr. RN Collins. Mr. Daniel Shanahan, (represented by Mr. RN Collins), Mr. Ben Cannon and Mr. RN Collins were present. Attorney Connolly recommended Mr. Colllins and Mr. Cannon be granted Affected Person status. The PB members agreed by consensus. Discussion ensued regarding time limits. 3. Bath & Racquet Club (2170 Robinhood Street) [Continued From October 12, 2022): Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-12 and Minor Conditional Use Application No. 22- MCU-01 are a request for Minor Conditional Use approval for a Private Club and Site Plan approval to develop 256 multi-family units and 65,448 square feet of non- residential space on two parcels totaling 13.42 acres with a street address of 2170 Robinhood Street. The larger parcel has a Future Land Use Classification of Community Office/Institutional and is in the Office Regional zone district, and the smaller parcel has a Future Land Use Classification of Community Commercial and is in the Community Storefront zone district. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Robinhood Street and Glengary Street with an additional pedestrian access from Mill Terrace. (Alison Christie, AICP, Development Review Chief Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 25 9:40:24 A.M. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Tara Williams, Project Architect; Mr. Edwin Martinez; Mr. Arron Deidtrich, Landscape Architect; and Mr. Brian Hess, Attorney for the developer appeared. Ms. Willliams and Mr. Martinez discussed the history of the Bath & Racquet Club; stated the proposal is to revitalize the site; reviewed the location and surrounding uses; discussed the history of previous proposals for the site; pointed out the multi-family units are lined up with the easement to the north, the Club building and access drive have been relocated creating a buffer between the multi-family and single family; discussed tree preservation noting a park area is provided adjacent to the single-family adjacent to the site; said a recreational trail around the site will be open to the public with a pedestrian connection to the single-family adjacent to the site; discussed density and buffers noting the stepdown from the multi-family to the single-family; pointed out there is a range of architectural visuals; said Building A was stepped back to save a grand tree; stated 80% of the parking is covered; noted there are terraces for each unit and pedestrian friendly corridors; said the entrance has been redesigned; pointed out the structures have views over the park area for safety reasons; stated the raised tennis courts allow for parking below and stadium seating for events; provided a summary of the project noting only one-story structures, the park area, the pickleball court, and the tennis courts abut the adjacent single-family; noted the landscape buffers and fence between the site and the adjacent single-family; stated all of the proffers have been met or improved; stated they were agreeable to providing a gate to the recreational trail; and discussed the off-site improvements being made. Attorney Hess stated they were in agreement with City Attorney Fournier': s opinion that the 5% cap on the annual increase for attainable units was applicable. Alternate PB Member Christy questioned if the development would be condominiums. Attorney Hess stated the residential and park areas would be condominiums; and said the commerca/retal/clab uses will not be part of the condominiums. Alternate PB Member Christy asked how the attainable unit commitment would be handled in the condominium documents. Attorney Hess stated the attainable units would be held by the developer, will be part of the condominium, and the 5% cap will be included in the recorded condominium documents. PB Member Ohlrich questioned the number of bedrooms in the attainable units; asked if there is a maximum number of members for the Club; and how the overall parking needs will be met. Ms. Williams stated the attainable units are one-bedroom and are scattered throughout sO those units are not adjacent to one another; said there is no cap on the number of club members; stated the parking meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, noting the commercial, retail and club hours differ from the residential; and pointed out there are different parking areas and access points for the residential units. PBI Member Blumettiquestioned how the overflow from Trader Joe's would be handled. Ms. Williams stated the applicants have proposed changes to the drive access, are extending the turn lane on US 41, and are changing the way vehicles traverse Trader Joe's parking lot. PB Member Blumetti asked if Trader Joe's has approved the changes. Ms. Williams stated discussions are underway; and noted the applicants are providing Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 25 28 parking spaces along Liberty Avenue. PB Member Blumetti asked how since that is outside of their property. Ms. Williams stated they are working with the city. PB Member Blumetti asked for a breakdown of the units. Ms. Williams stated there are some studios, some one-bedroom, some two-bedroom with lofts, some two-bedroom flat, some three-bedroom loft and some three-bedroom flat. Attorney Hess stated the units range from 600 sq ft to 2,000+ sq. ft. PB Member Blumetti asked if the restaurant will be open to the public and if SO, how the parking would be handled. Ms. Williams stated the restaurant is anticipated to be for Club members only. PB Member Blumetti questioned if parking associated with the restaurant was accounted for. Ms. Williams stated the restaurant square footage is capped and the associated parking is included in the overall parking calculations. PB Chair Salem asked for a breakdown of the attainable units. Discussion ensued. Ms. Williams stated she could provide that information during rebuttal. PB Chair Salem asked how parking for special events will be handled. Ms. Williams stated that issue has not been discussed. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned the height, setback and buffering for the pickleball court that is next to the: residential. Ms. Williams stated 30' maximum heightis proffered and there is a 25" foot setback, noting 20' setback is required. Mr. Deidtrich stated that area will be buffered by a fence and enhanced landscaping as proffered. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked how late the park area would be open and if it would be lit. Ms. Williams stated the park will be open dusk to dawn and would be lit with low level lighting. Discussion ensued regarding the types of lighting. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if the surface around the grand trees would be pervious. Mr. Deidtrich stated the surface is impervious and stated the roots of the grand trees will be pruned per arborist guidelines. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem asked if the applicants were working with the Neighborhood Association to alllow access via a gate. Ms. Williams stated the applicants have proffered installing a gate at their own expense if the neighbors sO desire. PB Chair Salem questioned if the recreational trail will be open 24 hours a day. Ms. Williams confirmed that was correct. PB Member Blumetti noted twelve pickleball courts are proposed; pointed out pickleball is a very noisy sport; and asked if the pickleball courts would be enclosed. Ms. Williams confirmed the pickleball courts would be enclosed and said the number of courts could change. Alternate PB Member Christy questioned what the extent of the recent changes to the site plan was. Ms. Willliams stated there was an issue with the balconies along Liberty Avenue; said that portion of the building was moved east by six feet in order to ensure the structures were the same as approved by the DRC; and stated the central area between the buildings was reduced by six feet to accommodate the relocation of the building. Discussion ensued. Alternate PB Member Christy requested a breakdown of the total units in addition to the breakdown of the attainable units be provided at rebuttal. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 25 PB Member Blumetti questioned how many parking spaces there are in excess of what is required. Ms. Williams stated 476 spaces are required and 507 are provided. 10:34:30 A.M. Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Christie appeared and noted the size, location, zoning, and Future Land Use classification of the site; stated Site Plan and Minor Conditional Use approval are requested for a mixed-use development including a private recreational club, 256: multi- family units, and 65,000 sq ft of non-residential; said the private recreational club requires Minor Conditional Use approval; noted 33 of the 256 units are attainable; stated 65,448 sq. ft of non-residential is for a mix of office and retail uses; said the retail use is capped at 5,000 sq. ft.; discussed the private recreational club stating 16 tennis courts, pickleball courts, a restaurant and a gym are included; pointed out a public park is proposed that includes a dog park, playground and recreational trail; stated an associated rezone included 24 additional conditions and those have been reviewed against the proposed site plan; noted there is a 41% overall reduction in parking proposed; stated the materials provided indicate the restaurant will be for Club members only; discussed the updated site plan noting Building A was relocated 6 ft. and the courtyard was reduced by 6 ft.; pointed out the DRC reviewed and approved the revised site plan; said the applications meet the Standards for Review and staff recommends approval with the additional conditions; and said a revised staff recommendation sheet has been provided. PB Chair Salem asked if the restaurant was required to be for Club members only. Chief Planner christie confirmed that was correct. PB: Member Blumetti questioned the parking calculations. Chief Planner Christie stated the Zoning Code allows for the Planning Board to approve a reduction in parking for mixed-use developments. Responding to PB Member Blumetti's request Chief Planner Christie provided a breakdown of the parking requirements and reductions. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti asked how the City was working with the applicant and Trader Joe's to resolve parking issues. Chief Planner Christie stated the applicants had proffered to provide parking along Liberty Avenue; said the City required 28 spaces be constructed in the right-of-way; stated the applicants had also proffered to work with Trader Joe's regarding issues on Glengary as well as the overall parking and access to the Trader Joe's site; and stated the City is monitoring the process. PB Member Ohlrich requested Chief Planner Christie confirm that the only change to the staff recommendation is the date of the site plan. Chief Planner Christie confirmed that was correct. PB Member Ohlrich stated the revised site plan has a different occupancy schedule than the previous plan and asked if the DRC had discussed that. Chief Planner Christie stated the DRChad not. PB. Member Ohlrich stated that she could not find Appendix five. Chief Planner Christie stated that was located on page 103. PB Member Ohlrich stated #13 on page 27 refers to off-site mobility improvements and asked how those improvements were guaranteed if not proffered. Chief Planner Christie pointed out that list is the proffers approved as part of the rezoning process. PB Member Ohlrich questioned why those were not part of the staff recommendation. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 25 Attorney Connolly stated the Planning Board cannot change the proffers approved as part of the rezoning process. PB Member Blumetti stated a change to the unit count rather than a change to the occupancy load would constitute a change to the site plan. Chief Planner Christie stated the change to the occupancy load would not be a substantial change. Alternate PB Member Christy stated the staff report says 25 trees are being saved and the Arborist Report shows 24; noted the report stated there will be a total of 105 replacement trees; and asked if the total number of trees would be 105 + 24. Chief Planner Christie explained that any existing trees are in addition to the 105 replacement trees; and stated the difference between the number of trees being saved is due to an updated survey since the rezoning. PB Member Ohlrich requested an explanation as to how the applicants were receiving credit for saving a few trees when they are removing sO many. Chief Planner Christie stated the Zoning Code allows for up to 10% credit for trees that the city wants saved that the applicants are permitted to remove. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he had no questions as his have been answered. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 8 MINUTE BREAK 10:41:03 A.M. Affected Persons: Mr. RN Collins, representing the following affected persons, appeared: Margaret Shanahan, Caitlin Miller, Shannon Wight (Clarke), Michael Clarke, Cheryl Boldin, James M. Boldin, Nicholas Crutcher-Stevens, Jennifer Zak, Skylar Colmorgen, Hysen Muhametaj, Michael C. Speth, Luis Tamayo, Khalin Raaphorst, Tom Bedford, Rebecca Bedford, James & Karen Guttridge, Ben Cannon, Brennan Troyer, Mary Brown, Garrett Shaffer, Glenna Shrock, and Ronald Solt. Mr. Collins presented a PowerPoint presentation detailing the resident's concerns regarding lack of DRC sign-off on revised site plan;noisehours: of operation; screening; lighting; previous code violations on the site; inadequate required enhanced landscaping and buffers; screening of the pickleball courts; proposed connection to School Avenue, requesting an additional condition that states "The School Avenue connection point shall be gated and access shall be limited to emergency vehicle only"; encroachments into the setbacks; fails to meet development standards for split zoning; inadequate distribution of attainable units; parking calculation errors; lack of drainage detail; existing easement not shown on site plan; lack of information regarding improvements to Glengary Street; and the required right-of-way not being dedicated. PB Vice Chair Clermont discussed the request for a reduction in required parking and asked if the fact most tennis players will live on-site would mitigate the need. Mr. Collins stated he had no issues with the parking credits;noted the parking requirements for the outdoor recreation uses and grandstand seating were not included in the calculations; and said as a result the project is still short 270 required parking spaces. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 25 PB Member Blumetti stated there is no perfect site plan or project however this one comes close; pointed out the various versions of the project that have been proposed over the past few years that resulted in the version being discussed today; said he agreed the proposed pickleball courts were massive but could be mitigated through buffering; and questioned if the citizens had discussed their concerns regarding the buffers with the applicants. Mr. Collins stated they had reached out to the applicants who were non-responsive; acknowledged this version is better than the previous versions; and reiterated he felt the site plan does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code or the proffers in the rezone ordinance. PB Member Blumetti pointed out the site had been a tennis club for a long time; said there was likely light litter from the lighting at the old tennis courts; noted lighting is not part of the Planning Board's purview; and said the PB cannot make a decision based on lighting. Mr. Collins stated there was no evidence in the record for the citizens to challenge regarding the proposed lighting and drainage; and stated his concerns regarding the grade of the site at the gate entry, saying that entry point is not accessible. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out there are nine proffers in the staff's recommended conditions; noted Mr. Collins stated there are three or four additional proffers; said she is concerned with the number of proffers; and stated it creates uncertainty. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ben Cannon provided copies of Mr. Collins' presentation that were distributed to the Planning Board members. PBI Member Blumetti questioned if City staff had received a copy of the presentation. Mr. Collins stated there was no time; noted the materials were not provided in a timely manner; and said the City Commission told the citizens to go to the PB with their concerns. PB Chair Salem questioned if it was during a City Commission meeting the citizens were told to go to the PB with their concerns. Mr. Collins stated that during the public hearing regarding the rezoning, the City Commission told them to go to the PB regarding their concerns relating to the Site Plan and Minor Conditional Use applications. Attorney Connolly called Mr. Ben Cannon. Mr. Cannon waived his time. 11:25:53 A.M. Affected. Persons Rebuttal: After discussion regarding there being nothing in the record for Mr. Collins to rebut since there has been no testimony since Mr. Collins' testimony, there was no affected persons rebuttal. 11:27:14 A.M. Staff Rebuttal: Chief Planner Christie and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. Chief Planner Christie stated she had not heard any concerns from the neighbors until today; acknowledged the revised Site Plan was submitted on November 2, 2022; pointed out that Mr. Collins stated he had expressed the same concerns when he appeared before the City Commission during the rezoning process however since staff wasi not contacted Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 25 regarding those concerns during this process the City could not act on any of the issues; stated she would answer the PB member's questions as best she could; addressed two issues she recalled stating the Zoning Code provides for development on a split zoning lot; noted the combined ORD & CSD development standards allow for higher building coverage; stated the use was determined to be a Private Club during the rezoning process; and pointed out a condition of approval of the rezoning was the requirement that the applicants apply for Minor Conditional Use approval for a Private Club which is a different use than a Country Club. PB Chair Salem requested staff address the concerns regarding the buffers; asked if the parking was: inadequate; and questioned if there are issues with drainage. Chief Planner Christie pointed out Condition E of the rezone ordinance states, in part, that the applicants ". .will meet the minimum buffer requirements and enhance above the current requirements up to the maximum amount of canopy trees, accent trees, and shrubs as agreed to with the City arborist.."s stated additional buffers are provided; said the applicants worked with the City Arborist to design the buffers to City standards; stated Mr. Collins concerns with the parking calculations are based on a Country Club use versus a Private Club use; discussed the concerns regarding lighting and drainage stating those details are not part of the Site Plan review process, they are reviewed as part of the permitting process; and pointed out regulations prohibit drainage onto abutting properties. PB Member Blumetti questioned if there was a procedural issue with the timing of the submittal of the revised Site Plan; asked if additional parking was required for the proposed grandstand; and asked if there is a deficiency in the square footage of the proposed affordable units. Chief Planner Christie stated she was not aware of any procedural issues with the submittal of the revised Site Plan; stated a grandstand is not defined in the Zoning code SO there are no parking requirements; and said the one- bedroom units that are affordable are the same square footage as the market rate one- bedroom units. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti noted the building height is taken from the adjacent properties. Chief Planner Christie stated that is how general grade is determined. PB Member Blumetti pointed out the 28' is the aggregate of the grade heights around the building. PB Member Ohlrich stated her concerns regarding a lack of communication with the public; said there are too: many uncertainties; and suggested the proffers are allowances for the developer to not follow the rules. Chief Planner Christie noted seven of the nine proffers are carry overs from the rezone ordinance. Discussion ensued. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the proffers are in: response to community feedback. Alternate PB Member Christy asked if the revised Site Plan meets all criteria and if the building coverage calculations were correct. Chief Planner Christie confirmed all criteria have been met and the building coverage calculations are correct. PB Member Ohlrich: noted there are eight recommended stipulations on page 115 of the packet; questioned who submitted those; and asked if those had been met. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated those stipulations are part of the traffic study and have been met to the extent that the applicant can meet them; and pointed out other parties Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 25 such as Trader Joe's are involved. PB Member Ohlrich asked what would happen if the PB approved the project then some of thes stipulations could not be: negotiated. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the applicant cannot be held responsible if Trader Joe's can'tmeet the stipulations; and said the applicants are negotiating with the other parties in good faith. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated Mr. Colllins was only asking for compliance with the Zoning Code and questioned if any of the issues Mr. Collins' identified would derail the project. Chief Planner Christie stated she would take another look at the buffers noting additional buffers may be required. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont noted Mr. Collins had stated the proposed access at the northeast corner of the site should be designated for emergency vehicles only; and asked if staff agreed. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated it is best practice to connect the grid where possible; stated if that access is closed the traffic will go to US41;and pointed out the traffic study concluded that the traffic at that access point would be one to two trips per minute at rush hour. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if there are any concerns that traffic from US41 would cut through the site if the access is available. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned the grade of the site and the height of the fence. Chief Planner Christie stated the fence. height is measured from the natural grade. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem asked if the attainable unit sizes were required to be the same as the market rate units. Chief Planner Christie stated they are required to be comparable. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem asked if staff had compared the revised Site Plan to the previous version page by page and if the date of the Site Plan was the only change. Chief Planner Christie stated she reviewed an electronic version prior to the submittal of the hard copies. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti further discussed how the grade of the site is measured and asked if a Special Use Permit would be required for large events that require the use of the grandstand. Chief Planner Christie stated any events outside of the normal day to day operations would require a Special Use Permit. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated events requiring road closures would require a Special Use Permit. Alternate PB Member Christy asked if it is the city's position that the attainable units do not have to be distributed proportionate to the total number of one-bedroom, two- bedroom etc. units, that only one-bedroom units can be offered as attainable. Chief Planner Christie stated the condition relating to attainable units does not specify the number of bedrooms. 11:53:45 A.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Ms. Tara Williams, Project Architect; Mr. Edwin Martinez; Mr. Arron Deidtrich, Landscape Architect; Mr. Brian Hess, Attorney for the developer; and Ms. Bobbi Claybrooke, Engineer for the project, appeared. Ms. Willliams presented a breakdown of the total number of units and the percentage that are: attainable. PB Chair Salem noted all of the attainable units are one-bedroom which discourages families; and stated there needs to be a range. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 25 Ms. Williams stated the occupancy load had changed because some of the square foot was changed from residential to storage; pointed out the project has been before the PB two times in the past and received 5-0 votes for approval; pointed out this version is largely the same; noted the balconies have been shifted six feet; stated the current condition of the property is due to the site being vacant for some time; and said the existing grades remain unchanged to the extent possible. Ms. Claybrooke stated the grade is three feet rather than the four feet stated by Mr. Collins; pointed out there is a trail and green area at the street level before the grade slopes up to the building; noted the building height is measured from the existing grade; and said the applicants could look into stepping the grade down. Ms. Williams stated the project went through three rounds of DRC review; said the applicants had worked with staff to ensure compliance with the Zoning Code; noted the lighting for the tennis courts is proffered and the applicants are working with City Zoning staff to ensure compliance; stated the request for Minor Conditional Use approval is for a Private Recreation Club rather than a Country Club; and noted the occupancy load calculations include the grandstand seating. Attorney Hess stated the grandstand seating is more concrete steps versus stands. Ms. Claybrooke discussed the drainage concerns stating those plans are not normally provided at the DRC level; said those plans were included in error as they are for the building permit rather than site plan review; offered to remove those sheets from the plan set prior to the PB's approval; stated the applicants are going through the permitting process at the State level for the drainage improvements; and said the on- site and off-site drainage issues are being addressed using underground systems. Ms. Wiliams discussed the attainable units reiterating that 15% of the market rate units are attainable and are distributed throughout the building. Mr. Deidtrich discussed the buffer issues stating the applicants have worked with the City; said the proposed buffers meet Code; pointed out the enhanced buffers to the south stating the applicant have gone above and beyond; noted to the east is an easement; said the abutting property to the north has been treated as roadway frontage; and stated the trees in the parking islands meet Code. PB Member Ohlrich discussed Proffer #6 noting Condition T states Conditions M, N, O,P,Q, and R must be met prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the residential units; and requested revisions for clarification. Attorney Connolly stated the conditions are from the rezoning ordinance and can be clarified by adding "prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy" in the PB: resolution. Alternate PB. Member Christy questioned how the park area would be identified on the wayfinding signage. Discussion ensued. Ms. Claybrooke stated the universal park symbol would be on the signage and stated additional signage could be provided. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned why the landscape buffer is on the development side of the fence rather than the street side. Mr. Deidtrich stated that can be modified. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 25 Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if the applicants wished to address any of the issues Mr. Collins had identified as Code violations. Ms. Williams stated the parking provided meets Code; and reiterated the use is not a County Club. PB Member Blumetti questioned who would be responsible for maintaining the landscape buffers and park area. Attorney Hess stated the Condominium Association will be responsible. Discussion ensued regarding the recording of an easement in County Records; the fact the easement will run with the land sO will remain in place even if the property is sold; and the ability of the Condominium Association to revoke the public's rights to the park. Attorney Connolly stated Condition E, which states "A park and open-space easement to cover the park boundary and to address ownership, maintenance and accessibility must be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit"; will ensure continued public access to the park. 12:19:58 P.M. PB Chair Salem requested a motion. PB Vice Chair Clermont requested the PB take a lunch break to allow time to review the materials submitted by Mr. Collins. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find that Minor Conditional Use 22-MCU-01 is consistent with Section IV- 906 of the Zoning Code and that Site Plan 22-SP-12 is consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and meets the applicable criteria of Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and to approve the petition subject to conditions 1-9 with the change to Condition #6 as requested by PB Member Ohlrich. Alternate PB Member Christy seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti stated no project is perfect; noted this project is complicated; said the applicants have addressed the issues; stated he agrees there should be a better spread of attainable unit typologies; noted the Zoning Code is very nuanced; pointed out the applicants have done a great job revitalizing a 50-year-old Club while maintaining a community connection; and stated the biggest issues are the buffers and lighting which will be addressed. PB Member Ohlrich stated there are many uncertainties; said Standards of Review for Conditional Uses numbers (2)c, (2)d, 3 and 4 have not been met; said Standards for Review for Site Plan numbers 1,3, 4,5,6 6, and 71 have not been met; and stated she will not support the motion. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he. loved the project; noted the site is an eyesore currently that negatively impacts property values in the area; said he feels the information provided is not complete; stated he supports the project because the benefits outweigh the doubts; stated the fact the applicants offered twenty-four proffers shows their heart is in the right place; and said he reluctantly supports the motion. Discussion ensued. The motion passed 3-2 with PB Chair Salem and PB Member Ohlrich voting no. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 1-HOUR, 15 MINUTE BREAK Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 25 4. Le Petite Brasserie (127 S. Pineapple Avenue) [Continued From October 12, 2022): Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-21, Major Conditional Use Application No. 22-CU-05, and Planning Board Adjustment Application No. 22-ADP-06 are a request for Site Plan and Major Conditional Use approval for a proposed restaurant space with a 4-COP license, categorizing the use as a nightclub, with 23 inside seats and 44 outdoor seats. The 1,947 square-foot subject site has a street address of 127: South Pineapple Avenue and is zoned Downtown Core (DTC) with a Future Land Use Classification of Downtown Core. A request for Planning Board Adjustment approval is being sought due to the 500-foot separation requirement between a 4-COP license user and a church. Onsite parking is not required. Pedestrian access is provided from S. Pineapple Avenue. (Tom Sacharski, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) 1:43:49 P.M. Attorney Connolly called the persons that had requested Affected Person status. The following were present and therefore granted Affected Person status: Shirl Gauthier; Michael Turner; John Bordeaux; and Lancelot Disley. After discussion Attorney Connolly confirmed the persons that were not present at this time could be granted Affected Person status if present at the time public input is provided. PB Chair Salem announced the PB will be taking a break at 3:00 P.M. 1:46:53 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Agent, Mr. Ronnie Shugar, Owner; and Mr. Mark Sultana, Architect appeared. Mr. Freedman pointed out the location and noted the structure is a 1920 building. Mr. Shugar provided background information regarding his business ventures and community donations; stated the Brasserie would be an added benefit to the downtown; and discussed the proposed operations. Mr. Freedman pointed out the property is located in a portion of a previously vacated alley; said the building is 1,947 sq. ft.; stated there are three applications, one for a Major Conditional Use that is required because the restaurant will operate under a 4COP liquor license; one for Site Plan approval that is required as part oft the Major Conditional Use; and an Adjustment to the Downtown Code due to the proximity to an existing church; pointed out the Church originally opposed the project but not supports it; stated the outdoor dining is accessory to the restaurant and is necessary due to the limited space indoors; stated two rental units on the second floor will remain; discussed the proposed menu noting there is no cooking facility on-site and the restaurant will be serviced by a ghost kitchen; noted the proposed proffers; reviewed the criteria in the Zoning code stating all criteria has been met; and reiterated the Church is in support of the project. Mr. Sultana pointed out renovations that will be made to the restrooms and windows. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the occupants of the rental units have been part of the discussion; requested an explanation of how food will be kept fresh if not prepared on- site and if the food will be plated; and asked if the singer would have a microphone and if the piano would be acoustic. Mr. Shugar responded that the rental units are vacant at this time; stated the food that is prepared at a ghost kitchen will be kept warm or refrigerated, as well as plated, on-site; and pointed out the piano player is the singer. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 25 PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the applicants would agree to proffer that the singer/piano would not have microphones. Mr. Freedman acknowledged the applicants agreed to add that proffer. PB Member Halflants questioned if a building addition could be constructed; and asked if the replacement windows would be hurricane windows, noting that would contain the interior sound. Mr. Freedman stated a building addition could not be constructed due to the utilities underneath the easement; and confirmed the windows would be hurricane. PB Member Blumetti asked where deliveries would be received, and if the door on Pineapple Avenue would be left open. Mr. Freedman stated deliveries would be received via the alley. Mr. Sultana stated the door on Pineapple Avenue will be replaced with a fixed door. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned the need to keep the door onto Pineapple Avenue; pointed out the structure is not joined to The MARK building which will prevent sound carrying; and asked how the sound would be attenuated for the renters above. Mr. Sultana stated the door is being kept in case it is needed for future use; stated a fire rated, acoustic ceiling would prevent sound from permeating the above units. PB Member Ohlrich asked for decibel information. Mr.Sultana stated he had no data on the decibel levels; and discussed the structure of the ceiling. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what other uses Mr. Shugar considered for the site. Mr. Shugar stated he saw the site as a perfect location for a Brasserie and did not consider any other uses. 2:11:29 P.M. Staff Presentation: Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner, appeared and stated the request is for Major Conditional Use and Site Plan approval for a bar/estauran/night.lab with a combined total of 67 indoor/outdoor seats; pointed out the use is considered a nightclub under the zoning code due to the 4COP liquor license; stated an Adjustment to the Downtown Code is also requested from the distance to the church across the street; noted recent correspondence dated October 31, 2022: from the church stating their support for the project; stated an interior remodel and 44 outdoor seats on private property is proposed; noted the outdoor area is a vacated alley; said the Development Review Committee (DRC) signed off on the project on August 31, 2022; and said the request meets the criteria in the Zoning Code and staff recommends approval with conditions. PB Vice Chair Clermont wondered why the 500 distance requirement is a rule if it is not going to be followed; noted the size of the requested adjustment; asked what the mitigating point was; and questioned how the residents of The MARK have related to other outdoor seating in t. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated the distance provision is applicable to all zone districts; noted the adjustment process applies to specific cases; discussed sidewalk café permits versus outdoor seating on private property; and said other than the Gator Club he is not aware of any complaints. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 25 PB Member Halflants asked if the Code could be changed to eliminate the need for the adjustments. Discussion ensued. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski pointed out that the Planning Department was. looking into amending the. Zoning Code regarding definitions of bars and nightclubs. PB Member Ohlrich stated the impact is the same whether the outdoor dining is via a sidewalk café versus private property; noted the Standards for Review for Conditional Uses in the Zoning Code state; in part, Whether, if applicable, the overall residential appearance and function of the area will not be significantly lessened due to the increased proportion ofnon-residential uses in the residential area. Consideration includes the application itself and in combination with other non-residential uses in the area, etc. and questioned if still says the project has no detrimental impact on the nearby residences. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski noted the location is in the downtown core; and stated in comparison the proposed use is less intense than the surrounding uses. Discussion ensued. 2:23:09 P.M. Affected Persons: Ms. Shirl Gauthier, Mr. Michael Turner, Mr. John Bordeaux, Mr. Alan Trachtenberg, and Mr. Lancelot Disley appeared and stated their opposition due to the proposal violates the Zoning Code; the proposed use: is a bar rather than a restaurant; the use will be a threat to the residents of The MARK and the adjacent park; the proximity to the church; the operating hours; approval will set a precedent; there are already too many bars downtown; the questionable circumstances that led to the Church reversing their position; trash stored on the sidewalk; trash from patrons in the street; late night disturbances; incompatibility with the area; noise; odors; rodents; traffic; safety; potential future use of the facility; proximity to an emergency exit for The MARK residents; proximity to existing electric meters; trespassing issues; and other unintended consequences. 2:46:33 P.M. Citizen Input: Ms. Barbara Campo appeared and stated her concerns for the health of the tree that is in the proposed outdoor seating area; and requested guaranteed access to the mechanicals that service the fountain in the park. Mr. Richard Lynch appeared and stated he support for the project; noted there are only a few that are opposed; and questioned why anyone would move to the heart of downtown and then oppose the nightlife. Mr. Bob Lanford appeared and stated he is opposed to allowing an outdoor bar in a park that is virgin territory. Mr. Ian Black appeared in support of the project noting the marketing materials for The MARK described it as a mixed-use, landmark destination, vibrant retail area; and stated his concerns regarding the tone of the opposition including the attacks on Mr. Shugar's character. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 25 Mr. Elliot Rose appeared in support stating he is Mr. Shugar's Commercial Real Estate Broker; pointed out' The MARK has always been a mixed-use development; and stated Mr. Shugar is a downtown resident and has invested heavily in the downtown area and does not wish to see degradation of the downtown area. 3:01:31 P.M. Affected Persons Rebuttal: Attorney Connolly pointed out rebuttal is rebutting what the five citizens testified to after the Affected Person' s testimony. Ms. Shirl Gauthier appeared and stated there are plenty of other choices; said the operating hours were the main point of contention; said the project violates the Zoning Code; and stated there needs to be a balance. Mr. John Bordeaux appeared, and stated City Attorney Fournier had rendered an opinion that the proposal should be considered a bar; and asked for Attorney Connolly's opinion. Mr. Michael Turner appeared and stated an upscale restaurant would not need a 4COP liquor license to operate; and said the use could turn into something different once approved. Mr. John Bordeaux requested Attorney Connolly's s opinion. Attorney Connolly pointed out he only answers to the PB members. PB Chair Salem requested Attorney Connolly's opinion. Attorney Connolly stated City Attorney Fournier never opined as to whether the use is or is not a bar; and noted iti is a serious question. Discussion ensued regarding the difference between a bar, an outdoor bar, a restaurant, and a nightclub. PBI Member Blumetti questioned if approval of the Site Plan and Major Conditional Use would be binding. Attorney Connolly stated minor changes to site plans can be approved by staff; and pointed out any changes to the Major Conditional Use would have to go before the Planning Board. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 17 MINUTE BREAK 3:29:36 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski appeared and stated the proposed outdoor seating would be allowed as an accessory to a restaurant; said the Zoning Code allows for adjustments; pointed out a restaurant without a 4COP liquor license would generate more trash; noted the Major Conditional Use runs with the land, including any proffers; stated loading issues would occur regardless of the use on the site; pointed out the outdoor seating is on private property versus in the adjacent park; discussed the provisions of the ordinance approving the alley vacation; stated he confirmed with Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 25 appropriate staff that the mechanical equipment can be accessed; and noted only approximately 5% of the citizens that were notified attended the public hearing. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if access to the mechanical equipment needed to be proffered; discussed noise concerns related to other nearby operations; and asked if keeping the doors closed had been discussed with the applicant. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated access to the mechanical equipment is required by the ordinance that vacated the alley;and stated no discussions regarding keeping the doors closed had occurred. Discussion ensued. 3:36:49 P.M. Applicant. Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman and Mr.S Shugar appeared. Mr. Freedman stated granting the adjustment would not set a precedent; said the Church had changed their position after meeting with the applicants and getting clarity on the proposal; pointed out the use is only considered ai nightclub due to the definition in the Zoning Code; noted Duval's on Main Street is actually defined as a nightclub since they operate under a 4COP liquor license; stated there would be no impact to the tree; said the alley vacation ordinance protects the access to the mechanical equipment; stated if the use changes the applicant would have to go back through the public hearing process; pointed out the outdoor seating is similar to the nearby Boca and Hyde Park restaurants; and stated thel hours of operation for the outdoor seating would be until 11:00 PM week nights and Midnight on weekends. Mr. Shugar stated ghost kitchens are popular and are efficient; noted there are other restaurants opening in The MARK; pointed out the residents of The MARK are required by the condominium documents to sign an agreement acknowledging there will be noise, odors, etc.; and stated some of the residents of The MARK have publicly slandered him which he denounces and demands an apology. PB Member Blumetti questioned the hours the outdoor seating will be open. Mr. Freedman stated until 11:00 P.M. on weekdays and Midnight on weekends. Attorney Connolly noted it is a Zoning Code requirement. PB Member Ohlrich stated the PB had already determined food must be prepared in a structure but not necessarily on-site; and asked if the use is a nightclub because of the 4COP liquor license. Attorney Connolly pointed out if the use is determined to be a restaurant with a 4COP liquor license outdoor seating is permitted, and ifitis a bar with a 4COP liquor license outdoor seating is not permitted. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the applicants were willing to proffer that the doors will remain closed except for ingress/egress. Mr. Freedman stated they agreed to proffer the doors would not be propped open. Responding to PB Member Ohlrich, Mr. Freedman confirmed the applicants agreed to proffer the piano and singer would not be amplified. PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find that Major Conditional Use 22-CU-05 is consistent with Section IV- 906 of the Zoning Code and that Site Plan 22-SP-21 is consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and Tree Protection Ordinance and to recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions subject to the conditions listed. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the inclusion of the proffers regarding amplified music and the doors Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 25 remaining closed as requested by PB Member Ohlrich. PB Vice Chair Clermont agreed to amend his motion. PB Member Blumetti withdrew his second noting his objections to the proffer that the doors must be closed. PB Chair Salem noted the amended motion needed to be seconded. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he was concerned about the adjustment to the distance to the Church and pointed out the Church supports the proposal; said the project will enrich the downtown area; stated the use will operate as a restaurant; said the benefits out way the noise; noted the project is in the downtown area; and pointed out residents were opposed to the construction of The MARK. PB Member Ohlrich stated she would not support the motion noting Roberts Rules of Order allows for that; said the proposal would be too much when combined with other establishments in the area; and stated the proposal was not consistent with Standards for Review numbers five and seven for Conditional Uses. PB Member Blumetti stated he agreed with PB vice Chair Clermont; said the Zoning Code is antiquated regarding the distance separation and the definition of a nightclub; and suggested the motion be amended to allow the doors to be open during the time the outdoor seating area is open since PB Member Ohlrich has stated she will not support the motion. Discussion ensued. The motion failed 2-3 with PB Members Blumetti, PB Member Halflants and PB Member Ohlrich voting no. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find that Major Conditional Use 22-CU-05 is consistent with Section IV- 906 of the Zoning Code and that Site Plan 22-SP-21 is consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and Tree Protection Ordinance and to recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions subject to the conditions listed and the inclusion of the proffer that the piano and singer would not be amplified. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1 with PB Member Ohlrich voting no. PB Member Halflants made a motion to find Adjustment 22-ADP-06 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the request for adjustment subject to the conditions as. listed. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Member Ohlrich asked if approving the adjustment would set a precedent. Attorney Connolly stated it would not. The motion passed 5-0. PB Member Halflants asked if the PB could make a recommendation to the City Commission to change the Zoning Code. Discussion ensued regarding that being an item for Topics by Planning Board Members. 3:56:20 P.M. Attorney Connolly called on Mr. Richard Parloto and Mr. Kevin Spence (representing the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Association (IBSSA) who had applied for Affected Person status. Mr. Spence was present and was granted Affected Person status. 1. Sapphire North Apartments (4501 & 4415 N. Tamiami Trail) [Continued From October 12, 2022]: Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-13 is a request for Site Plan approval Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 25 to develop two parcels totaling t2 2.17 acres within the North Trail (NT) and Residential Multiple Family (RMF-2) zone districts with street addresses of 4501 & 4415 North Tamiami Trail. The subject site is also within the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD). The parcels have a Future Land Use Classification of Community Commercial. The applicant is proposing a four-story, 61-unit apartment building utilizing the NTOD standards. Vehicular access is proposed utilizing an existing driveway access on North Tamiami Trail. (Tom Sacharski, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bruce Franklin, President of Land Resource Strategies, and Mr. Brent Parker, Architect for the project, appeared. Mr. Franklin noted this project and the following project are separated by a Super 8 motel; said some of the exhibits will be duplicative; pointed out the location, Future Land Use classification, and zoning of the parcel; presented an aerial view;noted the western portion of thel lot is zoned Residential Multi- Family 2 (RMF-2) zoning with the remainder of the site zoned North Trail (NT); said the proposal is for sixty-one units in a four story building; stated access of off of US 41 using an existing curb cut; reviewed the site plan; noted the parking exceeds what is required; said some grand trees were being preserved; stated the landscape buffers meet code; pointed out a pedestrian only access onto Sarasota Avenue; and stated wo community meetings were held. Mr. Parker stated the project is four stories; has a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units; is workforce housing rather than affordable housing; and presented a rendering of the completed project. Mr. Franklin stated staff has recommended approval with five conditions that the applicants are in agreement with. PB Member Ohlrich questioned why two community meetings were held and noted there were twice as many attendees at the second meeting than at the first meeting. Mr. Franklin stated there was an issue with the noticing of the first meeting, sO they held a second meeting. 4:10:34 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski discussed the proposed site plan stating the site is zoned RMF-2 and NT; said all development standards have been adhered to; noted the Future Land Use classification is Community Commercial; said sixty-one units are proposed in a four-story building; noted the parking requirements have been exceeded; said the maximum height requirement in the NT zone district of 4-stories has been met; stated the tree mitigation requirements have been exceeded and the site was designed to save: as many trees as possible; stated the frontage and habitable space requirements in the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD) have been met; noted the project received DRC sign-off on August31, 2022; noted two community meetings were held; said the site plan meets the applicable development standards; and stated staff recommends approval with five conditions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 25 Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated per the requirements of the Engineering Design & Criteria Manual (EDCM) the applicants are constructing a pedestrian access to and sidewalk on Sarasota Avenue that connects to the IBSSA green area. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if only requiring one parking space per unit has created any issues here or in other communities. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated one space per uniti is commonplace inhistoric areas nationwide;and noted locally most of the recent multi-family developments have been luxury condominiums that have exceeded rather than used the one space per unit minimum parking requirement. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski noted the private entity overseeing the site monitors the parking and manages parking through various means such as parking passes; etc.; and pointed out the parking for this project exceeds the one space per unit minimum requirement. PB Member Ohlrich noted during a presentation to the community Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discussed limiting access on US41; and questioned why access for this project is taken from the North Trail. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated there is a balance between access and traffic going through residential neighborhoods. PB Member Ohlrich noted Proffer #3 on the recommended motion sheet refers to an 8' sidewalk while a 6' sidewalk is referenced in the materials. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated the 6' sidewalk is an internal pedestrian pathway that connects to the 8' sidewalk. 4:20:11 P.M. Affected Persons: Mr. Kevin Spence, representing the IBSSA, appeared and stated the concerns were relative to both the Sapphire North and Sapphire South projects; said the neighborhood's concerns include the cumulative affect of these two projects combined with two other recently approved apartment projects in the area; the lack of infrastructure improvements for the IBSSA neighborhood; stormwater management; potential for short term rentals; and non-compliance with the Sarasota City Plan's goals of walkability, human scale architecture, and the roll of streets; and stated the major concerns are overflow parking, increased vehicular traffic; lack of sidewalks or wide street. 4:26:16 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein and Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski appeared. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated stormwater management is thoroughly review as part of the building permit; noted State law prohibits new development stormwater runoff to exceed pre-development runoff; said the stormwater management will bel handled on-site through retention ponds or vaults; and pointed out there is no vehicular access to Sarasota Avenue sO there will not be negative impacts on traffic through the neighborhood. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated the existing short term rental regulations are not applicable to multi-family; said the applicants are meeting the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 25 sidewalk requirements for their property; and noted the applicants can't expand sidewalks not on their property. PB Member Blumetti questioned if there have been any adverse effects to the neighborhood adjacent to the recently constructed apartments in the area that has the same parking requirements. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated he was: not aware of any. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated he visited that location and did not observe overflow parking in the surrounding neighborhood. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked attorney Connolly what the rules for short term rentals are. Attorney Connolly stated since the project is for rental apartments short term rental rules would be spelled out in the leases. 4:30:46 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Bruce Franklin, President of Land Resource Strategies, Mr. Brent Parker, Architect for the project, Mr. Mark Mueller, Engineer for the project, Mr. Marlon Matza, developer for the project, and Attorney Stephen Rees, representing Mr. Matza appeared. Mr. Franklin stated Mr. Mueller could address stormwater: management, said he agreed with Attorney Connolly's opinion regarding short term rentals and Mr. Matza and Attorney Rees could address short term rentals and leasing arrangements; and noted the parking provided exceeds the minimum requirements. Mr. Parker discussed parking for the recently developed site PB Member Blumetti had referenced stating the parking ratio for that development is slightly less than what is proposed for this project and is working fine; said a ratio of one parking space per unit works well in urban areas; and noted the North Trail is not quite urban sO a ratio slightly higher than one parking space per unit works well. Mr. Franklin pointed out the owners manage the parking, and it is to their benefit to ensure adequate parking is available. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what the rental agreement plans were. Attorney Rees discussed Code restrictions for transient accommodations noting those restrictions were: not applicable to this project since it is a long-term rental apartment complex. Mr. Matza stated the typical lease will be for one year. PB Member Ohlrich noted the concerns the neighbors have and said she is looking for the applicants to be good neighbors. Discussion ensued. Mr. Matza discussed the need for improvements along the North Trail; stated the Sapphire North Apartments and Sapphire South Apartments projects will improve stormwater capabilities; and said the projects will improve property values in the area. Mr. Franklin pointed out the properties have not historically been permeable. 4:39:20 P.M. PB Chair Salem requested a motion. PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find that Site Plan 22-SP-13 is consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and meets the applicable criteria of Section IV-506 of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 25 Zoning Code and to approve the Site Plan subject to the conditions listed. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the project meets Code and the intent of the NTOD; noted iti is a good stepdown between the residential to the west and the highway to the east; said a four-story building is not incompatible with human scale; and pointed out the stormwater improvements will be addressed during the building permit review process. PB Member Blumetti stated he agreed with PB Vice Chair Clermont; said the project meets the Development Standards for NTOD; and suggested if the neighborhood is unhappy with the NTOD standards they should petition for changes to be made. PB Member Ohlrich stated the project will be an asset to the community; noted long- time residents in the areas have had difficulties adjusting to the changes on the North Trial; and stated the need to be sensitive to that. PB Member Halflants stated the project should be better connected to the IBSSA neighborhood; and said he will support the project because of the need for more housing in the area and more development along the North Trail. The motion passed 5-0. 4:45:32 P.M. Attorney Connolly stated Mr. Spence has Affected Person status for this application as well. 2. Sapphire South Apartments (4229 & 4211 N. Tamiami Trail) [Continued From October 12, 2022):Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-14 is a request for Site Plan approval to develop three parcels totaling t 2.05 acres with street addresses of 4229 and 4211 North Tamiami Trail and 849 42nd Street. The parcels are within the North Trail (NT) and Residential Multiple Family (RMF2) zone districts and have a Future Land Use Classification of Community Commercial and Multifamily (Moderate Density). The subject site is also within the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD). The applicant is proposing a four-story, 59-unit apartment building utilizing the NTOD standards. Access is proposed on the southern North Trail parcel through a driveway off 42nd Street. (Tom Sacharski, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bruce Franklin, President of Land Resource Strategies, Mr. Brent Parker, Architect for the project, and Mr. Matza, developer for the project, appeared. Mr. Franklin stated the exhibits for this project are the same as the previous project; said the site has the same Future Land Use classification and zoning as the Sapphire North Apartments site; noted this site is slightly smaller than the Sapphire North Apartments site; acknowledged PB Member Halflants' comments regarding connecting to the IBSSA neighborhood pointed out there was significant opposition to any connections from the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 25 neighbors; and noted the site has the same split zoning as the Sapphire North Apartments site. Mr. Parker stated the primary difference between the two site is the access: noting access to the Sapphire South Apartments is taken from 42nd Street rather than US41; said the project is consistent with new urbanism principles; stated there is a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units; and noted there is a higher ratio of three-bedroom units in the Sapphire North Apartments. Mr. Franklin stated this project consists of 59 units in a four-story building; said 76 parking spaces are provided; said there are 8' sidewalks along 42nd Street and US41, with a 6' internal pedestrian pathway; stated access cannot be taken from US41 due to the median; and stated staff recommends approval with five conditions that the applicants are in agreement with. PB Member Ohlrich questioned why Tree #20: is identified as a live oak in fair condition and is slated to remain, while other trees are identified as being in good condition and are being removed. Phillip Smith, Landscape Architect for the project, appeared and stated Tree #20 is a grand tree; said the Code requires applicants to work very hard at saving grand trees; and pointed out the site was designed around Tree #20. 4:54:19 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated the lot has the same split zoning, Future Land Use classification, and zoning as the Sapphire North Apartments site; pointed out the entire site is within the NTOD; said driveway access is not permitted off of a parcel zoned RMF-2; stated the request is for a 59-unit, four- story apartment building with 76 parking spaces; said the height requirements for NTOD has been met; stated the project received full DRC sign-off on August 31, 2022; stated the Development Standards have been met; and stated staff recommends approval with five conditions. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein pointed out the access is within one block of US41; and said it is best practice to have the access off of 42nd Street. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if both right and left turns are permitted onto US41 from 42nd Street. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein confirmed that is correct. PB Member Ohlrich noted the concerns expressed at the Community Workshop regarding traffic cutting through the neighborhood and crossing US41 to make a left turn. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein pointed out the destination will be the apartment building, noting there are no major attractors in the IBSSA neighborhood such as a Publix that would generate traffic through the neighborhood; and said the FDOT is anticipated to constructroundabouts at Myrtle Street and Dr. MLKJr. Way in the future. Discussion ensued. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski noted conversations had occurred regarding other uses for the site such as a restaurant; and pointed out a restaurant Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 25 would draw more traffic from the outside while the multi-family use is al beginning and ending destination. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted a traffic study was not required because the project was. found to be di minimis. PB Member Halflants stated it was unlikely that the neighborhood would be used as a cut-through. PB Vice Chair Clermont requested staff address the: neighborhood's concerns regarding inadequate infrastructure. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein described the processes for determining whether infrastructure improvements are required when a new development is proposed; noted a utilities impact fee and meter connection fee are required; said developers must upgrade infrastructure that is deemed inadequate; said stormwater runoff cannot exceed pre-development: levels; discussed traffic concurrency stating if a site is found to be di minimis no improvements are required; said a traffic study is required if there is a degradation of the LOS standard and the developer may have to make a proportionate fair share contribution to the transportation fund which is used to widen streets; and stated payment of multi-model impact fees are required even if the development is found to be di minimis. Affected Persons: Mr. Kevin Spence, representing the IBSSA, appeared and stated the neighborhood supports the developments; said they are grateful for the removal of the proposed access onto Sarasota Avenue; stated infrastructure needs to be looked at as a whole; expressed concerns regarding traffic cutting through the neighborhood; pointed out there are inadequate sidewalks in the IBSSA neighborhood; said there will be overflow parking in the neighborhood streets; and expressed concerns regarding the amount of emergency stormwater overflow going into the bubblers along US41. Staff Rebuttal: Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared and stated citizens can contact the City Engineering Division with traffic concerns including traffic calming and sidewalks; and said staff will review the request as it relates to the City's CIP program. PB Member Blumetti stated he has been requesting a comprehensive sidewalk plan for the City for the past almost six years. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated there is aj proposed connectivity plan on the City's website. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich stated citizens should also contact their City Commissioners with their infrastructure concerns and desired greenway improvements. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the improvements along the North Trail over the past decade have been in response to concerns expressed by the community. Applicant Rebuttal: There was. no applicant rebuttal. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find that Site Plan 22-SP-14 is consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and meets the applicable criteria of Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and to approve the Site Plan subject to the conditions listed. PB Vice Chair Clermont seconded the motion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 25 PB Vice Chair Clermont stated an advantage to building at the street is it lowers traffic speed; and noted college students will likely rent there and will use bicycles and/o or the bus. The motion passed 5-0. 5:14:14 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. 5:14:21 P.M. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. October 12, 2022 The minutes were approved as submitted. 5:14:42P.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 thei next available agenda for discussion. 1. Notification Letter for Evaluation and Appraisal of the Sarasota City Plan (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning) Manager Smith appeared and stated Florida Statutes require a notification letter be submitted every seven years identifying and statutory changes that have been adopted that require updates to the City's Comprehensive Plan; said the last notification letter was sent in 2015 and the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2107; stated there is one topic thatneeds to be addressed; stated House Bill 1411 was adopted and requires local governments to amend their Comprehensive Plan to allow for floating solar facilities; said the associated Comprehensive Plan amendment will have to be transmitted to the State by December 2023; said once the State reviews the amendment the City will have to adopt the Comprehensive Plan changes and update the Zoning Code; presented photographs of sample floating solar facilities; noted Florida Statutes identify wastewater treatment plants and stormwater facilities as possible locations; and said the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are required to provide guidelines. 5:19:06 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. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting November 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 25 PB Member Halflants requested the PB recommend the requirement for a bar, nightclub, etc to request an adjustment if they are within 500 of a church be removed from the Zoning Code. PB Member Ohlrich stated that process allows the PB to determine if a project will enhance the community. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti stated the building coverage discussion he had requested by placed on the agenda was not and questioned why. General Manage Schwarz stated staff was looking at placing that item on the December meeting agenda due to the full agenda for today's meeting. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti issued a public apology to Mr. Shugar for the treatment he received from some citizens, noting there is no place for that in the City. PB Member Ohlrich questioned the status of the item she requested be on an agenda regarding 3D renderings/realistic renderings. General Manager Schwarz stated staff has been holding meetings; said Planning Director Cover has the lead; and City Manager Brown has made this a priority. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti stated if a PB member requests and item be placed on an agenda he expects that to be placed on the next meeting agenda. Discussion ensued. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:33 P.M. Myra Schwarz Terrl'Salem, Chair General Manager and Secretary to the Board Planning Board/Local Planning Agency