CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Eileen Normile, Chair Members Present: Damien Blumetti, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Timothy Litchet, Director, Development Services Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Lucia Panica, Chief Planner, Development Services Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Dan Greenberg, Planner John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLN MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Normile called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.m., and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO' THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were none. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading oft the Pledge ofConduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. PB Chair Normile requested cell phones be silenced. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all present who planned to speak this evening, suggested time limits for presentations, and described the Quasi-Judicial process. PB Members declared ex-parte communications. PB Member Ohlrich stated she, and staff, visited the sites of both applications; PB Member Gannon stated that he and Chief Planner Panica visited the Wawa site, and drove by the site of the other application; PB Vice Chair Blumetti visited the Wawa site with Chief Planner Panica, and the Town and Country site with Planner Greenberg; and PB Chair Normile stated that she did the same. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 48 B. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. Wawa-Fruitville (2268, 2260, 2252, 2234 2nd Street and 2295, 2277, 2257, 2247, 2237 Fruitville Road): Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-08 and Minor Conditional Use Application No. 18-MCU-01 are a request for Site Plan and Minor Conditional Use approval to construct a proposed retail store and quick vehicle servicing station, to be known as Wawa, on property located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district and within the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District (FCOD). (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Don Neu introduced himself, Gregory Roth, Civil Engineer, Bohler Engineering, and Mr. Phil Smith, Arborist and Landscape Architect for the record; stated that the team has been working with this project for a while, iti is a Wawa store at the intersection of Fruitville Road and Lime Avenue; noted that this consists of two applications, one for a Site Plan and the other for a Minor Conditional Use; said that the site is 1.81 acres, and pointed out that the existing land uses include auto sales and service, industrial uses, vacant commercial, and some undeveloped lots; noted that the site is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection, and the request is for Site Plan approval and Minor Conditional Use approval for a retail store and a quick vehicle servicing station, which is gas pumps; pointed out on an aerial photograph that the site covers most of the block between the railroad tracks and Lime Avenue, except the funeral home; stated that the site is bounded by the railroad on the west, and Lime Avenue on the east; pointed out that the existing concrete structures on the site are dilapidated, there are two long metal buildings that are currently occasionally used for sanding and woodworking; noted that there are three grand trees on the site, one is located near the entrance of the main parcel, it is 32 inches in diameter at breast height and is located within 5 ft, of an existing structure; said that they worked with staff on several designs trying to work around that tree, along with the requirements for the building and the site, and could not make it work; noted that FDOT controls Fruitville Road and mandated the exact location of the entranceway to the site, which added to the complications with this grand tree; said that the team for this project worked with City staff, the Director of Development Services and the City Arborist, and they have made every reasonable effort to adjust the site plan and save this grand tree, but the tree will be removed as allowed per article VII(b)(2); said for mitigation they are required to provide three 7-inch caliper trees, but the applicant is providing 10-inch caliper Oak trees, exceeding the code requirements; and explained that they are using big trees to provide an instant heritage look. Mr. Neu referred to the proposed site; pointed out that the main entrance is on Fruitville Road, however access will also be provided from 2nd Street, which they will improve; stated that the location for the entrance was mandated by FDOT, and explained their reasons for selecting that location, including distance from the Lime Avenue intersection, allowing room for a bus pull-over area, should al bus stop be located at that intersection in the future, and the distance from the railroad; noted that they are providing good pedestrian circulation; added that they railroad tracks may convert to a trail, sO the site plan includes a sidewalk on the east side of the parcel, which is a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 48 dedicated access to the store; said that in the future, if it is possible, there will be access to the Legacy Trail; noted that this is a logical spot for a stop, and a good use for the trail; noted that they are also proposing a dedicated sidewalk from Fruitville Road, and have a protected side walk connecting it to the building; pointed out on the site plan the location of the access lanes, turning lanes, and the location of garbage collection at the back of the building; showed an architectural rendering of the buildings; noted that at the neighborhood meeting there were some concerns regarding stormwater management, and explained that the stormwater pond is designed to FDOT standards, and it is much larger than what would be built for a city project; explained that the corner of the site is impervious at the moment, and once it is changed into a pond and it is designed to FDOT standards, he thinks they can help improve the drainage conditions in this area; summarized by stating that the proposed application meets the Downtown Edge (DTE) zoning district requirements, improves the gateway to the City, and meets the Overlay Goals; pointed out that this project redevelops an unsightly parcel, bringing in a good constructive use, the new stormwater system is oversized, and the site provides good access to the future trail system; added that the team has thoroughly vetted this parcel and has worked with staff on all aspects of the Site; said that this company runs 600 similar stores and knows how to operate them successfully; said the site is currently unproductive and it is in need of redevelopment, and staff recommends approval of the applications; and requested Planning Board approval of the applications. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she is the one who complains when pages in the packet are illegible to read, and she wanted to commend the team, because even the smallest print on the site plan was easy to read; noted that she is concerned about 2nd Street, it is ai narrow little street now, and it is going to be widened; referred to pages C-10, Vehicular Movement Plan 1,(1/29/2019) and C-11, Vehicular Movement Plan 2, (1/29/2019), where the applicant identifies the circulation pattern for loading trucks, fuel trucks, refuse vehicles and recycling, and asked if, in the process of identifying these routes, they were actually able to determine that the vehicles will be able to turnaround. Mr. Roth stated that they used the actual trucks used for the garbage and fuel deliveries, and they operate them knowing the direction from which the deliveries will be coming; explained that they work with the operations team to understand the trip, where the trucks are coming from, such as coming from I-75, using the most appropriate route to come to the site, as well as how they enter the site, and how they circulate within the site to do what they are there for, and then how they get back out to the right-of-way. PB Member Ohlrich asked about their calculations relating to the distance that will be between the new curb, if there is a curb, and the vehicles when they are maneuvering on 2nd Street. Mr. Roth stated that they are bound by the right of way on 2nd Street, which is a 32 ft. right of way; noted that, behind the store, the width of the pavement is 20 ft., which is adequate space for the trucks to circulate around the store, sO that they can get on and off 2nd Street as well; added that the illustration considers the whole truck, notj just the tires, SO they do not anticipate any overhang over the curbs, and there Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 48 will be plenty of room to maneuver; and said that they have laid out tighter sites, as it relates to vehicle movements, and while it looks tight on the north part of this site, it is an appropriate access for the largest vehicles to come on and off the property. PB Member Ohlrich stated that it is still concerning toher, because it is a narrow street. Mr. Neu stated that they worked with staff on this issue and they adjusted the location of the refuse collection to optimize the conditions at this location, and to make sure there is as much room as possible. PB Member Morriss stated that Wawa locations are usually very well-lit; and asked about their lighting plan and about their mitigation plan for off-site spillage. Mr. Roth stated that Wawa stores are 24-hour operations, the lighting is under the canopies and around the building for the safety for both the customers and the store employees;noted that lighting is important, they take it very seriously, and work with national consultants that work with the Wawa company; said that they take into account the local requirements at each store, they try to stop the light and glare spillage at the property lines, and to make sure that the lighting stays on the property they put up shields; said that at the south area of the parking lot, the area is low-lit; added that the poles are. 25 ft. high, which is lower than the traditionall heights of 30 to35 ft.; and added that they use LEDs which throw the light a little further out, they are decorative poles, and they want to have a consistent look across their stores. PB Member Gannon referred to the Legacy Trail extension and requested additional information about connectivity. Mr. Roth referred to C-4, Site Layout Plan (1/29/2019), and spoke about the sidewalk south of the property, and the location where the users of the future trail could access the site. PB Member Gannon asked if there is any chance to have a bicycle repair facility at this location. Mr. Neu stated that this is not Wawa's line of work, however there is an air pump, not a station, but they can look into that. PB Member Gannon stated that the Legacy Trail folks are looking for places where they can have repair centers at stop points. Mr. Neu said that he uses the trail and he knows that at stop areas along the trail they have tools for repairs. Mr. Cover pointed out that, currently, the Legacy Trail is not going that far to the: north. PB member Gannon noted that in one of the workshops there were comments about flooding on 2nd Street and Lime Avenue, that there are no drains on 2nd Street and the water accumulates on Lime Avenue; added that cars or trucks will be backing up there, and requested information about how the applicants are going to address the flooding. Mr. Roth stated that 2nd Street is a substandard road and needs upgrades; noted that it will get an overlay, which will help the positive discharge for the roadway; added that there is a portion on the east end of 2nd Street, where, depending on the grade, the road will be picked up, because itis a public right-of-way; noted that the intent is not to bring any more of that right on the property, but effectively, the runoff from 2nd Street will be taken away appropriately, as it sheet-flows onto this site; and said that the redevelopment of the road will also help the drainage situation. PB Member Gannon asked if there is a stormwater drain on the road itself, and Mr. Roth said that there is not. PB Member Gannon asked if there is a stormwater drain on Lime Avenue. Mr. Neu Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 48 said that there is not one there now, however they are proposing to put one in. as part of this project; explained that whatever water they take, they will bring it to this project's retention area, and treat it to FDOT standards; and added that the road is sO "up-and- down" right now, they will have to reconstruct it. PB Member Gannon noted that this enables the water to flow faster down the line; and asked if the water flows towards Lime Avenue. Mr. Roth stated that part of it flows towards Lime Avenue; added that this site could not take any more water because it is not a good idea to comingle public water with private; noted that they are accommodating what is behind the site, that is naturally flowing on the site; said that it will be very tough to change grades on properties they do not control, they can reach out to neighbors for sidewalks and other access but iti is tough to do; noted that, it has already been mentioned, that this is a tight right-of-way, and, to do the necessary improvements to this road, is a larger undertaking than it is appropriate for this development to undertake. PB Member Gannon pointed out that they are not proposing to put in a sidewalk, even though the Engineering Manual discussed requirements for sidewalks, and asked for clarification. Mr. Roth stated that they went through many iterations of sidewalks in coordination with staff, and illustrated one of them; stated that a sidewalk that meets ADA requirements would meet many challenges from a regrading standpoint, to tie back on the existing grade on private property and then to put it flat against 2nd Street, and they had concerns about that; added that the pinch points, the utility poles are located in the right-of-way, right on the property line, they reached out to the utility provider, who said that were not interested in making this an underground system, or relocation; added that the applicants offered to get approval from the neighboring properties, the utilities were not interested to relocate the poles to put them on private property; noted that there is not enough width to do easements; and concluded that they ran into conflicts and could not come up with something that made sense. Mr. Neu added that they decided to keep them on the sidewalk, and then dedicate a sidewalk to the proposed building, and walkers just have to walk a little more, around the building. Mr. Roth noted that the second means of pedestrian egress was added after the original site plan was prepared. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked for additional information on Appendix Five, the Good Neighbor Plan; said he has not seen this in other PB packets; and asked if this is specific to Sarasota. Mr. Neu stated that it was a suggestion during the DRC and invited a representative of Wawa to discuss it because it is their plan and it has been customized for this site. Mr. Scott Gerard, Wawa's Project Engineer introduced himself for the record. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he thought it was interesting the he did training for loitering, apparently that must be a problem for these sites, and he asked if loitering would be a problem; added that he noticed on AR 1, WAWA 85-1201701-STORE #5312 [Elevations and Floor Pan), that there are six tables outside, and asked how they mitigate that, since this is going to be open all night. Mr. Gerard said that Wawa personnel work well with the local Police Departments and if there are loitering issues they encourage loiters to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 48 move on; added that the tables are popular at their stores; noted that he has been with the company 27 years, and prior to coming to Florida, they did not have outside tables; added that the tables were really well received, and there has been demand for the tables; said that he was surprised thinking that it was too hot, and no one would want to sit outside to eat, but if one were to look at the stores, even those in Sarasota County, the tables are used extensively; said that there have been issues with loiters in the past, and the company has worked with the police who politely encourage them to move on; noted that there have been stores in Tampa where they have not been able to keep people from loitering, and they removed the tables; stated that they are prepared to address loitering; added that at the store on US 301 and Myrtle Street, in an area that has a significant homeless population, loitering has been effectively managed; said that they occasionally camp out at the tables, and then politely move on sO Wawa personnel did not have to remove them, and noted it is a constant challenge for them. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that if they are paying customers it is difficult to do; and concluded that his question was answered, ifi it becomes a major issue, the tables are removed. Mr. Gerard said that he has been with the company 27 years and other companies before; said Wawa is unique in that all the stores are company run, they are literally a bottom up organization, the store managers have much more sayi in the company,and get heard louder at the headquarters in Pennsylvania than even middle managers do; said that a manager is a very important employee at the store every day, their pride is the store, and they work closely to address problems; added that there are regional managers, each oversees about ten stores, and there is a call center that handles store complaints, customer complaints, and emergency calls, staffed by Wawa personnel, they are very responsive, and the expectation is that calls are responded to within 24 hours. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that this is as much a retail store as it is a pumping station and asked why they have not added charging stations for electric cars. Mr. Gerard stated that they are actively working on charging stations, they are working with Tesla which has installed charging stations at three sites in Tampa, and it is something they will have in the future. PB Chair Normile asked if they worked with a drainage engineer when they designed the drainage. Mr. Roth stated that he is a professional engineer and responsible for the calculations. PB Chair Normile stated that this is a green area right now, and it is going to be a paved area; and noted that the City is discovering where the Weston and the Vue are, that paving has changed all the drainage in the area, and she wanted to ensure that they have taken this issue in consideration. Mr. Roth responded that they have, and they do in every project, because there are municipal and state regulations as well as the Water Management District regulations, and in this case, because they are discharging to Fruitville Road, they have to meet regulations for the storms associated with the FDOT; pointed out that FDOT cares less about the treatment and the actual quality of the stormwater, they are more interested in the discharge; explained that FDOT wants to see that the water is discharged the correct way, right away, and it does not cause adverse impacts by ponding or flooding. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 48 PB Chair Normile referred to the number of parking spaces, and said that she was surprised that they have 50 parking spaces; noted that in the community meeting they mentioned 23 parking spaces; added that, in reading these minutes, she noted how limited the information is, because so much of it is "I do not know," or "We will find out soon;" and said that the community meeting was almost useless here. Mr. Neu said that the community meetings are required SO early in the process, when they are still working with preliminary plans, and the plans are evolving; and noted that Wawa has 600 stores and they know from the size of the building how many parking spaces they need. PB Chair Normile asked where are the background materials thatjustify the: need for 50 parking spaces. Mr. Gerard stated that the company has 600 stores in six states, Florida being the latest; noted that they came to Florida in 2011; added that in the 1980s and 1990s they ran 600 neighborhood stores of 3,000 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft.; said that he started with the company in 1995; pointed out that the company has spent fifteen to twenty million dollars to add parking spaces to their legacy stores; said in the 1980s and 1990s they were primarily "a dairy-store with an occasional sandwich" type of store, but here in Florida they are a gas operator with food service; added that they fall in the category of convenient stores but what they offer is very different than the typical convenient store; noted that they have done their studies internally, and they have arrived at the conclusion that they need 50 parking spaces tol be effective with very: modest growth in: five) years; said Wawa sends people out and watch for a day, with stop watches and how fast the parking spaces turn; pointed out that they would not propose 50 spaces if they did not need them; added that their other stores in Sarasota have similar numbers, for example, the Clark Road and Honore Avenue store has 56 parking spaces, the store at University Parkway and Honore Avenue has exactly 50 spaces, but they have 100 shared spaces with Whole Foods; and the store at US 301 and Myrtle Street has 48 spaces. PB Chair Normile noted that to get gas, customers are in and out, unless if they want to go to the store, and asked if the store is a restaurant. Mr. Gerard stated it is a convenient store with a full-blown food service; noted that in the Philadelphia market they are SO prominent that in any given office people say that they are going to Wawa to get a sandwich; added that they benchmark against Panera Bread, Jimmy Johns, and any other sandwich provider; pointed out that they do not benchmark against other convenient stores, because they are one of the few in the industry that have figured out food service, and have a legitimate food service to offer; added that Racetrack has done a good job, since Wawa came to Florida they have increased their kitchen, but it is a huge commitment to get into the food business; and said that Wawa usually staffs their stores with seven to ten persons, where Racetrack has three, noting it is a huge commitment to get into the food business. Mr. Neu stated that Wawa stores are a hybrid. PB Chair Normile noted that they maybe a hybrid, however with 50 parking spaces they are not expecting people to go in, get a sandwich, and leave, they are expecting people to stay. Mr. Gerard said that most people will get a sandwich and leave; added that the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 48 stores have a few tables, not enough to accommodate all the sandwiches they expect to sell; explained that they expect to sell hundreds of sandwiches at lunch time rush, but they only have tables for 12 - 20 people to sit at once; said that they expect most of their food to be taken away; stated that their goal is from ordering a sandwich on the touch screen to delivering it in three minutes, and as they design the layout, that is what the management pushes the store operators to deliver. PB Member Ohlrich noted that they are installing a sidewalk entrance off Fruitville Road, along the east edge of the property, between the stormwater and the pumps, that leads to the store; and asked if that sidewalk extends north to 2nd Street as well. Mr. Neu referred to C-4, Site Layout Plan (01-29-2019) and noted that the sidewalk stops at the crosswalk located at the southeast corner of the store. PB Member Ohlrich expressed concerns about this because there is housing to the north of the site; said that she can see people who live to the north walking south on Lime Avenue, to get one of Wawa's delicious sandwiches and a cup of coffee, and walking home again; noted that there is no sidewalk on 2nd Street, and there is nothing to entice them to go off of 2nd Street by sidewalk to the store; said that more pedestrians will be coming to the store from the north of Lime Avenue than off of Fruitville Road, because there is no housing; and asked if they considered putting a sidewalk, a pedestrian entrance there. Mr. Roth stated that they did, and, as mentioned earlier, they had challenges with the right of way on 2nd Street; explained that it was impossible to extend the sidewalk on 2nd Street from the north end of their property to Lime Avenue due to challenges including grade changes and minimum width; and said there was no possibility to provide a safe sidewalk. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she understands that, however iti is noti impossible for the applicants to provide a dedicated pedestrian walkway on the eastern end of this property, starting from the north, coming to the south and meeting that walkway that comes to the store. Mr. Gerard stated that there is a sidewalk along the north edge of Wawa's property all the way to the back of the loading zone, and one can access the shaded area north of the building, as well as the covered and ADA compliant walkway area along the east side of the building, where the tables are, to walk to the entrance of the building. Mr. Gerard pointed out that if there was enough space to add a sidewalk along the east edge of the property, Wawa would do that, however there are space constrains, and he thinks the customers would prefer to walk to the back under the covered walkway. PB Member Ohlrich noted that the staff report states that the building is suburban and not urban in nature; and asked what Wawa has done to make this design more urban. Mr. Neu stated that it goes back to the access; explained that urban means that the building is close to the roadway, but it was difficult to do that at this site and also meet the requirements of the FDOT. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 48 PB Member Morriss stated that usually people argue to provide fewer parking spaces, and he thinks the concern is about pervious versus impervious pavement; asked if they have used pervious pavement for the parking spaces that are more remote from the building; and asked what their experience has been with this concept, and why are they not using something like that to help mitigate things. Mr. Roth stated that they have used them in situations where they were required by the municipality, where the codes require that a certain percentage is pervious pavement; said that Wawa is studying what would be the most effective pavement for the traffic they are experiencing; noted that from a maintenance stand point it is tough, because overtime the pervious surfaces get run down more SO than the typical asphalt pavement, and need to be treated every couple years. Mr. Gerard stated that he has extensive experience with pervious surfaces, they have done an entire site on the New Jersey Shore, as required by municipal code, in pervious asphalt, and it was an unmitigated disaster from day one; explained that it started pilling in small balls, they had to sweep the store hourly because customers tracked this in the store and it was a trip hazard, and the ultimate solution was to remove it and replace it with traditional asphalt; added that in Florida they have done about five or six sites with up to ten parking spaces in impervious concrete, which is better than impervious asphalt; said that the concrete is extremely rough, because when you install it, it is a special mix, it is designed to be poured, SO you pour it and you scrape it off; added that it is an incredibly unsmooth surface and it is debatable if one can geti it ADA compliant or not; said it is often used as a last resort noting Wawa does not think it is ADA compliant; and said the concrete is expected to be replaced every five years, because it wears badly. Mr. Neu added that because it wears badly, it may be appropriate for churches in flood prone areas, where people do not drive on it daily, but is not recommended for places with daily use. PB Member Morriss referred to the 10-inch caliper oaks they are proposing to install and asked what their survivability is, and the probability that they will be thriving in a couple years down the road. Mr. Smith stated that they have used them in other locations, such as the roundabout on Ringling Boulevard; explained that most of these trees have been dug and prepped for a year to a year-and-a-half ahead the time, and their survivability is excellent; stated that the intent here is to provide a unified tree line along Fruitville Road with large trees; and added that there is an one year warrantee, but the expectation is that they will be there for a very long time. PB Member Gannon asked about the traffic patterns at the Wawa location on Myrtle Street and US301, and asked it there are entrances both on US301 and on Myrtle Street. Mr. Gerard stated that there is a "right-in, right-out" on US 301, one "right-in, right- out" on Myrtle Street, and a full movement entrance on Myrtle Street. PB Member Gannon asked if they have any statistics as to how the customers come to the store, are they walking or driving. Mr. Gerard stated that they know their business, and both in the Bradenton and Sarasota areas, there is no significant part of their business that is pedestrian traffic; added that most of us do not walk much during the summer months Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 48 in Florida; said that they get some walkers, but most of the pedestrian traffic in that area is undesirable traffic, it is homeless people; and stated that most of Wawa's customers are automobile customers. PB Member Gannon stated that the City of Sarasota is committed to walkability; noted the City's commitment to the Ready for 100 Renewable Energy; said he is glad that Wawa is considering including in the future electric vehicle stations; pointed out that six pumps seems a lot for an industry where transportation is going away from gasoline; said gas stations in the City closing down; and asked why EV charging is not a higher priority in the: mix from the beginning. Mr. Gerard said that EV is a growing trend but currently there is little demand for it; and noted that, statistically, compared to gasoline retail sales, EV is minuscule. PB Member Gannon asked about the use of EV charging stations at the University Parkway and Honore Avenue Wawa. Mr. Gerard stated that it is not located on the Wawa property, rather it is part of the office park behind the Wawa store where Tesla has the charging stations. PB Member Gannon asked if Wawa personnel spoke with or requested EV use statistics from their neighbors. Mr. Gerard said that Tesla is reviewing every new Wawa site, and they are telling Wawa what sites they are interested in locating EV stations; pointed out that Tesla clearly was not interested in the Wawa location at University Parkway and Honore Avenue because they have not expressed an interest in this store; added that they are reviewing every new Wawa site, and they tell Wawa in which sites they want to be in; and said that they are trying to be state-of-the-art on EV, but today Wawa is a petroleum retailer, and as they are trying to anticipate the future, they will become an electric provider when they need to be, but right now they are in the petroleum retail sales. PB Member Gannon asked about the demand for petroleum sales when we see gas stations going out of business; and asked how Wawa decided they needed more gas pumps than EV charging. Mr. Gerard stated that he did not want to be argumentative, but they are petroleum retailers, and they would not be opening a new gas station if they did not think there would be enough petroleum sales to support it and go out of business. Mr. Roth added that iti is a corporate focus to be in this area. Mr. Neu pointed out that some smaller gas stations maybe closing or consolidating, but state-of-the-art gas stations with more pumps are opening. PB Member Gannon referred to page 119, the Good Neighbor Plan, and asked what industry standards drive the Good Neighbor Plan. Mr. Gerard stated that there are several Convenient Store Associations that make recommendations to stores about reducing crime and being safe, but Wawa is not a member of such associations, they exceed all their recommended policies and procedures. PB Member Gannon referred to the Neighborhood Communication Agreement on page 122, where it states that Wawa intends to be an active part of the community; and asked if there has been any outreach to the neighbors by Wawa, other than the City organized community workshop. Mr. Gerard stated that there has been none. PB Member Gannon asked what the plan is as they move forward. Mr. Gerard said that the store manager will be local, he will be at the site every day, he will be able to engage with any and all of the neighbors, he will make it a point of meeting both their customers and their neighbors, and he is a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 48 company salaried employee; and added that should there be any issues, the area supervisor that he mentioned earlier, another company salaried employee, will engage with neighbors to resolve any issues. PB Member Gannon asked if Wawa would consider a community workshop during construction to review the staging plan, just to make sure that the community understands what is happening. Mr. Gerard stated they would like to do that if there is aj mechanism in the city to do that. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that Mr. Gerard is a "Wawa Encyclopedia, said for the last 45 minutes he answered every question thoroughly (laughter); referred to the entrance off of Fruitville Road, and the two entrances in the back, and asked, being that it is only westbound traffic, is that an issue with Lime Avenue and the adjacent properties. Mr. Gerard stated that in an effort to meet FDOT requirements, they hired a consultant to do a study, and they see the traffic turning north on Lime Avenue, then turning on 2nd Street and entering the site the back way. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said he just wanted to make sure that there are no issues with the residents of the adjacent properties, because to the east, that shopping center is desolate now, and as that gets redeveloped, the majority of that traffic is coming out on Lime Avenue. Mr. Neu said that the majority of the traffic will come from the east on Fruitville Road in the morning; and going back out the same way. Mr. Gerard stated that the majority of their customers will be westbound, and he thinks only a few dedicated customers will go around. Discussion ensued regarding the restriction on U-turns at the intersection. PB Chair Normile asked if the Kimley Horn consultant is in the audience, because she has some questions. Ms. Kelly Fearon with Kimley Horn introduced herself for the record. PB Chair Normile stated that the initial letter from City staff states that the project is expected to increase the traffic, mostly on Fruitville Road, by 264 cars perhour, in the P.M. peak hour, and asked about the source of the 78% pass-by capture. Ms. Fearon explained that they used different numbers, because they did this analysis for FDOT;noted that FDOTI has collected their own traffic data, which is specific to Florida, the City used the ITE General Traffic Manual, and said that in their study the pass-by capture was 63%, based on FDOT data. PB Chair Normile noted that the ITE and FDOT data are talking about convenient stores, and this is not a convenient store, and asked how this was mitigated, if at all. Ms. Fearon stated that FDOT recognized that this is a unique use and collected their own data specific to this site, and this is the reason she used FDOT numbers for her analysis; said that, at one point, FDOT discussed making the east bound left movement protected at Fruitville Road and Lime Avenue, or changing out signal heads, but when they looked at queuing, FDOT did not want to pursue that, because it would make the eastbound line much longer; said that they decided to monitor the intersection and reconsider, should there be an issue in the future, and they made this recommendation in their report. PB Chair Normile asked how does that happen, there are also accident statistics, such as 62 crashes, involving 113 vehicles over the last five years, 50% resulting in injuries; added this is a dicey situation, and it is proposed to add 264 more vehicles at the P.M. peak hour, which will Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 48 probably be duplicated in the A.M. peak hour and then again at different times during the day; asked how it is ensured that no one gets killed trying to get gas; suggested that the applicants should think about the U-turn, because people will see it, it is a brand new facility, it is convenient, you just have to go across the road, there is a lot of action over there, and 264 more vehicles in an hour is a lot. Ms. Fearon said that a portion of the 264 vehicles are expected to already be on the road at this hour, and stop at Wawa on the way to their final destination, and that is the pass-by capture; explained that it is based on collected data and surveys; added that some of the work they have done with FDOT is to discuss the driveway placement, moving it further to the east, but were concerned about weaving; noted that they did everything possible to make the access meet all FDOT standards, and make it as safe as possible; added that she saw that there was a recommendation in the city analysis to do striping at Lime Avenue and 2nd Street, to say "Do Not Block the Intersection," to avoid situations where cars block and cut off others. Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein for the record; stated that the 1.8 acre site is located on the north side of Fruitville Road and west of Lime Avenue, and contains several structures, all of which are proposed to be demolished; noted that the property is zoned Downtown Edge (DTE), is in the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District, and the Future Land Use classification is Urban Edge; pointed out that the applicant is requesting approval for a site plan and Minor Conditional Use to allow for the construction of a 5,636 sq.ft. retail store with six pump islands, one air machine, and 50 parking spaces; noted that three driveways are proposed, one on Fruitville Road, and two off of 2nd Street, which is a big reduction from the seven existing driveways that are currently there; added that there is a bicycle parking rack that is provided but not required; stated that the applicants have received approval of a Variance from the exterior finish building material standards of the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District by the Board of Adjustment to allow for the use of metal as an exterior finish material only for minor elements, approximately 7% of the total building; noted that early in the review process there was a discussion and some concern about the number of parking spaces that were proposed; said that staff requested a reduction in the number of parking spaces and the applicant responded that they need the proposed number of parking spaces for their proposed use, and reduced the number by five spaces; added that even though the property is not located on primary streets, there were concerns about the design being suburban in nature; said that examples were given to the applicant early on about other similar developments in an urban setting that were able to fit-in in their surrounding areas; said that while the building will stay in the northern part of the lot, they have provided enhanced pedestrian circulation and landscaping in order to mitigate for pushing the building back closer to Fruitville Road; stated thatall landscape requirements have been met, and a parking lot perimeter buffer as well as interior parking lot landscaping has been provided; pointed out that there are nine palm trees and twenty two trees on-site to be removed due to the impacts of the proposed construction; stated that an arborist's report has been submitted for the grand tree, and it was considered a good candidate Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 48 for removal; said that numerous site visits have been conducted by the City's Arborist and the Director of Development Services, and they found that the removal criteria for the grand tree were met; added that there are three palm trees and five trees in the 2nd Street right-of-way, and they are supposed to be removed in order to improve and expand the right-of-way; pointed out that the applicant has exceeded what was required; stated that a Community Workshop was held on February 12, 2018; said that approximately twelve people were in attendance, including the applicant, and the sign- in sheet as well as the meeting minutes are included as part of the back-up material of the staff report; said that, as it has already been discussed, the traffic impact analysis has found that the proposed development meets concurrency, and that future traffic conditions on adjacent road segments and on property driveways are expected to operate well within accepted standards; noted that a total of six stipulations were included in the analysis, and they are further discussed in the report; referred to page 8 of the staff report and stated that there was discussion about compliance with the outdoor restaurant standards of the Zoning Code, which limit the operation of the outdoor dining to 11:00 P.M., Sunday through Thursday, and 12:00 A.M. on Friday and Saturday; said that more details are included in the staff report; noted that the site plan meets all the requirements of the DTE Development Standards; and concluded that both the Site Plan and the Minor Conditional Use have been found to meet the criteria for review and the Tree Protection Ordinance, and on balance, staff has provided a recommendation of approval with four conditions. PB Member Ohlrich referred to Page C-2, Column 2, and Page C-4 of the Site Plan, and noted that there are ADA instructions; said that she does not recall seeing ADA instructions on a Site Plan before; and asked staff to address this. Chief Planner Panica stated that the applicant has provided more information than required for this stage in the process, noting this type of detailed information is more appropriate for construction documents, and that is the reason she has not seen them before. PB Member Ohlrich asked if there are certain site plans for which ADA instructions are required. Chief Planner Panica stated that for Site Plan review, the Site Plan has to show ADA compliance, show required parking spaces, but at this stage ADA instructions are not required. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the Traffic Analysis and asked if 2nd Street will be widened on its entire length, from Lime Avenue to approximately the railroad track. Assistant City Engineer Orenstein said that the entire length of 2nd Street will not be widened, just the portion that affects the applicant's property; added that most ofit will be widened, and pointed that on the map; and said that the width will be 22-ft. PB Member Ohlrich noted that the width of the street across from the location where the church was is 16-ft. to 17-ft., it varies, there are no curbs, and the right-of-way from the railroad that ties to the sidewalk in-front of the church is 12-ft.; said that some of the sidewalk will be taken up for the widening of the street, and some trees will be removed, leaving a little space between the existing sidewalk and the street; expressed concern about the lack of complete sidewalks on 2nd Street to Lime Avenue, but she understands that there is no room for a sidewalk. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 48 Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein said that there was some back-and-forth with the applicant on the possibility of putting a sidewalk to Lime Avenue, but they did not get the cooperation they needed from the funeral home, because the sidewalk requires part of their property; and added that staff did their due diligence pursuing that but it did not turn out to be a practical option. PB Member Ohlrich referred to traffic on Lime Avenue, and said that when she visited the site with staff, they parked east of Lime. Avenue, in the parking lot of the strip center where the Save-A-Lot grocery store is located; noted that when they tried to pull out, there was a big backup of traffic on Lime Avenue; and pointed out that there will be a lot more traffic on Lime Avenue, because of the proposed development, over 200 vehicles at the P.M. peak hour. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein explained that the initial estimate for trips was based on the ITE Manual; said Kimley-Horn prepared their own analysis on behalf of the applicant and the FDOT, and they decided to go with their own numbers; said the City did its own traffic analysis with another consultant; and noted that staff looked at the FDOT study, reviewed new trips and pass-by-capture trips, and the majority of the trips are off of Fruitville Road, rather than 2nd Street, therefore, he is not expecting 200 cars off of Lime Avenue, but they are expecting some cars in terms of the net trips. PB Member Ohlrich noted that every vehicle that needs to go east on Fruitville Road will either have to do a U-Turn if they come out the Fruitville Road exit of the Wawa gas station, or they will have to exit off of 2nd Street to Lime Avenue, and then make a left turn on Fruitville Road. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the recommendations include intersection signs both for Fruitville Road and Second Street; and added that for the purpose of traffic concurrency, Lime Avenue still meets the adopted Level of Service. PB Member Morriss asked if the road diet for Fruitville Road extends this far east. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein said "No;" added that this intersection has not been studied as a roundabout this portion of Fruitville Road is FDOT owned, and in the event that FDOT would study this intersection for a roundabout, this project will be included in that process; and stated that there is nothing like that on the horizon or has been proposed. PB Member Morriss referred to light levels, said he knows that these are done in the building permit process, and asked who monitors these after the building is built. Chief Planner Panica stated that there are Zoning Code standards for the different light areas they are proposing, but it is complaint driven. PB Member Gannon referred to page 8 of the staff report, relating to outdoor seating and asked how he can find that on the site plan. Planner Panica referred to the Site Layout Plan, C-4, and stated that they are proposing raised landscape planters around the outdoor dining area, as well as the closure time, in addition to the no amplified Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 48 music, and no amplified entertainment from within requirements; and explained that the requirements vary depending on proximity to residential developments, and the size of the lot. PB Member Gannon noted that the hours of operation are not shown on the site plan, and there is no proffer relating to them, and asked how someone would know that, after 11:00P.M., they are: not allowed to sit at the tables. Chief Planner Panica stated that it is a Zoning Requirement, it is in the staff report, and it is the responsibility of the Store Manager to know and enforce these regulations; added that this has been discussed with the applicant; and explained that staff does not condition Zoning requirements. PB Member Gannon referred to page 10 of the report, criteria for removing a grand tree, and asked on which one of the four criteria was the approval for the removal of the grand tree based. Chief Planner Panica responded that the criteria used were VII- 310(b)(2) and (c); noted the applicant provided more mitigation than required; and added that she also spoke to the Arborist who confirmed that that he also used these criteria. PB Member Gannon asked if moving the building to save the tree would not work. Chief Planner Panica stated that the applicants tried different design options, but the tree would still be a candidate for removal. PB Member Gannon noted that the Arborist did not say that the tree was in an advanced stage of decline. PB Member Gannon referred to page 3, the Aerial Location Map, and asked about the neighboring uses west of the proposed development. Chief Planner Panica stated that the building abutting Fruitville Road is a storage facility, the building north ofi it is a call center, and north of the call center are industrial uses and the Boxing Club. PB Member Gannon noted that this property was intended for residential use. Chief Planner Panica stated that they received a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for affordable housing on that site. PB Member Gannon noted that there is planned housing north of this property across from the railroad tracks. Chief Planner Panica stated that they have a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but they still have to do a Rezone and a Site Plan within five-years of the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. PB Member Gannon said he understands that they do not have a site plan yet, but, from the City's perspective, there is housing going at that location, and he is trying to understand what is happening in the neighborhood, and how that affects the traffic and everything else; added that north of there is the Lime District, which is a potentially growing area, similar to the Rosemary District, and many of the issues that are being discussed, especially with the Rosemary Overlay Version II, are fixing things that were not done right in the first Rosemary Overlay; said that some of that is the long range planning; and asked now that the City has Planning Staff, what engagement has there been to discuss how this property, which is the gateway to the northern part of this neighborhood, which potentially could feature the Lime District, how is that impacting, from a planning standpoint, issues such as width of the road, or the location of bicycle lanes, etc. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 48 Chief Planner Panica stated that she recently found out about the Lime District through a newspaper article, and she has not been directly involved in any discussions about that; noted that the Lime District is a recent development, while staff and the applicants have been working on this proposed application for three years; pointed out that they have reviewed the circulation and they have addressed issues because they realize there is a lot of residential development to the north; added that it was important to staff, and the site has enhanced pedestrian connectivity on Fruitville Road; and referred to comments in the staff report relating to the design and layout of this site plan, knowing that it is going to be a gateway to downtown. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein added that in terms of bicycling in the area, Lime Avenue is not looked at as a major bike route, given the industrial nature and the movement of trucks on this road; noted that, instead, staff is considering Shade Avenue, just a block over as being the most useful route with moderate traffic, as the north south bike corridor in this area; added that they are also looking at 8th Street, just north of this location; and repeated that Lime Avenue is not considered a major bike route. PB Member Gannon asked if this a change from the EDCM. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein disagreed. PB Member Gannon submitted a page from the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM), the Bicycle Plan in the Downtown Area, which shows the future bike paths; and asked if this is still accurate. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that he is referring to the plan that staff is working on and has not yet been adopted. PB Member Gannon stated that for the record, this map shows a yellow dot for the site with a solid black line, a bike route, next to it, and asked if staff is looking at that and considering potentially changing this and have a bike route on Shade Avenue. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein agreed. PB Member Gannon noted that the dotted line on the Bicycle Plan indicates that the trail comes south to meet Fruitville Road; said that this is the design criteria of how staff considers things, from a long-range planning point of view, and asked Mr. Cover to address this. Mr. Cover stated that he has had a meeting with the Lime District Group, some members of which are here this evening, and he met with some other nearby communities; said this is an initial discussion, they are a long way off from doing anything in this area; reminded the Planning Board that they are reviewing this project on the merits that are presented this evening, not based on what may happen in the future; and added it is nice to talk about the future Lime District, but that is not in existence at this time. PB Member Gannon stated that he appreciates that, and while they cannot look at it as a dedicated plan, there is the EDCM, which is a plan, which staff says will change, sO we are gaging things based on today's plan, which shows a bike: route on Lime Avenue; said that nothing is done with this project that would somehow inhibit future uses of either 2nd Street in some form or fashion, or the adjacent property; and added that it seems like that they are trying to make some accommodation to make an access way on the west side of the property, which is good, and he was asking to see if the City had a broader view. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 48 PB Vice Chair Blumetti referred to the suburban VS. urban feel of the site; and asked if the DRC recommended that the site has a more urban feel. Chief Planner Panica said that it was a recommendation from the planner who worked on the pre-application, and then it was carried over as one of the staff comments in the DRC review process, but it is not a requirement because they are not on a primary street; and added there is no maximum setback or development standards or design standards. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if the proposal is legal. Chief Planner Panica agreed; and stated that the proposed application meets all standard requirements. PB Chair Normile asked why the Planning Board does not have the Kimley-Horn traffic study. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that it was done for FDOT and does not represent the City's work. PB Chair Normile stated that it would be good to have, she is not clear as to what it is, noting she has never seen two competing traffic studies for the same project before. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein explained that this is an FDOT road, and they wanted to have their own analysis for the driveways, SO he asked the applicants to have their own study completed; noted that the City has its own process where the study in done, which is paid by the applicant but it is controlled by the City. Chief Planner Panica added that the Kimley-Horn study was done outside of this process, she had never seen or heard about it; and added that she knew that they were working with FDOT for a while to determine the location of the driveway but it was never submitted to staff for review. PB Chair Normile said she would like to see it considering that this is an FDOT road and it would be good to have their input, noting she is curious as what their conclusion was. PB Member Morriss noted that the applicant stated this study helped them determine where the curb cut should be on Fruitville Road, nothing more than that. PB Chair Normile said that ifi it is nothing more than that, that is fine. Kelly Fearon, Kimley-Horn, stated that they will be happy to provide a copy to the Planning Board; added that the study also looked at the intersection of Lime Avenue, it was done during a different time line; explained that, in order to get further along in this site process, they had to understand access, and where FDOT would allow it; and added that the City has a separate process. Attorney Connolly stated that there are no affected persons. Public Input: 1. Blake Weinstein - Director of Twenty Minutes to Fitness, the establishment on 2nd Street directly across from the funeral home supports the proposed application, because it will solve safety concerns for his mostly older clientele due to the homeless population that hides in the existing abandoned building on this site. 2. Christopher Cogan property owner across the street on 2nd Street (the former church building and their food pantry building next to the railroad track)- Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 48 requested clarification on what are the planned improvements to Second Street, specifically if it will be widened all the way to the STOP sign at Lime Avenue; spoke in support; he also shares the homeless concerns. 3. Anthony Smith - spoke in opposition- objects to the suburban look of the proposed application; said that this could be a gateway to the Legacy Trail, and it could be a great way to link Park East with the Legacy Trail; said this promotes the excessive use of cars. 4. John Susce- president of the Homeowners Association for the Shenandoah area spoke in opposition, due to excessive flooding, traffic, they do not want a 24-hour gas station in their neighborhood. Rebuttal by the. Applicant: Mr. Neu introduced himself for the record; stated that in terms of flooding, when one does the code compliant improvements they are proposing to do, he is confident the flooding in this area will improve; added that the oversize stormwater system they plan to put in, and the grating on 2nd Street will help the flooding situation; noted that as far as fitting in the neighborhood, this site is on Fruitville Road, surrounded by a railroad track and industrial uses on the west, the church to the north of this site is converting to an auto repair shop, it is a logical stop for the Legacy Trail, and it is a good use to have at such a stop; said that they worked closely with staff for the improvements to 2nd Street, it will be improved to 22 ft. of pavement, they mill it out and reconstruct the whole thing; added that in the end, it will be a vast improvement from what is there today, and the improvements will take care of the stormwater runoff, and the access; pointed out that, as Mr. Ohrenstein said, they will add a sign not allowing the blocking of traffic at the intersection; added that it is unusual to ask another traffic engineer to prepare a study, and explained that they are dealing with FDOT, who has different criteria than what is included in the scope of the City's traffic study; said that, this is the reason they brought in Kimley Horn, one of the best, to do the study, and coordinate this effort back and forth; explained that FDOT does not only use IT general criteria data, they actually do their own counts; and concluded that they would appreciate the Planning Board's vote to allow them to keep moving with the project. PB Member Gannon stated that, besides the impact on operations of the business across the street on 2nd Street, his biggest concern is traffic during the construction process on such a narrow street; and added that he cannot imagine the construction moving forward without impacts to the existing businesses on 2nd Street. Mr. Nue stated that they will have to keep the traffic open one lane at a time and convert the traffic back and forth; and noted that currently it is pretty much 161 ft. wide, practically one lane. Greg Roth, Bohler Engineering introduced himself for the record; stated that the construction vehicles will likely access the site from Fruitville Road, because it is an easier access to get on and off the site; and noted that once the site is open, all traffic including fuel and other delivery trucks will come out on Fruitville Road. PB Member Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 48 Gannon expressed concerns about traffic backing up on Fruitville Road. Mr. Roth stated that using side streets for construction deliveries is more problematic for the truck ingress and egress, it makes sense to use the most direct route, and that is off of Fruitville Road for the deliveries of construction materials, fueling, or deliveries. PB Member Gannon asked if they plan to re-grate all of 2nd Street or just the portion in front of their property. Mr. Roth stated that in the rear, behind the Wawa site they are proposing to widen the road to 22 ft., and over to the east, past their property, they plan to widen the road to 20 ft. PB Member Gannon noted that to achieve that they need to turn the entire roadway, and asked, during construction, how will the people have access to the businesses on 2nd Street. Mr. Roth said it all has to do with scheduling and different methods of construction. Mr. Gerard, from Wawa, introduced himself for the record, and stated that improvements on 2nd Street will be a requirement of the developer; explained that they are going to lease this property from a developer and that will be part of his improvements; noted that before Wawa begins vertical construction these improvements will have to be completed, SO there will be no conflict, because when 2nd Street is beingimproved Wawa will not be under construction; added that they will not take possession of the property until 2nd Street, as well as the work on the new driveway, and the right-of-way work on Fruitville Road are done, therefore there will not be conflicts with construction traffic. PB Member Gannon asked how the businesses and the visitors to the businesses on 2nd Street, west of Lime Avenue, will have access during this time. Mr. Neu said that they will have to maintain access by working one lane at a time and maintain the local road access; and said that they will not shut people out. PB Member Gannon said there is no proffer to do a Community Workshop prior to a staging plan to ensure that all the businesses and the residents are informed of the construction staging schedule and the impact from that process. Mr. Neu said that there is no through traffic, it is a dead end, and they plan to talk to the people who are using it right now and will be affected by it; and added that they are working closely with them, and will forward them the schedules. Mr. Gerard said that he would commit to do that. PB Member Gannon asked if that will be an added proffer for the Planning Board's consideration. There was no answer. PB Member Morriss stated that the concern is for the people using this area and asked if the 1-800 number they have in their Good Neighbor Policy would work for this as well, so if someone is being careless or stupid, people can call Wawa to fix: it. Mr. Gerard said "Yes," and added that he lives in Bradenton, SO whether they call him directly, or they call the City, who has the Wawa contact information, he will get an email from their call center. PB Member Gannon referred to the hours of operation for the outside seating area, and asked if anything will be posted there to say that this area is not available for outside seating past 11:00P.M. Mr.Neu pointed out that the exact wording of that section of the Code refers to outdoor dining, sO they have to identify exactly what that means, because he does not think those tables will be used all the time for actual outdoor dining; said that they will comply with what the regulations say, but he is not sure that the regulations had this in mind, the outdoor seating at a convenient Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 48 store; and noted that they need to discuss it to determine if outdoor seating is outdoor dining. PB Member Gannon noted that staff states that this applies, and he wanted to know how they will implement it operationally. Mr. Gerard stated that they do not consider this outdoor dining, just tables for the convenience of customers, and they are used in a number of ways, they can sit to rest, or sit to have a glass of water, or sit to eat as sandwich, sO if that is considered outdoor dining; stated that they will work with the City staff; said that they need to be practical about what they are proposing, because outdoor dining relates to a restaurant that provides table service, and sitting on a park bench or at an outdoor table is not considered outdoor dining; and repeated that they intend to work with staff, and if they want a sign stating no outdoor dining after a certain hour, they will comply. PBI Member Gannon asked ift thel hours of outdoore eating have been discussed with staff. Mr. Gerard said that he has been in two or three meetings with staff, and this is the first time that there has been discussion on this; added that if the Board wishes it, and it is a requirement, they can put up a sign up at midnight that says "CLOSED," but it does not seem practical, because we do not close park benches or anything else that is provided as a convenience to consumers; and added that they do not consider it outdoor dining, they consider them convenience tables, they do not have food service there, they have no waiters. Mr. Neu stated that they will consult with staff. PB Member Gannon stated that the Planning Board has to make a decision shortly, based on the fact that this is implementable, and if the applicants are stating that they do not agree that this is outdoor dining and it falls under that section of the code, then that is an issue thatneeds to be resolved, or a proffer needs to be put on the table, or we need to continue the item until the issue is resolved. Mr. Nue stated that if it applies, then they will comply with it. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that Mr. Gerard stated earlier in his testimony that if there is an issue, they will remove the tables, and that they have done it before, in which case this is the answer to the concerns. Mr. Gerard agreed, and added that if staff decides that compliance requires that they post hours for those tables, they can do that; and added that the tables that are practical for use in that area are not easy to take in and out, they are permanently installed. PB Member Gannon said he understands that, and if someone were to pull in to get gas and a late snack, on a nice night, and wanted to sit outside, you can say no, because there is a sign that pursuant to City regulations you cannot sit outside, unless there is a proffer on the table that would resolve that issue; explained that then thea applicant would not have to put up a sign, if it is something that has been approved by the Planning Board as a change from what the Code requires; and added that if they drive by and see people sitting there at midnight that is a code violation; and said if this requirement is not practical, then it should not apply. PB Chair Normile asked for staff to clarify the definition of outdoor dining. Mr. Neu stated that one does not proffer to meet regulations. PB Member Gannon stated that it appears that the applicants do not want that regulation to apply. PB Chair Normile asked Mr. Cover if he has something to say. Mr. Cover said that he, like some of the PB Members, is wondering what the problem is; and asked if one is at home and takes his plate at his back yard is that called outdoor dining, to him outdoor dining is more Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 48 formal; and said, who cares if someone eats a sandwich outdoors late at night. PB Member Gannon said that he agrees, except that staff says outdoor dining applies here, and we need clarification. PB Chair Normile asked how they deal with people who bring their own food and sit at the tables, let's say they came from a party down the street. Mr. Gerard stated that if they were not disruptive, they would be allowed to stay, if some one from the group purchased something from the store they would be allowed to stay, if they were disruptive they would be asked nicely to leave, and the authorities would be called. PB Chair Normile thanked the applicants and asked for staff to come forward. PB Chair Normile asked if the responses to Mr. Cogan's questions were accurate. Chief Planner Panica stated that the applicant's response was accurate. PB Chair Normile noted that Mr. Cogan asked if the improvements stopped at the edge of the property. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein referred to the Paving and Grading Plan, Sheet C-5, and pointed out that the plan shows they will resurface the whole thing, the entire length of 2nd Street as stated in the report. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that there is no sidewalk on the south part of 2nd Street; and asked if the north side will be required to provide a sidewalk along their property when they redevelop. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that new development will be requested to put a sidewalk on the north side of the street; added that there is one parcel across the street with the cars, when they redevelop, they will also be requested to put in a sidewalk, sO that there is a consistent sidewalk on the north side of 2nd Street. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if that is the case because there is no sidewalk on the south side of the street, or would they be required to do it anyway. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that the City wants to see a sidewalk on 2nd Street and it is more practical to have it on the north side of the street. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing. PB Vice Chair Blumetti moved to find Site Plan 18-SP-08 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and find Conditional Use 18-MCU-01 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code, and approve the petitions, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Good Neighbor Plan received by the Department of Development Services on April 3, 2019 shall remain in effect and enforced by the establishment's manager or other designee. The Good Neighbor Plan shall be updated as information in the Plan changes or is updated. 2. The two wall signs as shown on sheets AR 1 and A4.0 are for illustrative purposes only and must be approved through a Planning Board Adjustment or be modified to comply with the Zoning Code. 3. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Wawa, received by the Department of Development Services on March 12, 2019. All final Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 48 construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Development Services. 4. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Speaking to his second, PB Member Morriss stated that philosophically he would agree that this could have been handled differently, but he is not about to take the property rights from this venue; added that in regards to the suburban VS. urban look, one would have to bend five times backwards to bring the structure closer to the street to make it look more urban, which would be incredibly inefficient and the Planning Board would be even less happy with it then; and said that the applicants have done a thorough job, to the extent they can, to make the site viable. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he agrees with what was just said; noted that his biggest concern was that this looks suburban; and concluded that, given the site constraints, he did not think it is possible. PB Chair Normile stated that she does not mind the suburban look because it is bordering on a neighborhood, and it would be a lot worse to have another industrial building there; added that she is hoping with this Good Neighbor Plan, that they will be good neighbors; noted there is an open line of communication for the neighborhood to make complaints, which is a selling point, because they are leaning on their reputation, and Sarasota makes a lot of noise, and if they want their reputation to remain good, they will keep with their Good Neighbor Plan; and concluded that she will support the motion. PB Member Gannon added that support for this was contingent upon the implementation of the Good Neighbor Plan, starting with construction, and that is appreciated; noted that while Wawa has significant experience, as it was pointed out, this particular site with the reduced access to the north on 2nd Street is very problematic, and in order for this to work, it is going to take coordination and cooperation that is not 100% there today; said that Wawa has an uphill climb going forward; and concluded that he will support the applications with the assurance that their outreach will continue. The motion passes unanimously (vote 5 to 0). The Planning Board took a 5 minute Recess Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 48 2. Town N Country (180 N. Beneva Road): Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-12 is a request for Site Plan approval to construct approximately 59,000 s.f. of retail space within two new structures and two new accessory drive throughs in the shopping center known as Town N Country located in the CommercialShopping Center Regional (CSC-R) zone district and the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District (FCOD). (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Attorney Connolly stated that there is an application for Affected Person status relating to this Site Plan Application. Attorney Connolly called Mr. Brian Lichterman; added that Mr. Lichterman is representing a property owner within 500 ft of the subject site; and recommended that he be granted Affected Person status. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all present who intend to speak in this public hearing and have not yet been sworn. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Todd Mathes, Bendersen Development, introduced himself for the record, and his team Mr. Clint Cuffle, Civil Engineer, WRA Engineering, as well as the Principal and Owner of the firm, Phil Smith the Landscape Architect, and Kelly Fearon, Transportation Engineer with Kimley-Horn; stated that they acquired, through mortgage foreclosure option proceedings, two parcels which are parts oft the Town and Country Shopping Center on Fruitville Road and Beneva Road; pointed out that they own the old Sweet Bay parcel and the space between the Bealls and the K-Mart Parcel, said they do not own the parcels of McDonalds, Wendy's, the Bank, or the K-Mart parcels; noted that the K-Mart and the Bealls parcels are owned by Gator Investments, and they have completed some redevelopment; showed the renovated K-Mart box with the new tenant sign for Big Lots! and Planet Fitness on the Beneva Road side of that building; said that they have done some paint and site redevelopment work on the Bealls building, which they also own; noted that their project focuses on the south parcel; showed the existing Sweet Bay box and the outline of the proposed grocery store, with adjacent retail space; added that they are proposing to add a multi-tenant retail building on the site, with a net overall increase in square footage of 3,610 sq. ft.; referred to Town and Country Retail, Site Plan, Sheet C-100 (3/5/2019), and pointed out that all their buildings are 50 ft. away from adjacent parcels, or zoning districts, with the exception of the shopping center; said that it is considered one shopping center and the internal boundaries between the Gator-owned property and their property is as it exists today, with zero-foot setbacks; stated that they are reducing parking on the site by 51 spaces, the site is overparked, and they are getting closer to the recommended parking on their property, even though the shopping center overall remains overparked; said the building heights are under the maximum allowed, which is 50 ft, they are at 26 ft 8 in., with the exception of the architectural elements and the parapet that is designed to screen the mechanical equipment on the roof; pointed out that their building coverage is less than the 30% maximum of the overall shopping center, they are under at 23%; noted that they are separated from the parcels to the west by a 66-ft wide County owned drainage canal, but they will provide a Type-B Buffer along the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 48 canal; explained that, currently there is a good natural vegetative buffer in the canal, especially on the west side ofit, but it falls a little bit as you go towards the McDonald's parcel, SO they are adding the Type-B Buffer along their property line; noted that with respect to trees, they will double the number of trees on site to3 338 trees; said that there will be some tree removals, 65% of the trees to be removed are coming out of the stormwater ponds; explained that trees should not really be there, because they are impeding the stormwater function, they have grown there because the property was not maintained for a long time; noted that they will double the number of trees on site; pointed out that there are five grand trees on site and they are protecting all of them; said that the stormwater area will remain the same in terms of land area, the ponds will be repaired, improved, and maintained, and they are adding underground vault- systems to improve the stormwater quality treatment that is associated with this shopping center through the redevelopment process; noted that, in respect to architecture, he thinks that Publix does a respectable job giving design professionals some latitude in sticking with national retailers prototypical architecture; noted that in this case they hired a Florida licensed architect, David Peterson from Cooper, Johnson and Smith, out of Tampa, who came and studied the market, and presented some design concepts to Publix; pointed out that they took under consideration the existing center that is surrounding them but is not controlled by them, and the neighborhoods to be served, and what they are going for is an understated but classically proportionate design; said that they are proposing a standing seam metal roof, remain in compliance with the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District design standards including the horizontal Bahama shutters, the half-goose lights, a brick look on the darker color façade to differentiate from the stucco, and a nice deep covered entry to provide some shade at the entrance of the store; added that some of these elements are carried over to the outparcel SO that there is a cohesive theme; stated that, with respect to traffic, they have a deminimis traffic increase; said they are proposing the addition of a sidewalk bringing pedestrians from Beneva Road to the front of the center, which does not exist today, and, other than that, they are not proposing any other changes off site or internal; and stated that it is a redevelopment of a shopping center, there was a grocery store there, and there will be a grocery store there in the future, with the Planning Board's support. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she would like to begin with a request that is not germane to this grocery store and outparcel development, but it is relative to the applicants since because they also own the other parcel to the north; said that she lives in this area, and finds herself driving down Circus Blvd. frequently, and there she is at the stop light at Circus Blvd. and Beneva Road, looking at the extremely dirty orange mansard section of what is now their property; and asked if they would clean that. Mr. Mathes stated the they acquired the property under a process, and it is taking a while to take control of it; and added that a lot of those buildings need to be demolished. PB Member Ohlrich said before they demolish it, would they please clean it, because it is dirty and an eyesore. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 48 PB Member Ohlrich referred to page A1.2, Town and Country Plaza, Color Exterior Elevations (7-25-18, received 3/14/2019), which is towards the back of the package, noted that it shows the outbuilding located where the current stormwater pond is located; said that the south rear elevation, is the view from the SunTrust Bank, and asked if there are any plans to coordinate and merge the parking lots in the entrance to the SunTrust parking lot for the proposed new out building. Mr. Mathes stated that there is no plan to change the SunTrust parking lot; added that in the process of this application, they reached out to SunTrust, who stated that they have no plans to make changes either; pointed out that there is al large row of trees on the property line between their property and the SunTrust property which are not being touched; and added those trees remain in this design, and no other changes are proposed. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the drawing on the upper right of page A1.2, the front elevation north that will be facing the parking lot, and stated that somewhere in the staff report it was indicated that the front of the building would be facing Beneva Road, and she thinks the drawing and the staff report indicated different fronts for the building. Mr. Mathes referred to the site plan and stated that both the north elevation and the east elevation will both have storefront glass and access doors; noted it is a multi-tenant space that they anticipate dividing it somewhere in the middle, with a small patio space in the front facing Beneva Road, and two fronts for lack of a better word. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the longer front of the building is towards the parking lot. PB Member Gannon asked what will happen to the Publix directly north of that in the Sarasota Commons shopping center. Mr. Mathes stated that Publix is anticipating closing that store, because it is smaller than the store they are proposing to build, and that would be advanced with this project. PB Vice Chair Blumetti thanked the applicants for the thorough Engineering Set; referred to the south elevation where the drive-through for the Publix Pharmacy and the colonnade are; noted that there is a blind corner there, and asked if that is going to be an issue with people crossing over. Mr. Mathes stated that this was a question also raised by staff, and they provided both the site triangle analysis and a view, to show that some of the columns and other parts of the building won't prevent the cars from seeing pedestrians; and noted there is a sidewalk there for the crosswalk, and he believes they have achieved good site visibility. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that pedestrians are encouraged to go east at that point, using the crosswalk, which connects to the new sidewalk going all the way out to Beneva Road; and added that they have also bumped out the sidewalk to reduce the amount of the blind corner. Mr. Cuffle said that the median, the bypass lane and the lane are all designed to increase the visibility of pedestrians. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 48 PB Chair Normile noted that there is a lot of parking, even in the back of the store, and asked where they are reducing the parking. Mr. Mathes said that they will enlarge the pond and some of the parking will go away; noted that the parking in the back is encumbered with a number of leases and reciprocal easement agreements between the parcels, sO that parking needs to stay; added that, although this is not part of this application, to the extent that the buildings on their other parcel need to come down because they are in a very tough shape, an opening will be created at that location, the Cuban Ballet will remain at their location, which the applicants also own, the walk on the south side of that space will remain, and people will have use of the parking north of the Cuban Ballet location; said that there will always be a connection between back and front parking lots, it is required by a number of agreements. PB Chair Normile asked about the time frame for taking down the buildings in the second lot. Mr. Mathes stated that they have a pending demolition application, and hope to take it down very soon, however they do not have a concrete plan for redevelopment for that portion of the center; stated that the demolition will happen within the next six months, if not sooner than that; and said the last tenant's lease just ended, the tenants have moved, and the building is coming down. Staff's Presentation: Planner Greenberg introduced himself for the record; stated that the applicant did a thorough job, but he has a list of things he would like to mention; noted that the subject area is 13.5 acres, and includes two separate parcels, located at the northwest corner of Fruitville Road and Beneva Road, in the existing Town N Country Shopping Center; pointed out that it is currently zoned Commercial Shopping Center (CSC-R), and has a future land use classification of Community Commercial; said it is surrounded by residential uses to the west, institutional and government uses to the east, commercial uses to the south and the north within the shopping center as well as north of the Shopping Center; stated that the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 55,610 sq. ft. grocery store, along with two adjacent tenant spaces north of it, and they are proposing to develop 59,220 sq. ft. of retail development, which includes a new grocery store; added that they are proposing a 5,242 sq.ft. outparcel, standalone building, which is oriented more towards Beneva Road, and has the glass frontage on both the east and the north side of the building; noted that they will infill the retention pond in the southeast, they are proposing a new stormwater vault and the new building; said that they will remove all the trees from the retention pond because it is overgrown and it does not function the way it is supposed to function; pointed out that this is where the majority of the trees to be removed are located; said that they are reducing some of the parking spaces, but they still are overparked for the shopping center, noting there are 42 additional parking spaces for the whole shopping center; added that short-term and long-term parking bicycle spaces are provided by the applicant, they are proposing some long-term spaces right next to the grocery store which will be covered by the grocery store's cameras; said that the new sidewalk connecting the store to Beneva Road will make people feel safer getting to the store using the dedicated pedestrian and bike access from Beneva Road with the crosswalks which is a real amenity for pedestrians in the area; said there are five grand trees located on the property line with SunTrust and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 48 all will be preserved; added a total of 203 new trees are proposed, increasing the number of trees on the site from 168 to 338 trees, nearly doubling them; pointed out that the trees now are concentrated in the two overgrown stormwater detention ponds, and by moving those trees and mitigating and planting trees elsewhere, the site will be significantly canopied; noted that they are adding canopy trees all along the perimeter of the property and in the parking lot, and they will also provide a Type-B Buffer along the western property line, which does not exist now; said that there are grand trees but there is no fence or screening of mechanical equipment and nothing to protect the adjacent residential from the impact of the commercial development, and the back of the shopping center; said that the proposed buffer will result in a significant difference in the type of operation that occurred before, without the mitigation elements; referred to the two drive-throughs, stating staff reviewed them for compliance with Section VII 602 (c) of the Zoning Code regarding distance and queuing requirements, and they comply with all that, and no variances were necessary; pointed out that they comply with all development standards of the CSC-R Zone District, the Community Commercial land use designation, and the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District, including maximum height, minimum set-back requirements, maximum building coverage requirements, and finish materials; stated that staff reviewed the site plan and has found it to comply with section IV-506 of the Zoning Code, and the Tree Protection Ordinance; added that Transportation staff reviewed the site plan for concurrency, and determined that it has deminimis impact, as little more than 3,000 sq. ft. are added to the site; noted that the site has been vacant for a long time; and concluded that there were no major concerns with what is being proposed, and staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. PB Chair Normile asked if any of the Planning Board members had any ex-parte communications. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she conducted a site visit. PB Member Gannon also did a site visit. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 5 of the staff report and noted that the Beneva Road orientation of the building is there, third paragraph, and it is explicit in saying that it will front Beneva Road. Planner Greenberg apologized for the confusion. PB Member Ohlrich stated that this location was one of the few proposed as an urban village in the draft of the Form Based Code that was submitted, and she knows that the Form Based Code has not been approved; added that it was a community initiated Zoning Text Amendment recently requested of the City Commission, to allow for mixed use buildings with a few stories, who knows how it will end up; and asked if there were any discussions with the applicant about waiting to see whathappens with the Zoning Text Amendment, to see if it passes, because this could dramatically change what is allowed at this location. Planner Greenberg stated that this application has been in process for a while. PB Member Ohlrich noted that there are no applications in the works for the next phase, the redevelopment of the buildings that will be demolished as soon as possible. Planner Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 48 Greenberg concurred. PB Member Ohlrich said that, if the text amendment passes, this parcel could be a candidate for mixed use development, it seems like a good site for that. PB Member Morriss referred to page 92, noted that it states that a bus shelter will be provided, and asked if that is on the way. Planner Greenberg stated that this conversation took place early on, and he would defer to the applicant to clarify that. PB Member Gannon stated that this is a thorough proposal, and hei is happy to see what they did with the trees, they have increased them, nothing else is changed, and asked if the original proposal was different than what the Planning Board has before them now. Planner Greenberg stated that there were minor changes to comply with development standards, such as setbacks. PBI Member Gannon asked about the location of the bicycle storage. Planner Greenberg referred to Sheet C-201, Town and Country Retail, Site Layout Plan (3/5/2019), and pointed out the location of the 18- bicycle storage area, south of the store's main entrance. PB Member Gannon wanted to verify that the location of the bicycle storage area will not impede pedestrian traffic. Planner Greenberg stated there is sufficient clearance. PB Vice Chair Blumetti agreed with earlier comments about this being a fantastic site for a residential component. Affected Persons: 1. Brian Lichterman- Vision Planning and Design, representing Commodore Realty, owners of the Sarasota Commons Shopping Center, located to the north of the TownNCountry Shopping Center Spokei in support of the project; and suggested a cross-access between the two commercial centers. Public Input: 1. John Susce - supports the cross access between shopping centers; and asked why they are building a second Publix if there is one already in the adjacent shopping center. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Mathes, Bendersen Development stated that in respect to the urban village concept, it could have had merit; added that in the sense that Gator has signed leases with national retailers for a long time, the trajectory of the property has been set; said that hopefully the work they are proposing to do will elevate the shopping center, and he hopes to bring back to the Planning Board something that will be in the direction they are taking for the area that will be demolished. Mr. Mathes said that they reached out to SCAT; noted there are stop signs and benches across the frontage of the property; said they usually work well with SCAT, but this time they did not respond; added that when they tiei in to the sidewalk to Beneva Road, there will be a County right-of way- permit, and maybe they will have a chance to respond then, but the space is available and the applicants are totally open to it, and if Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 48 iti is an appropriate proffer to build it, they will make that proffer; 1 noted that the changes related to the proposed building are it is 400 sq. ft. smaller than the existing building, and there will be a 50 ft. setback from the bank; responded to Commodore's suggestions, stating that the applicants are happy to have that conversation, for pedestrian cross-access between the shopping centers if that connection is near the location of the gym; said that he does not support the cross connection further back for service trucks; and repeated that he will be happy to discuss it with them along with the City, however he thinks accommodating that request at this point is premature. PB Member Ohlrich requested clarification of Mr. Mathes' response to the mixed-use village concept and said even though this is unrelated to this evening'sl hearing, the seed has been planted and wanted to hear his opinion. Mr. Mathes stated that the shopping center as a whole, including the parcels and outparcels, are encumbered with reciprocal easement agreements; pointed out that at the time Gator decided to sign leases and to redevelop the K-Mart box, they set themselves in stone with respect to major parts of the property and how they would exist; said that the applicants are obligated to those leases, to a certain amount of parking being on site, and other things; stated that the shopping center as a shopping center will remain that way for a while, because that re-tenanting has not started to occur, and the applicant does not have total control here; added that it is a unique situation, the applicants are in similar situations in other places, for example in Southgate Mall; and said that when other property owners make those commitments, you have to wait for while to see what happens, and that "while" is ten to twenty years. PB Member Ohlrich suggested that they stop thinking in the box on this. Mr. Mathes said that unfortunately in this case they know where the property is going, and it will be a shopping center for a while. Staff Rebuttal: There was none. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing. PB Member Ohlrich moved motion to find Site Plan 18-SP-12 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the petition subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 48 2. The site plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed structure and site layout shall be in compliance with those labeled Town N' Country Retail, received by the Development Services Department on March 6, 2019 and March 14, 2019. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. Speaking to her motion, PB Member Ohlrich stated that the proposed application meets all standards for review; and concluded that it is a major improvement to this shopping center. PB Member Gannon, speaking to his second, stated that it is an excellent plan. The motion was approved unanimously, (vote of 5 to 0). IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICETOTHE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was none. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. March 6, 2019 Code: additions are underlined, deletions are strieken-Hrewgk Page 23 of 42, 6th line from the bottom, should read as follows: 1 Arts at 2:00PM 4:00 PM on a school day, noting traffic was not moving.. The Minutes of the March 6, 2019 Special Planning Board Meeting, as revised, were approved by consensus. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Transportation Plan Update Mr. Cover stated that staff is moving forward with the Transportation Master Plan; noted that on Friday, May 3, 2019 staff has an all-day stakeholder meeting, including different City departments as well as other agencies and groups, for a kick-off introductory event to talk about the transit system and do some visioning; said on June 4, 2019, they will have a public workshop to do visioning scenario development to get comments from the community; said information about it will be distributed shortly; added in the next several weeks staff will launch a public website and all the information about this process will be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 48 available there, including upcoming meetings, surveys, receiving public input; noted it will have an interactive map where people can look up certain issues or present certain ideas; and concluded that he is excited they are moving forward with that, and he believes that they will have some exciting conclusions when all is said and done. Mr. Cover added that the RFP for the Bikeshare program has gone out and the cut-off date is the end of this month [April, 2019]; added that staff will be interviewing and selecting venders, will go to the City Commission for final approval, and will be able to begin the bike share program once the program is approved; noted that they have an agenda item on the City Commission's agenda for the Water Taxi Study; and pointed out that if that is approved in the upcoming meeting, staff will be moving forward with that as well. PB Member Gannon asked if the May 3, 2019 meeting is for staff only or could someone come and watch. Mr. Cover said it is for staff, different departments and agencies. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there will be a comprehensive sidewalk plan. Mr. Cover said that it will be part of the Transportation Master Plan. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that when the Planning Board is reviewing projects, for example the Wawa presented earlier this evening, it is nice to look at the Comprehensive Plan for sidewalks, to determine if the proposals are meeting the sidewalk requirements or the intentions of the City relating to overall connectivity. Mr. Cover stated that one of the Zoning Code initiatives is to look into the sidewalk issue; they intend to look into the Transportation Master Plan and make recommendations for major streets, medium size streets, what those sections should look like, and it will actually be part of the Transportation Master Plan, and is forthcoming. PB Member Gannon asked if the Bicycle Plan will also be part of that. Mr. Cover said "Yes." PB Member Gannon asked if the EDCM will get updated. Mr. Cover stated that the EDCM will be updated. PB Member Gannon asked about the process for the update of the EDCM; and asked if it is subject to the review process, meaning review by the Planning Board, and the City Commission. Attorney Connolly stated that the EDCM was adopted by Ordinance and it only needs to go to the City Commission, it is the City Commission's decision if they want someone else to review it in advance; and noted that the City Commission will have a public hearing and a second reading. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Study of Current Code Enforcement Practices PB Chair Normile distributed a hand-out in an effort to keep the discussion around certain points; stated that the Planning Board members could add or subtract items; and added that this is to avoid an amorphous discussion about everything all at once. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 48 PB Chair Normile provided some history; stated that at the January, 2019 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board passed a motion (5 to 0), and quoted from the video tape of that meeting:" recognized issues with code enforcement and that action should be taken to enforce the issues;" added that there was also consensus that a rationale and a scope would be discussed at the following meeting, which would be February [2019]; stated that at the February [2019] meeting there was general agreement at the Planning Board that, if anything was to be done it would have to be ordered by the City Commission; added that PB members also had agreement that an ad-hoc committee should be the group to handle any study, and not the Planning Board; stated that this graduated to a general disagreement by everyone involved that anything should be done at all; added that following the February [2019] meeting Mr. Litchet set up a meeting, she met with him, and with Mr. Siegel, a former Planning Board member, because she could not take along any of the current Planning Board members, SO she chose to take along a former Planning Board member; noted that it was an excellent and very productive meeting, and Mr. Litchet had many suggestions that he subsequently put in writing, and Planning Board members have that in their packet; pointed out that the reason she distributed this list is because she pulled these issues from the conversation with Mr. Litchet, and from his suggestions; stated that it is her understanding that this evening the Planning Board is to decide what recommendations they would want to make to the City Commission; and asked if anyone else has a different recollection. PB Vice Chair Blumetti pointed out that the 5 to 0 vote was to put this on the Planning Board's next meeting's agenda for discussion. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Normile agreed with PB Vice Chair Blumetti that the vote was to put this on the Planning Board's agenda for discussion; and added that the whole discussion was not very clear, the intent was to continue it, instead of "killing" it then. PB Member Gannon noted that in terms of the scope, there was another item that was discussed, it was somewhat relevant, and that was the process by which citizens file complaints, and by which reports are generated; referred to multiple websites and differences, and the coding on that, and there was a recommendation that it should be addressed. PB Chair Normile explained that Planning Board members are not addressing the individual issues, it is whether or not they want to recommend an ad-hoc committee to look into issues, and the list that she distributed earlier is only for this evening's discussion. Issue 1: Construction Safety PB Chair Normile stated that the first issue is construction safety; added that the Planning Board members had a discussion about the fact that there are two aspects to Code Enforcement, construction code enforcement and regular code enforcement, and actually Mr. Litchet, both in their conversation and in his writing, came up with what she thought was an outstanding idea of outsourcing construction safety. PB Member Ohlrich stated Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 48 that Mr. Litchet's suggestion is a good suggestion, she agrees with that, and she believes that the Planning Board can agree with that and dispose of this issue as part of the conversation this evening; and asked how this will work. PB Chair Normile explained that the Planning Board will present the City Commission with four or five recommendations, and this would be one of them. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that they need to establish who pays for that. PB Chair Normile stated that Mr. Litchet has the money, and asked Mr. Litchet to explain. Mr. Litchet stated that the funds are not budgeted right now, the City Commission would have to approve budgeting, and it would be up to them to decide which Fund to budget out of; said that the General Fund is always available; added that the City collects money from building permits, and he thinks thatit may be possible to use those funds; noted that he would have to work with the Legal staff to see if they can use the building funds for this type of study, although he thinks they could, because it relates to how the City enforces the Florida Building Code provisions; repeated that it: is something that he: needs to look into, and the City Commission are the ones who would tell staff how to budget it at this time; added that if the City has to hire an outside construction safety firm, it is going to cost money; said that he has no idea how much, because he does not have authorization to move forward and research it; added that, after talking to Purchasing, he understands that staff may be able to use one of the continuing services contracts, if anyone has this expertise; explained that the City has certain groups that they hire in advance to provide different things, that are "on call," if you will; said that they are professionals, and staff will check with them first, if that did not work, then they have to look into who has the proper credentials; noted that this is a professional procurement, he understands that they do not have to use an RFP, but he does not know if any of the continuing services contractors can meet this standard; said that it is something that he has to look into, if the City Commission decides they want this study, and then look at the funding mechanism, which will be either the General Fund, or the Building Enterprise Fund, which is the account with the Building Department, where the money from the building permits goes; and added that he has to check with the attorneys, but he thinks this could be the source of funding for this type of a study. PB Member Morriss suggested that maybe they can recommend that this becomes an extra fee for those who are going to build zero-lot-line high rise construction; noted that there should be a threshold, you would not want to do this for every five-story building, but if you are building an 18-story building next to an existing building, clearly it becomes more critical; and added that this is the cost of doing business for them, and have them pay for it versus the City. Mr. Litchet stated that his understanding was to have this firm review the City's construction safety process, how the City goes about doing all that in-house, right now, and give recommendations on a global level to use all across the City; added that he understands PB Member Morriss' proposal, that if there is special needs for each project, would the City hire someone from outside to do that; said that this is another thing to be recommended, but he thinks this would be burdensome on everybody; added that since some of these are still in the works, he would like to have the firm hear from staff, and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 48 then give staff a series of recommendations, such as what do to do in zero-lot-line situations, what to do when there are three roads around the construction, what to do if you move forward on a vacant parcel; noted that there are differences in safety levels, and the firm can give the City some staggered recommendations; pointed out that this also depends on the actual type of construction, if it is a post tension building or some other type of unique construction; noted that there is all kinds of different construction, and all require different safety techniques; stated that the City can ask the firm to analyze all of that, present them with what staff does now, and how staff can do better; added everybody wants to do safety better, and part of that may be a review of best practices around the state; said that he hopes that they focus mostly on southern construction techniques; and concluded that the City would need to know all of those things. PB Chair Normile stated that it was her understanding from their conversation that he was proposing outsourcing construction safety in its entirety, because he is SO squeezed for room, he is searching for a new building, etc., and he has limited staff. Mr. Litchet stated that it is not what he meant, and, as he wrote in his February 26, 2019 e-mail, what he meant was to have an outside firm review the City's staging processes, and work with staff to make sure they were using the right types of processes; added that the Planning Board can recommend anything they want; and questioned if it is possible to outsource the construction safety on every project, but that is a larger discussion. PB Chair Normile stated that she thought that the benefit of that was that it could happen overnight, and they would have experts out at the project right away, because the lot-line to lot-line issue is real, and it is upon us. Mr. Litchet stated that this type of process, of using a continuing services contract, is something that can be done immediately, and they would not have to use an RFP process, where you generally purchase services or goods for the City you have to go through an intensive advertisement process and put it out there for everybody to bid on; noted that these are professionals, staff can talk to them directly and probably get them on board very quickly, and get this expert advice or expert look at the current processes much more quickly than a normal process. PB Member Morriss suggested that, in the interest of time, the Planning Board treat each of the listed issues as a motion, as far as action to take, for simplicity, because Mr. Litchet would have to get some information before he can make a decision, the cost, etc.; and suggested that the Planning Board makes a motion recommending that the City Commission authorizes Mr. Litchet to research this topic. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked about the City's current Continuing Education protocol for construction safety. Mr. Litchet stated that all inspectors and City officials are licensed through the state of Florida, and one cannot be an inspector and be licensed without having extensive certifications; added that each discipline has specific continuing education requirements, he thinks that they do 30 continuing education hours each year; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 48 said that he is not a licensed construction official; noted that the City collects a specific fee on each building permit that goes into a specific training fund for all the building officials and all the inspectors licensed by the State of Florida, and the intent of those trainings is to address changes in construction safety, changes in codes, etc. PB Member Gannon stated that he agrees with Mr. Morriss' suggestion about a motion, but the statement needs to be clarified to state what Mr. Litchet is saying, hiring a construction safety firm to do the review, kind of one time, to update the plan; ;added that that PB Chair Normile talked about someone who is available on an on-going basis for large projects, SO it needs to be clarified that the construction safety firm is to do review and on-going support, or something of that nature, or at least to review what the costs would be to do that. Mr. Litchet stated that this is the Planning Board's choice, he only put in writing some things in response to what he heard from PB Chair Normile. PB Member Gannon stated that in his conversations with Mr. Litchet at the Downtown Condo Association meeting they discussed that in the past there was a staff person who went out on sites and checked on stuff, and all on-going projects were visited by a staff person; said that this was not the person that goes out and does the inspections; said that this person had the list of on-going projects, and made the route, checking that stuff, and if a call came in, this person could address it as well. Mr. Litchet noted that this is not what PB Chair Normile is talking about, but it is something that can be done, it can be discussed and could be considered; noted that there was a time that they had a person who was dedicated to looking at construction site issues and also the cleanliness of sites, such as are the sidewalks open, and those types of things; stated that right now they do not have a person that monitors construction safety on all sites on a full time basis; said this could be considered, but it is different from having a separate outside firm to do this, or to review construction staging plans; and said it could be done, but it gets into all kinds of threshold issues, because when you hire outside firms it is a much more complicated process. PB Member Morriss said he would revise his motion to include authorization for Mr. Litchet to research the costs of the educational materials needed, but also to add the cost of a staff member to doj just that, become the construction process commandant. PB Chair Normile asked what the Planning Board's recommendation is. PB Member Gannon said that his suggestion was to add to PB Member Morriss' motion authorization for Mr. Litchet to research the costs of hiring a construction safety firm to do review and on-going support; added that part of what Mr. Litchet can do is to find out if you hire a firm, what kind of people you hire, what the costs are for the plan review, and what are the costs for people to do the ongoing stuff; added that if they were engaged in doing the on-going reviews, that would provide them direct input to their process evaluation. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 48 Mr. Morriss repeated that motion as follows: Move to ask the City Commission to authorize Mr. Litchet to research for a firm to provide this educational process. PB Chair Normile added "to audit the current construction processes"; : and asked Mr. Litchet what he had suggested. Mr. Litchet said that he proposed tohave a firm come in and look at the way they currently do construction and construction staging, look at the current staff processes, let the City know what best practices are, and identify the areas that are working well and the areas that need improvements, SO that the City can make changes, and as the staff moves forward, they have that additional input to consider. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked for confirmation that this would be an "C one-time" deal, and it would not have to happen with every individual project. PB Member Gannon said that his suggestion is that this person would participate in the project reviews, because this is the best way to find out what is working and what is not working out. Mr. Litchet noted that people who are reviewing building plans have to be certified under the proper certifications under the State of Florida; pointed out that he is not proposing for someone to come in and start reviewing the building plans with staff, rather he is proposing that they review the construction staging processes, and the construction safety processes, which he believes are two different things; stated that there are private providers who review building plans, noting State Law allows that; added that there are very few of those within this jurisdiction, but they only review the building plans, they do not review construction safety issues, those are two different things in a way; one has to know what type of building is being built; he thinks that if an outside firm were to come in, they would say, for example, if you are building a post-tension structure, here are some things you should do to keep cables from snapping, or how you properly deal with debris falling off, when you have the rebars hanging out the sides, etc.; or when you have a steel building where you do not have those and you have easier wraps for the building, etc.; they would be giving some input on the different types of construction we see in Sarasota, especially the high rise construction, and point out the different things in safety that are important, such as how you best control dust off these things; said that almost all of these large buildings have a construction safety officer; maybe the City should require that the construction safety officers have certain certifications, these are some of the things they can give us advise on. PB Chair Normile moved to recommend to the City Commission that Mr. Litchet be authorized to investigate hiring a construction safety firm to audit the current construction staging and safety processes, recommend best practices, and make recommendations. PB Member Ohlrich seconded that motion. The motion was approved unanimously (vote of 5 to 0). Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 48 Issue 2: Ad-hoc Committee PB Chair Normile said that the second recommendation is that the Planning Board recommends to the City Commission the formation of an ad-hoc committee to study other Code Enforcement issues, not related to construction safety. PB Member Morriss said that this has to do with integration, for example at the CCNA meetings recently there was discussion regarding allowing auxiliary units on properties to help with affordable housing, and he is thinking that this is a good thing, but it could also become a real problem should the people who are: renting not be responsible, or there are people who want to do party houses; added that code enforcement becomes a neighborhood thing; said that the idea of the ad hoc committee having people from the neighborhood exploring the questions and concerns, and especially with noise ordinances, we keep hearing complaints about noise violations, that is after hours almost always, and you have the police involved, sO that component needs to be integrated in the process; suggested that someone from the Planning Board, preferably not him, and someone from the Police Department (SPD) and CCNA. PB Member Gannon suggested someone from the Homeless Outreach Team under SPD; and asked if property trespassing is a code enforcement issue. PB Chair) Normile noted that this is not al building issue. Mr. Litchet stated that that he does not handle any criminal issues. PB Member Ohlrich suggested the inclusion of people from City Departments, such as Legal, Planning and Neighborhood Services. Attorney Connolly suggested against the inclusion of staff; and explained that they would not be able to talk to each other because of the Sunshine Laws. PB Member Ohlrich asked if they could include one staff person. Attorney Connolly stated that they can include one staff representative. PB Member Ohlrich noted that the problem she sees with an ad hoc committee with such an eclectic group is getting a focus, and she does not know how the Planning Board can determine what the focus is if they needn't determine their own focus. PB Chair Normile said that there will be a Planning Board member on it. PB Member Gannon suggested that the Planning Board has to come up with a scope for that, as far as what the Planning Board expects to see out of this, and he noted that he does not think the Planning Board is prepared to do that this evening, but the scope needs to be discussed. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he agrees with the recommendation about construction safety, but he disagrees with recommendations 2, 3, and 4 (on the list distributed by PB Chair Normile). PB Chair Normile suggested a member of the Planning Board, a representative of the Police Department, a staff representative and a few citizens. PB Member Morriss noted that the Planning Board member having participated in the Planning Board meetings, is familiar with the concerns and would know how to direct the ad hoc committee; and asked it the if the CCNA representative can also be considered the citizens. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the CCNA Executive Committee could select somebody from the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 48 group, someone who has the time and thei interest. PB Member Gannon stated that if there is a need to expand, or some other expertise is needed, then "at-large" members may be added. PB Chair Normile said the City Commission can decide who else. PB Member Gannon asked about the wording for the motion. PB Chair Normile said that the motion should say the ad hoc committee should include a Planning Board member, CCNA, SPD, and staff representation, and if they want more persons, the City Commission can add them. PB Vice Chair Blumetti made the motion and PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. Mr. Cover stated that he wanted to put on the record that hel has been through this exercise before, in other jurisdictions, and each time the result was that in order to do what you want to do you need to increase staff; added that it is a lot of work, and the recommendation is usually the same, you have to increase staff, and ultimately it goes to the legislative body to determine if they want to increase staff or not. PB Chair Normile said she thinks this is exactly what would happen. PB Member Morriss stated that this process would give enough grounds to justify it. PB Member Gannon added that if there is need for more staff, then it can be presented to the public, this is the reason staff is needed, and this is how these issues can be improved. Mr. Litchet stated that he is always concerned when committees are formed when they do not address specific issues; noted that after three meetings he still does not understand what the issue is, pointed out that PB Member Ohlrich said it as well, and asked what is the focus; added that the best thing to do is to identify specific problems and try to solve them; repeated that he does not understand what is the problem, but it is the Planning Board's motion; added that he does not think they have the staff to handle another committee right now, as busy as staff is with all the other committees that they have going at this time; said that he has said this before and will say it again in public, that there is no appreciation for the amount of energy and staff time spent to run any committee, let alone one that would be open ended in this manner; added that after handling the Tree Committee, which was very focused and still took sixteen months and twenty four hearings, he did not think that anybody has an understanding of the effort these types of things take, and this will be even more SO, that is why he would not be supportive of that; and said that the Planning Board has the right to pass the motion and move forward to see what happens. PB Member Morriss stated that he tends to agree but he thinks that is item #3, (on PB Chair Normile's recommendation list), to review all Codes, and said that he absolutely disagrees with that; suggested that they should get through the first step; added that he thinksi it is all about integration, bringing in Police and staff and then identifying what are the focal points; and said that the Planning Board has a sense of what they are because they hear a lot. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 39 of 48 PB Member Gannon addressed Mr. Litchet and said that he understands the amount of time the Tree Advisory Committee has taken up, it is very time consuming, but the Planning Board is struggling; asked what other alternative they have to bring up these specific issues and seek resolution in a concerted way;and added that the Planning Board has been back and forth trying to find different things, and this was one way to put them together and get them resolved. Mr. Litchet repeated that he does not know what those specific issues are, for example, if someone were to say the problem relates to a specific noise issue, then he would have a specific recommendation to make. Attorney Connolly noted that he heard several times in this discussion concerns about noise, and pointed out that noise is addressed in the City Code, and it does not go to the Code Compliance Special Magistrate; explained that it goes to the Police Department which either makes an arrest or issues summons, and then it goes to the County Court. Mr. Litchet agreed and pointed out that he does not enforce it. PB Chair Normile noted that it [noise] should not be included. Attorney Connolly said it goes to the Police; added that he does not understand why the Planning Board wants an SPD representative in the ad hoc committee; and asked Mr. Litchet how many times he has seen a Police Officer with the Compliance Special Magistrate, in the 35 years of doing Code Compliance. Mr. Litchet said there have been times when they filmed some violations during certain raids, such as housing violations, the Police has come in for things like that; noted that they work cooperatively, for example, if the Police Department, during their shifts, see an area with junk cars or things like that, then they communicate with his staff, and that is the extent of it; added that they have explored if they can go with them on different raids and work cooperatively, but that raises all sorts of constitutional issues with the warrants and things like that; and concluded that trespassing and noise are police issues. PB Chair Normile said that SPD is "eyes on the ground" when there are no staff, they are there to see problems, and they have requested to be part of it. PB Member Ohlrich said that she happened to go to a Code Compliance hearing last Thursday, did not stay for the whole thing, it was in [City Hall] Rm 112, and she was impressed about what a legal event this was, it was not a discussion, it was presentation of facts, and the end result was that the property owner was issued a fine; said that she thought if it is easier for this person to pay the small fine, because it seemed to her that it was a small fine, pay the fine this time, and the next time, and the next time, instead of really fixing the problem; and asked if that is part of the what the Planning Board is discussing this evening. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked what that has to do with the Planning Board, and the Planning Board's role and duties. PB Member Ohlrich said that it may have something to do with the establishment of the ad hoc committee and helping it focus, maybe fining and the size of the fine is something the committee could discuss. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 40 of 48 Attorney Connolly stated that he has a real problem with that; said that the Planning Board has to remember that this is a legal proceeding, the special Magistrate is a judge, and he must comply with the facts and the law, he has to make a decision and impose a fine, and no one can tell him what that fine should be, absolutely, positively, no one; if someone disagrees, they appeal it to the Circuit Court. PB Chair Normile stated that no one is talking about speaking to Magistrates; noted that in her conversation with Mr. Litchet, and in his writing, he stated that he would like to have the Codes reviewed, that is what the Planning Board is talking about; the Planning Board did not make that recommendation, Mr. Litchet thought that they might need to be updated by the Legal Department. Mr. Litchet said that he wrote his response. in an attempt to give some options, and in one of his recommendations he said that the Planning Board is not the Board that should be doing this; added that he wanted to be responsive to the Planning Board, and wrote out some options, and he certainly has and he can live with these options; said that his boss, Deputy City Manager Brown has suggested that maybe, at some point, he can do a Code Compliance 101 for the City Commission; added that it would be helpful to everyone; pointed out that they are bound by State Statute in terms of the amount of the fines and things they can do, fines are set out in the State Statutes; added that many people do not understand that the first time violators get one thing, but the State also provides for repeat violators, added that the City was one of the first to pick up on that and adopted it in the City ordinance; said that a fine can run $500.00 dollars per day, noting that is not a minimal fine; said that the impetus seems to be that the City is too soft in terms of Code Compliance; noted that he does not think that Code Compliance is all about fines, it is about how to get all these people and cases resolved, he wants to see compliance and uses the fines as the last resort, it is not what they should be focused on, but it is a necessary part of this very legalistic process that he has to follow step by step; illustrated the code compliance fines that the City has collected compared to surrounding jurisdictions; shared a compilation of annual Code Compliance fines collected by the City of Sarasota, City of Bradenton, Sarasota County and Manatee County, for the years 2013 through 2018; noted that these fines have been paid; pointed out that when they fine someone they do not necessarily pay immediately, but they put a lien on their property and it gathers interest, SO it is a very effective tool; said that compared to the surrounding jurisdictions, the City of Sarasota has a robust program; shared the volumes of cases the City has pursued in the last three years (2016 through 2018), including Code Compliance cases, appeals filed, and total hearings; said that it is a very busy process, he pretty much runs a little law office all by himself; noted that Code Compliance hearings are on Thursdays, they do up to 35 cases a day, it is a tremendous work load already, but each case is different; said that the thing that gets lost is that each case. has to be looked at individually, and the situations that are going on, they cannot resolve everything; said that they currently have a case in Circuit Court that has been around for seven years, they got authority from the Magistrate to go in and do certain things on that property, and right now it has been tied up in court, for a couple years; stated that his office is not the last stop, if someone wants to fight about it, they can fight it forever, and the City cannot do Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 41 of 48 anything about it; added that there are also tough cases, the real hardship cases, there is case with an older lady, the Magistrate ordered compliance, the City has cleaned that property many times, they got SO tired of cleaning it, they decided to go to the City Commission and do a court case, because that is the next step, but there was no political will, and he does not blame them; asked what is one to do, every case has its own individual facts and that is what gets lost in these big-type discussions, and that is the reason he gets frustrated if there is no focus; said that if someone were to say there are too many junk cars around, he can address that, or, there are too many housing violations, OK, do you want us to do housing sweeps block by block, and SO forth; stated that back in the 2000s he had twice the staff he has now, and the City had a Commission that was very enthusiastic about doing housing and things like that, and the City had all kinds of unique programs, but, as Mr. Cover said earlier, that takes money, if they want to do it, and provide additional staffing; said that then his Department can do it; said he just does not understand what they are not doing right at this point, obviously it is something but nobody has voiced it to him yet, to say here is a list of what you should be doing better with your code compliance; and said that the Planning Board can go ahead and move forward with their motions. PB Member Gannon referred to Mr. Litchet's S recommendations in his email and said that he is making some good recommendations. PB Chair Normile said that the first recommendation in Mr. Litchet's email was that the City Attorney's Office review the Codes, and pointed out that it is Mr. Litchet's recommendation, it did not come from the Planning Board. Mr. Litchet said that he is responding to what he is hearing, the last time he was before the Planning Board he heard comments referring to the Codes and questions about why the Codes cannot move more quickly; added that he has no problem with someone who has a great legal mind to look at everything the City has and say here is the best we have, and the most up-to-date with the State law, because the City needs to be up-to-date with that, and the City Attorney's Office does very well with that; stated that hei is always open to review, there are model Ordinances out there, if someone wants to take the time to look at them, he has been looking and hel has not found out yet anything that stands out to him, but he has not had time for an extensive search that something like that could take; and concluded that this is reasonable. Attorney Connolly noted that Mr. Litchet's recommendation refers to the adopted Code process, but recommendation #2 on PB Chair Normile's list states "other code enforcement issues." Mr. Litchet said that the Planning Board is equating recommendation #3 on PB Chair Normile's list to his recommendation #1. Attorney Connolly said that recommendation #3 on PB Chair Normile's list refers to review of all Codes, but all Mr. Litchet was talking about was the process; explained that they are talking about regulation versus procedure; and asked if PB Chair Normile is talking about regulation or procedure. Mr. Litchet said that in his second paragraph. he mentions review of codes, if that is what the Planning Board thinks, but personally he thinks that the Codes are fine with state statutes. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 42 of 48 Attorney Connolly said that Mr. Litchet is referring to the process. PB Chair Normile said thati is fine, she said that this did not come from thel Planning Board, they asked Mr. Litchet what he needs and he put down recommendations, because he is the guy who knows what would help, that is where this comes from. PB Member Morriss said when the community says we want all the junk cars taken care of, and all the broken windows fixed, they have got to know that they have to pay: for that, and the City has to. have the staff to do this kind of intensive work, that can be part of this; said that it can be extremely helpful to Mr. Litchet's S department, to say ify you want all this stuff you have to pay for it, and that in-itself is worthwhile; he does not know how they can still perform after losing half of their staff, and before it was not as bad as it is now; added that clearly this could shed some light and say if we want this community to be a first class community, but we do not give the people who run it the tools to do it, it is crazy, and we need to fix it; stated that this is what this is about, it is not about pointing fingers, there may be better practices out there, but this is a process; and repeated that it is about shedding some light on this, not because something wrong is being done, but maybe we need to pay for what we want. PB Member Gannon stated that he likes Mr. Litchet's proposal and he is thinking that instead of the ad hoc committee approach, if there is a way in this process that is being led by staff, they could have a community input process, whether it is through individual meetings with each of the groups, talking about the facts, what is each one's perspective on this and how each one is impacted, and then that could go into that review process; added that one of the big issues the Planning Board had was the public confidence in the process, the Planning Board kept hearing that, but if the public knew that here is a process that is going on, review it and provided input, the groups that had input could sign up, and then could come back and have a public discussion, and have a meeting to discuss the final recommendations. PB Member Ohlrich noted that it sounds like the Planning Board is walking away from an ad hoc committee approach and moving toward requesting that the City Attorney's office review our current code compliance as Mr. Litchet stated in the paragraph in his first prong. Discussion ensued. PBI Member Ohlrich moved that the Planning Board ask the City Commission to direct the City Attorney's Office to review [the City's] current Code Compliance adopted process to ensure it is the most efficient and fair model allowed by the Florida Statutes; also that the City Attorney's Office review [the City's] adopted model codes such as [the City's] Standard Housing Code and the Unsafe Building Abatement Code, to see if updates are needed, or whether there are other current codes that maybe more effective; also recommend that the City Attorney's Office review any other programs such as [the City's] adopted Mortgage Foreclosure Registration Program, that are utilized in the State of Florida, that are legally defensible, and that the City of Sarasota may wish to adopt. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 43 of 48 The motion was seconded by PB Member Morriss. PB Member Ohlrich, speaking to her motion, said that this is almost verbatim from Mr. Litchet's memo. PB Member Morriss said that he would also like to see how to analyze staffing models. PB Member Gannon said that it can be addressed separately. Motion is approved with a vote 4 to 1 (PB Vice Chair Blumetti voted "No.") 3. Lot-line to Lot-line Construction PB Chair Normile explained issue #4 on her list; said that during the February meeting, both Mr. Litchet and Attorney Connolly spoke at length about lot-line to lot-line issues which have caused a problem; noted that both Mr. Litchet's staff and Attorney Connolly have said that this is within the purview of the Planning Board, because it is a zoning issue; pointed out that during her meeting with Mr. Litchet, they discussed the possibility of using the City's powers to look at the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, the City's use of the City's police powers, that can be used to push back buildings, etc. if the health, safety and welfare of citizens is involved; said that Mr. Litchet had mentioned thatl he had hoped to get a brief on this topic from Mr. Fournier, but that has to be requested by the City Commission; and added that she spoke with Mr. Fournier, and he said that it is entirely possible, the City's police powers can be used, but he needs to do the research, and he needs to be directed to do SO by the City Commission. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked what setbacks have to do with the health, safety and welfare of the public. PB Chair Normile said it is the lot-line to lot-line construction issue, that Mr. Litchet said how difficult the construction is; added that the Planning Board approves the site plans, and Zoning Code changes; said that if you can push back lot-line to lot-line building by sO many feet SO that there is room for netting, you can prove it is a nexus with the problem. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if this is something that should come from Mr. Cover with the setbacks and zoning. PB Chair Normile said that is the next recommendation. Attorney Connolly explained that this all originated with the Duany Downtown Code which was adopted in 2002; noted that the Duany philosophy was that the City has all these primary streets and you have to bring the building up to the street; stated that in the old days the City had minimum setbacks, and now we. have maximum setbacks, and that is what has caused the problem; said there are many places in town that you are allowed to build lot-line to lot-line, SO what this issue is talking about is, should we, collectively the City of Sarasota, change the Zoning Code to do away with the 100% lot coverage, and go back to the old days of having required setbacks; pointed out that the problem is that the code was changed in 2002 to allow 100% building footprint, and when now you change it to allow 90% building foot print, you are raising issues of whether this is a Bert Harris Act; and said that is the type of research Mr. Fournier would need to get into. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 44 of 48 Mr. Litchet said that he had conversations with Mr. Fournier, he will be going to the City Commission himself to discuss this issue, and he is going to suggest items 4 and 5 be reviewed; noted that Mr. Cover already has been to the City Commission with his nine initiatives, and they also involve lot-line to lot-line setback issues, especially along South Palm Avenue, which is what is being discussed here; added they have caused a lot of our stresses and Mr. Fournier thinks they should look at it and put it in as much a priority as possible; noted that #4 deals with the issue, noting some people believe that even though the Zoning Code allows construction to the lot-line, he can say to somebody that they have to build 20 ft. back from the lot line; stated he does not have that authority, unless his lawyer tells him he can tell someone to: move, and not be consistent with the adopted code; said that he has nothing in writing from the City Attorney's Office telling him that he can turn down a project that meets all code standards because he thinks it is not compatible; and said the City needs to solve that one, and clarify what staff can do and cannot do, because he also worries about the Bert Harris Act. PB Chair Normile said that it is exactly what Mr. Fournier said, he is willing to do it but needs to be directed by the City Commission. PB Member Ohlrich said that she thinks she heard Mr. Litchet say that the City Attorney supports this recommendation, Mr. Cover is already looking into it, and if the Planning Board supports these as well, then it would be very helpful to the City Commission. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked Mr. Cover to speak about this issue. Mr. Cover said that for recommendation #4 he needs to hear from the City Attorney; and added that staff is also looking at some things that relate to #5 on the list. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if this needs to come from the Planning Board. Mr. Cover said "No." PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if it is already in the works. Attorney Connolly said that it is in the works to the extent that there is a process, Zoning Text Amendment, that the Planning Department got approval from the City Commission to start, but he does not know when it will get to the public hearing stage. Mr. Cover said that they are looking at the process and at setbacks, which is one of the nine initiatives. Mr. Litchet said that this is a typical Planning Board recommendation, the Planning Board is supposed to look at the codes and make them better, it is what a Planning Board can do, it is planning, talking about what is the right zoning, the right comprehensive plan in these different areas; and concluded that this is what the Planning Board members are seated to do, this is what the Planning Board is here for and he wished they did more of it. Mr. Litchet and Mr. Cover said that for #4 staff needs a legal analysis. PB Member Gannon moved that the Planning Board recommend to the City Commission to authorize the City Attorney prepare a legal brief on the City's police power relative to requiring larger setbacks or other concessions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. PB Vice Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 45 of 48 Motion is passed unanimously (vote 5 to 0). PB Chair Normile stated that the last one is a back-up for Mr. Cover's Department. PB Member Gannon stated that he thinks that the City Commission has already authorized Mr. Cover to research this, and since the City Commission has already acted on this, this recommendation is not necessary; and added that he would like to go back to recommendation #3 and pick up Mr. Litchet's second prong. PB Member Ohlrich said that the Planning Board would be remiss if they did not address that, because it brings up staffing levels, and she thinks that this will be what they will discover. PB Member Gannon pointed out that it is the process, again, and you review the process, how it is implemented, and what is the best use of staff, and part of that process could be, here are some things that could be automated; noted Mr. Murphy stated that they are implementing a building construction management software package, or something that will enable them to do things better; added that this means that citizens will have better and quicker access to information, to find out things, and maybe that can result in reducing some staffing requirements over here, and you can use that staff to do other things; said that it needs to be looked at; and noted that in terms of wording, he would take the first sentence of the recommendation. PB Member Gannon moved the Planning Board recommend to the City Commission to direct the City Attorney's Office to conduct a review of the Code Compliance processing staffing levels. PB Member Morriss said that the City Attorney's Office is not qualified to make staff level recommendations. PB Member Gannon asked Mr. Litchet to speak to that before finalizing the motion. Mr. Litchet said that if they are going to do something like prong #2, they look at the process and what it entails and the actual amount of staffing they have; noted that Code Compliance is a very legalistic process, and repeated that he is running a small law office up there, they have a lot of similarities in what they do procedure-wise; said that he also thinks that when the City Attorney does this type of analysis they should talk with his staff directly about the number of cases; added that there is data out there that they can compare between jurisdictions, just like between building inspectors the general rule is how many inspections they do per day; explained that if it is excessive, you are not doing a great job; said that this can be equated to the code compliance world, where the recommended average for a code compliance inspector is to do twenty five inspections per day, and you guys are doing forty five or something, he thinks it is something; said that the Attorney's Office would have a good handle on that; added that no matter what electronic changes they make to the system, code compliance is still very paper and process oriented, and one cannot get away from it, you still have to serve people, you got to serve them with these documents and you have to doiti in a certain way, and you have to post certain things, and to do all that it takes administrative staff, and there is only SO many cases you can handle; said that you have to figure out the percentage that are going to get appealed, maybe they have to go to two days a week if they double their staff, and noted that there was a time when they did two days of hearings; said all of that has to be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 46 of 48 looked at; they understand the constraints of what these processes take, their attorneys have handled cases for us, they can help us, and we can talk about it, that is the reason he thinks they will be the best to take a look at that. PB Member Gannon said that if you are looking at it, what is the end product that is a legal case that goes to court, then you have to know at the very beginning when you are gathering the data, that you are doing it in a way that was legal and it is defensible. Mr. Litchet said he appreciates that; noted that the cases they handle on Thursdays are handled just like a case would be in the County Court; added everybody has the same rights, staff has to present evidence, it is very formal, no hearsay, they have to have pictures, and they have to have an independent Magistrate, staff is not always right, they are not always right, that is how it works. PB Member Ohlrich said it was very enlightening to her when she stumbled upon that hearing; and asked PB Member Gannon if she could add to his motion the following language: " or at their discretion engage another appropriate professional" because that is what Mr. Litchet has in his writing. PB Member Gannon, the motion maker, agreed to the addition to his motion. The revised motion is: The Planning Board recommends to the City Commission to direct the City Attorney's Office to conduct a review of the Code Compliance processing staffing levels, or at their discretion engage another appropriate professional. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he thinks the Planning Board should stay out of the code compliance process. The revised motion passes with a vote of 4 to 1. (PB Vice Chair Blumetti voted "No.") PB Chair Normile said that the plan was to take these recommendations to the City Commission; and said that it is her understanding that Planning has a big presentation on May 6, and probably that is not a good day to do this. Mr. Cover agreed that Planning has a big presentation on process and administrative review on May 6. PB Chair Normile asked if they can request to be placed on the City Commission's agenda for the following meeting, on May 20, 2019. Mr. Litchet suggested that they request to be scheduled as soon as possible, noting he knows that May 20 is a big meeting, because his presentation for the Tree Committee was pushed back from that date to the first meeting in July. PB Chair Normile stated that the best way to do this is for the entire Planning Board to go; noted that Mr. Connolly said that there is a place in the afternoon, where you can request some time to do an Advisory Board report. Attorney Connolly said it is up to the City Auditor and Clerk's Office as to what meeting this gets on; explained that what he was talking about is that if the Planning Board assigns the Chair to go make the report, the Advisory Board reports are scheduled in the afternoon session; and added that if PB Chair Normile is talking about bringing the whole Planning Board, that is a joint Planning Board/City Commission meeting which she would have to ask the City Commission to schedule. PB Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 47 of 48 Chair Normile said that is not the way they did it with the Police Advisory Panel, when they went in, the five of them sat there and presented the report. Attorney Connolly stated that it was a joint meeting then; added that the Planning Board cannot set the joint meeting, only the City Commission can; explained that the Planning Board has to ask Mr. Cover, as the Secretary to the Planning Board, to make that request to the City Commission and see what their desire would be, because they control their agenda. PB Chair Normile asked Secretary Cover to do that; and asked the Planning Board Members to let Mr. Cover know if they are available. PB Member Morriss stated that he would prefer the Planning Board authorize PB Chair Normile to make the presentation and to avoid a big production like that. PB Chair Normile said that it is not a production, and it is more effective if most people show up; and added that the last time it was very effective, the entire panel showed up. Discussion ensued regarding PB Member availability. Mr. Cover referred to earlier this evening when the Planning Board requested that an applicant hold aj pre-construction pubic workshop; said that it is good that they agreed to do that; said that and he wanted to let the Planning Board know that it is not a requirement, but every time they do that, they require staff to attend the public workshop; noted that it is Mr. Litchet's staff that needs to attend; said that he wants to talk with the Planning Board about that in the future, because he does not want to load up Mr. Litchet or his staff with all these additional workshops and pre-construction meetings; added that Mr. Litchet also had some concerns about what might get accomplished in those workshops; and requested that the Planning Board hold up on doing that, and have a discussion as to what this really means and how it impacts staff. PB Chair Normile said it was a good idea. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said it was a proffer. Mr. Cover said he understands all that, but it adds more night meetings, and right now staff is buried. PB Member Gannon suggested this be a discussion item on the agenda of the next PB meeting. PB Chair Normile asked to put the code enforcement discussion on the next meeting's agenda sO that she would have some time to write the recommendations down and present them for member approval or disapproval, as the case may be; explained she wants to write the motions again, to make sure she has the correct wording, and they are reading exactly as what the Planning Board said. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that if she wants to make a summary that is fine, but he did not think they need to vote again. PB Chair Normile agreed and said that it can be first on the agenda, SO Mr. Litchet does not have to stay late, because most of these came from his memo or his comments during their meeting. Discussion ensued. Mr. Cover suggested that PB Chair Normile send her compilation of motions to his office, and his staff will distribute it to the PB members and Mr. Litchet, SO he does not have to attend the next meeting. PB Chair Normile agreed. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she thinks she is speaking on behalf of all PB Members, and said "Thank you, Mr. Litchet;" added that she knows this started out as a big shock to him, but she thinks what the Planning Board moved this evening is going to end up Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 48 of 48 helping Mr. Litchet's Department, the Planning Board, and the people who live in the City; and thanked again Mr. Litchet for coming along with the Planning Board on this journey. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 10:29 P.M. 2w7 hsnde Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Eileen W. Normile, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]