CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board David Morriss, Chair Members Present: Patrick Gannon, Vice Chair Members Robert Lindsay, Chris Gallagher, Eileen Normile Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, AICP, General Manager, Neighborhood & Development Services Timothy D. Litchet, Director, Neighborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development Services Lucia Panica, Chief Planner Dan Greenberg, Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Morriss called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO1 THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by thel Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge of Conduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those wishing to speak at tonight's meeting. B. Non-Quasi-ludicial Public Hearings 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: Application 17-ZTA-02 proposes amending Article VII, Regulations of General Applicability, Division 3.1, Tree Protection, and Section VII-322, Permit Conditions, Subsections (2) a., and b., regarding the regulations applicable to tree mitigation. (Timothy D. Litchet, Director) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 18 Staff Presentation: Mr. Litchet, Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, introduced himself for the record; stated that Application 17-ZTA-02 proposes two changes to the City's Tree Protection regulations, one intends to revise the requirements to tree mitigation standards; noted that current tree mitigation requirements are based on a sliding scale, while the proposed mitigation requirements call for the total mitigation caliper inches to be equal or greater to the total caliper inches removed, except in the cases of proposed affordable housing developments, which will be required to meet half of the mitigation requirements; added that the second change relates to the location of where the required mitigation trees are to be planted; explained that the current requirements allow mitigation to take place on private properties within an one-thousand-foot radius of the removal site; stated the proposed language allows mitigation trees to be located anywhere in the neighborhood of where the tree was removed; noted that these changes were presented to the City Commission by citizens, the City Commission then directed staff to bring them forward; and added that staff has received comments from the public, both in support of and in opposition to the proposal. PB Member Gallagher asked for clarification regarding statements in the report and requested information about how the City complies with the 40% tree canopy coverage within the City contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Director Litchet stated there is a Tree Canopy Committee that is currently compiling data on trees citywide that will include canopy information; and noted the exact percentage of citywide tree canopy coverage has not yet been established. PB Member Gallagher noted that the upcoming Form Based Code will probably address this issue, and asked Director Litchet if that section of the new code has been drafted yet. Director Litchet stated that he has not seen the final draft yet. PB Member Gallagher asked what the requirement of " one inch per one inch" was based on, and if it were a policy suggested by the City Commission. Director Litchet stated that it was included in PB Member Gannon's proposal to the City Commission; added that the City Commission did not ask staff for an analysis, rather they directed staff to bring the amendment forward. PB Member Gallagher asked Director Litchet if he was aware of the criticisms relating to the way the City is using the tree mitigation funds; suggesting that more trees should be planted in the City instead of putting dollars in the mitigation fund; and asked if he is aware of the status of the mitigation funds. Director Litchet stated that the tree mitigation fund has collected approximately $130,000 dollars, of which $75,000 are going to the citywide tree survey; and added that the remainder of the fees are eligible to plant trees or to fund other activities relating to the city's tree canopy coverage, as designated in Resolution 16R-2560, paragraph 2 (d). PB Member Gallagher asked for clarification about Mr. Murphy's comments at the DRC relating to space concerns for planting trees on private lots or within the City, because trees need enough room to expand; added that the results of the tree survey will provide information about available space for mitigation in the city; and noted that different types of lot coverage requirements may present space limitations as well. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated that this issue is addressed on page 4 of the proposed Ordinance. PB Member Gallagher noted that in reviewing the correspondence in the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 18 packet, he is concerned about planting trees in the downtown area where there is there are zero lot line developments. Discussion ensued. Responding to PB Vice Chair Gannon, Director Litchet explained the process of determining whether to plant mitigation trees, or to pay: into the fund. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked what the cost differential due to the proposed changes would be. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked for clarification regarding the minimum requirements for mitigation trees. Discussion ensued. PB Member Normile asked if the fees charged to developers for mitigation included the costs of planting the trees and caring for the trees until they are established. Director Litchet indicated that the city would be responsible for those costs. PB. Normile asked how much of the Tree Mitigation Fund has been allocated to planting mitigation trees. Director Litchet stated that he did not have that information. The Parks Dept. handles most tree plantings. Asked if there was any line item in the fund specifically "For Purchase Of Trees" to indicate how much is actually spent on tree mitigation, Director Litchet responded "No." PB Member Normile stated that she disagrees with references to neighborhood, " because there are areas, like the one she lives in, that do not have a formal neighborhood name, or a homeowners association, that could benefit from some trees. PB Member Lindsay stated that large trees often are not container grown and have difficulty surviving when transplanted, while smalller container grown trees are healthier, and grow larger. Director Litchet agreed, and pointed out that the proposed language offers the option to use 3-inch caliper trees, and eliminates the requirement for larger trees. PB Chair Morriss asked if it is easy to find foster parents for a tree. Director Litchet stated that they have been successful sO far. PB Chair Morriss asked if there has been any research regarding Tree Ordinances in other municipalities, to see what others are doing. Director Litchet stated that he had been directed by the City Commission to move this proposal forward. PB Chair Morriss asked if the proposed amendment affects the current process of Variances to protect a tree. Director Litchet stated that this issue was addressed in previous amendments. PB Chair Morriss asked how what the time limit was to find a foster parent for a mitigation tree. Director Litchet stated that the tree must be planted forty-five days after the completion of the project. PB Member Gallagher asked what the status of the RFP for the Tree survey was. Director Litchet stated it is in Purchasing. Discussion ensued. Public Input 1. John Harshman, resident and business owner in downtown Sarasota - spoke in opposition based on unforeseen consequences relating to the costs of a project. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 18 2. Jono Miller spoke in opposition to the one year establishment period, suggested that it be increased by at least two years; and questioned if the homeowner, the foster parent, or the City is responsible if the tree dies. 3. Nathan Wilson - stated that Sarasota had a basic canopy coverage survey completed by satellite in 2009-10 which showed that the City has 32% coverage; stated that no trees are planted using the Tree Mitigation Fund; pointed out that the Neighborhood Tree Planting Ordinance has been presented to CCNA and has been approved, and currently is in a pilot program; stated he supports the concept of using smaller trees for mitigation; noted the foster parent for mitigation trees process is working because the City maintains a list of interested citizens who sign up on line, sO when a developer needs a foster parent for a tree, one is found quickly through the list; and stated he supports required contributions to the fund in the cases of: no foster parent. 4. Sonja Rathfelder, resident - spoke in opposition to changing the tree ordinance, discussed her family's history in Sarasota, and stated the requirements were already too cumbersome for property owners. 5. Christine Schlesinger had left the chambers and did not speak. 6. David Young, Landscape Architect - stated the new code is flawed; pointed out that mitigation using equivalent number of inch caliper generates exponential growth which results in problems; suggested where mitigation trees should be placed should be made clear; and stated that this discourages development in the City which encourages urban sprawl. 7. Diane Schleicher, resident - stated she agrees with previous speaker; stated is inappropriate for the City to tell landowners who want to remove a dead tree from their property that they have to replace it; and stated that it should be the land- owner's choice. 8. Tammy Kovar, Arborist and resident - stated she supports the preservation of current trees, they are a huge asset to the City; and stated that there are grants to pay for the canopy surveys. 9. Michael Halflants - spoke in opposition to the inch for inch requirement; stated it is not doable; it encourages development away from the city and creates urban sprawl; and suggested staff research and do what other cities do for canopy coverage in the urban areas. 10. Phil Smith - stated trees should be planted the right location where they can be sustainable; added there has been no public vetting of the proposed ordinance, and staff has not had an opportunity to analyze this. 11. Pamela Mones, resident of the Rosemary District - spoke in opposition because there is no place to put the trees; noted that the Code is problematic, making tree planting Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 18 difficult due to excess requirements for utilities, wide sidewalks, no green space, build next to the sidewalk, etc.; encourages the City to rethink these changes, and make them work with the other Code requirements. 12. Beverly Millburn 13. Robert Bergs spoke in opposition stating this is hurting not only developers but also owners; stated it is not right to have a property zoned for 10-stories of development but developers are hesitant to work with the property because of the trees on the property; and stated the need to consider unintended consequences. PB Vice Chair Gannon moved to continue the matter. PB Member Normile seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that the testimony revealed that the public input process was skipped; added that he would like to see more dialogue to determine what is the most workable way around this issue; noted that several knowledgeable people in the landscape business testified that changes are needed to the proposed language; stated that if the proposed language needs to be revised then there should be workshops where issues are discussed; noted that other problems, such as where a developer puts the mitigation trees, are also process oriented; and stated the process should be streamlined and costs should be considered. Speaking to her second PB Member Normile stated that she is surprised with the tension between canopy and density, which is the conversation across the City recently; questioned how the City force the developer to build to the lot line and then have these tree requirements; stated new urbanism and tree ordinances coexist in other cities, sO let's look at them and see what they are doing; noted the EDCM needs to be looked at as far as sidewalk requirements and making room for trees; stated we have made the planting of trees impossible; and suggested more research so it could be done right. PB Member Gallagher stated he supports the motion; thanked the public for the eloquent, smart, and informed input; noted continuing in this format is the correct form to move forward; stated we have visions about how the downtown should look like, we have room for trees; stated that he asked earlier if this is addressed in the Form Based Code, because a standard Form Based Code recognizes that there are parts of the City that are more rural and there are parts of the City that are more urban, and what is good for one part is not necessarily good for the other part; stated these things need to be tailored to where they make sense; and noted trees are possible in the urban environment, and that is where the focus should be. PB Member Lindsay stated that there are. fundamental conflicts, one of which is to impose suburban visions to the most urban part of the county; pointed out that in the planning process with Duany, the concept of the transect was introduced, where the use of trees and landscaping varies from the urban area to the rural and the continuum in between: is Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 18 transecting; stated what we should be looking for in the urban area is street trees, not creating a pseudo-forest, because that is not appropriate; added that one can say we are putting more people here, sO that we do not have urban sprawl in the county; stated that this is a city wide ordinance that applies to several zone districts, such as single family residential and downtown districts where there are different requirements; pointed out that per the transect concept, the plantings in most urban areas are more formal, the trees are uniformly spaced because you are doing formal landscaping in a confined area, and it is different in the residential neighborhoods, then we get in the situation that Mr. Halflants presented earlier, where in some çases, the area necessary for the mitigation trees is more than the area of the property; added that this proposal does not take into consideration the differences in the transects, it is forcing trees into situations, and is creating a liability for people to plant trees, because tees can grow SO big that the land owner cannot build a new house or add to his property, and the landowner could lose the use of his property; noted that contrary to the belief of people who moved here recently, live oaks can get very large in30 years, if they are cultivated and taken care of properly they get to grow very big, and we are planting them sO that they are crowded; suggested that the Planning Board needs to take into account the reality of how trees grow and how big they get; added that the mentality is that we should regulate developers sO that when the project is finished it would have big trees, and as a result we overplant most areas. PB Chair Morriss stated that the motion is to continue this, but he thinks that it is a flawed proposal, and suggested the motion be withdrawn. Attorney Connolly pointed that Zoning Code Section IV-1202 states that amendments to the Zoning regulations may be initiated by the City Commission, any Board of the City, City Manager, City Attorney, or the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services. This Zoning Text Amendment was initiated by the City Commission, and the specific motion that was made and seconded states "to process the zoning text amendment to increase tree mitigation standards to one for one and to allow mitigation trees to be expanded to the full neighborhood instead ofjust the one thousand feet." Attorney Connolly added that in this evening S discussion there were vague instructions to the staff to do something else, but not specifics; pointed out that staff has a problem, because they have a directive from the City Commission and they need an "up" or "down" vote; explained that if the Planning Board wishes staff to work on something else, after what was presented in the public hearing this evening, the Planning Board can request the initiation of a text amendment, and give staff specific direction; and concluded that the Planning Board may continue this meeting, but before that, he suggested PB Members to think about the job the City Commission has given to the PB and to the staff. PB Chair Morriss suggested to rely on the Urban Design Studio's work because it has to do with context, and a plethora of issues; added that the Planning Board cannot give specific direction to staff without a framework; expressed concern about revising a citywide code, and then the Urban Design Studio has a totally different idea; suggested to withdraw the motion for continuance, vote "up" or "down" on the text amendment, and then make a motion to have the Urban Design Studio handle this issue. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 18 PB Member Lindsay asked what the status of the work of the Design studio was, when was it going to be adopted, because this Board is voting on a major revision to an Ordinance that is part of the existing Code, which could be rendered moot shortly after adoption because something else gets adopted; and concluded that we could live with this for another six months until the work of the Urban Design Studio is adopted. Secretary Smith stated that the Urban Design Studio is going to provide drafts of their work later this year, then they have to go through workshops and public hearings before it is adopted; added that adoption hearings are anticipated to take place next year; and pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan will need to be amended, which will precede the adoption of the Form Based Code, sO the earliest adoption of the Form Based Code would be June or July 2018. PB Member Lindsay noted that what he sees is that none of the Board Members are happy with the existing Ordinance or the proposed revisions, but on the other hand we do not know what is happening on this topic. Secretary Smith suggested that the Planning Board consider PB Chair Morriss' thought of a vote "up," or "down." PB Vice Chair Gannon asked under the current motion of continuing the matter, what options the Planning Board had in terms of giving staff direction, such as holding workshops? Attorney Connolly stated that generally that can be done, but the problem he sees is that the City Commission has already initiated this text amendment, and has instructed staff to go forward with it, and now the Planning Board would be instructing staff not to do what the City Commission has asked them to do, which puts staff between a rock and a hard place. PB Member Lindsay suggested that the PB take a vote; noted that during this evening's extensive debate the PB expressed a lot of reservations about this issue; and stated it would then be up to the City Commission to vote "yes" or "no." Attorney Connolly added that there was vetting here in this public hearing for the benefit of the public and the staff, this has been a fruitful evening, people learned a lot, and we will see what the City Commission will do with the amendment; and stated maybe the City Commission will give staff specific directions when this goes back to them. PB Chair Morriss asked under which vehicle the Planning Board can make recommendations to the City Commission on this topic. Attorney Connolly responded that after the vote "up" or "down," a PB Member can make a separate motion for recommendations to the City Commission; and suggested that the motion should have some specificity as to what you want them to do. PB Vice-Chair Gannon asked for clarification on the process that follows this public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 18 PB Vice Chair Gannon continued his motion "To continue the matter" but it failed for lack of a second after PB Member Normile withdrew her second. PB Member Gallagher moved to find Zoning Text Amendment 17-ZTA-02 inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it does not satisfy the Standards for review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend Denial by the City Commission. PB Member Lindsay seconded the motion. Motion for denial passes with a vote of 4 to 1. (PB Vice Chair Gannon voted "No.") Discussion ensued as to what would be an appropriate next step for the Planning Board. PB Member Lindsay suggested that the Planning Board wait for direction from the City Commission. PB Member Normile suggested that the Planning Board recommends to the City Commission establishment of a temporary committee to study tree ordinances in other cities that follow the concept of new urbanism and prepare a report. PB Member Normille moved to recommend to the City Commission the establishment of a temporary advisory panel to specifically study the issues that relate to a tree ordinance, as it relates to new urbanism. PB Vice Chair Gannon seconded the motion. Attorney Connolly noted that this would be a Sunshine Panel. PB Chair Morriss suggested that the panel consist of citizens, professionals and landscape architects, SO that it is not a smalll group that dictates what happens. PB Member Gallagher stated that it is not necessary for the Planning Board to recommend to the City Commission how to go about it. PB Vice-Chair Gannon, speaking in favor of the motion, stated that it is obvious that it has been well documented this evening that there are problems with the current Tree Ordinance, calculating mitigation, and the impact on the citizens. PB Member Normile stated that the City Commission is too busy, and this issue will be dropped, and the Planning Commission will not see this again; and added that the mandate of the Planning Commission is to plan, and a new Tree Ordinance that is based on research needs to be developed. Responding to PB Member Lindsay's question, Secretary Smith stated that staff will work with this, if the City Commission accepts this recommendation. Secretary Smith summarized the motion: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 18 To recommend to the City Commission to establish a temporary advisory panel to study the issue of a Tree Ordinance, as it pertains to New Urbanism, and give recommendations to the City Commission for a broad membership of the committee. PB Member Lindsay stated that this will be a time-consuming effort, and asked Mr. Litchet if this creates time concerns for his department. Mr. Litchet responded that his department will work with the adopted Ordinances until something else is adopted; and expressed concerns about the impact of a new Tree Ordinance on the work of the Urban Design Studio which will be going to public hearings in a few months, and duplication of efforts. PB Chair Morriss asked how can they involve the Urban Design Studio in this process. Several scenarios were discussed. Secretary Smith read the: motion prior to voting: To: recommend to the City Commission to establish a temporary advisory panel to discuss this issue and to give recommendations to the City Commission regarding a Tree Ordinance as it pertains to the Zoning Code, and the membership should be broad members and should include landscape architects, and others. PB Member Normile, maker of the motion, added to the motion 1 to work in concert with the City's Zoning Code, - because the Zoning Code will be revised soon. The amendment to the motion was accepted by PB Vice Chair Gannon, the seconder. The amended motion reads: To recommend to the City Commission to establish a temporary advisory panel to discuss this issue and to give recommendations to the City Commission regarding a Tree Ordinance as it pertains to the Zoning Code, to work in concert with the City's Zoning Code, and the membership should be broad and should include landscape architects, and others. The revised motion for the creation of an advisory panel passed with a vote or 4 to 1; PB Member Gallagher voted "No." THE PLANNING BOARD WAS IN RECESS FROM 8:39 PM - 8:45 PM 2. THE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY PLAN AMENDMENT- an amendment to the Utilities Chapter and Capital Improvements Chapter of the Sarasota City Plan (2030), also known as the Comprehensive Plan, updating the Potable Water Supply Plan as required by Section 163.3177(6)(C)3, Florida Statutes. The proposed revisions to the Potable Water Supply Plan are for the years 2017 through 2027 and are consistent with the recently adopted Regional Water Supply Plan of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. (David L. Smith, AICP, General Manager) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 18 Staff Presentation: General Manager Smith introduced to the record himself and Mr. Crumpton, Utilities Engineer; stated that this is an update to the City's Potable Water Supply Plan; pointed out that this is both a transmittal and adoption public hearing; explained that the Planning Board is to give a recommendation to the City Commission regarding transmittal and the eventual adoption of this amendment; added that Florida Statutes require that the local government's Potable Water Supply Plan be updated after the completion of the applicable Water Management District's Regional Water Supply Plan, once it has been updated and adopted; noted that it is time toupdate the City's Potable Water Supply Plan; added that it is located in the Otilities Chapter and there is also a 5- Year schedule of improvements which is located in the Capital Improvements Chapter (CIP); pointed out that the Potable Water Supply Plan includes potable water and reclaimed water; stated that the current plan was originally adopted in 2008 and has not been updated since then, however the Five Year scheduled has been updated with the annual budgets and the CIP; noted that he worked with Mr. Crumpton on the update of this plan, and asked Mr. Todd Kucharski, General Manager of Public Works, to update the Solid Waste section which is limited to data in the support document, which is not an adopted part of the Comprehensive Plan; added that the Regional Water Supply Plan only refers to reclaimed water projects for the City and lists as an option reuse expansion through 2035, with a benefit of 1.05 million gallons a day, at a cost of $12,090,000 dollars; pointed out that this is the only project listed in the Regional Water Supply Plan, and it is optional; referred to page 45 of 92 in the packet, where the City's Water Supply Projects are listed, and to page 69 of 92 which illustrates the Capital Improvement Plan changes; stated that staff recommends approval for transmittal and adoption of the amendment, and noted that these are minor changes to the Plan document, mostly word changes; and noted the Levels of Service (LOS) did not change, the majority of the revisions are in the support documentation where the data were updated, and then the CIP. Mr. Crumpton stated that he was involved in the revisions, and he will be happy to answer any questions the Planning Board may have. PB Member Gallagher asked for clarification about the lower levels of estimated usage, what the reasons for it were; how it affected the business of water and waste water in the City; questioned if people were being more efficient or if technology played a role, and what can be anticipated with future growth. Mr. Crumpton stated that new construction uses more efficient water fixtures, noted that in 2008 there was a downturn in the economy which affected those projections; since then there is a slight general increase due to the densities that are happening, but in some locations we have seen a whole block of one to two story commercial uses disappear and replaced with residential developments consisting of 17-18 stories with very little flows in them during the year; added that there are many visitors coming to Sarasota approximately six months out of the year that amounts to 20% of the population, sO when they leave, things change; added that they used functional population counts for the analysis; stated he had discussed the analysis with Utilities Director Tidwell; and stated Utilities had conducted their own analysis. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 18 PB Member Gallagher expressed concerns regarding item 1.11 on page 18 of 92 which states: 1.11 Development: Development shall be subject to the availability of adequate levels of service and compliance with the requirements of the City's Engineering Design Criteria Manual and related documents for potable water, SAHilar-sewer vastewater, solid waste, and drainage improvements, pursuant to the relevant action strategies of the Capital Improvements Chapter. PB Member Gallagher stated that he is particularly concerned about the phrase a .and related documents.. because it is very troublesome for the development community; pointed out that unlike documents such as the Building Code and the Zoning Code, which are periodically updated, the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) does not have required periodic updates, and falls behind in terms of updates to make it consistent with the "related documents;" noted that there should be some requirement for periodic EDCM updates (annual, biannual) sO the information in the "related documents" is incorporated in the EDCM, and there are no "related documents" that have not been adopted and vetted through the City and are not part of the EDCM; and stated that he has problem with the reference to related documents unless if they are part of the EDCM. Mr. Crumpton stated that the City Engineer has held two meetings with staff to initiate a review of the EDCM; he just completed his proposed revisions to part 7 of the EDCM which is Utilities; noted that Utilities staff will review his work and will forward it to the City Engineer to incorporate into the EDCM review process; stated he agreed with PB Member Gallagher's S comments about the timeliness of the EDCM updates, noting that the Utilities section was updated in 1998 and this is a long time for an update, considering how the much technology and methods change in this business; stated he supports the concept of regular EDCM updates; and stated that he has spoken to the City Engineer about the need for annual updates. PB Member Lindsay noted that the documents should be listed sO that citizens know what they need to refer to find what affects their property. Discussion ensued and the members agreed to eliminate reference to "related documents." 1 PB Vice Chair Gannon asked how the elimination of reference to "related documents" can be helpful; questioned if the Utilities Section of the EDCM had not been updated since 1998, how did Utilities staff use the latest standards and technology. Mr. Crumpton stated that they have to comply with state requirements from the Department of Health (DOH), Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and other regulations, and American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standards. General Manager Smith mentioned that other sections of the EDCM have been updated more recently to incorporate transportation changes, or the concepts of Duany's Plan. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 18 PB Vice Chair Gannon asked for clarification on proposed revisions on page 44 of 92, Water Supply Facilities Work Plan 2017-2027; specifically, he asked why in the second paragraph the words "would" and "should" have been replaced with the word "could." General Manager Smith explained that the use of the reclaimed water is optional in the new regional plan. Public Input: There was none. PB Chair Morris closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. PB Member Gallagher moved to find 17-PA-01, with the revisions as noted on item 1.11, consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030), meets the Zoning Code's guidelines for review, and recommend that the City Commission approve transmittal and adoption of the proposed amendment. Revised item 1.11 reads as follows: 1.11 Development: Development shall be subject to the availability of adequate levels of service and compliance with the requirements of the City's Engineering Design Criteria Manual and-related decuments for potable water, sanitary-sewer wastewater, solid waste, and drainage improvements, pursuant to the relevant action strategies of the Capital Improvements Chapter. PB Member Normile seconded the motion. The motion for approval passes unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. C. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings Attorney Connolly established that Patricia Varley qualifies for affected person's status, and the Planning Board agreed to grant this status to Ms. Varley. Attorney Connolly explained the procedures for a quasi-judicial public hearing, suggested time limits for the presentations, and administered the oath to persons in the audience who planned to speak this evening and had not been previously sworn. 1. PAYNE PARK VILLAGE MODIFICATIONS (295, 301, 325 and 601 S. School Avenue): Site Plan Application No. 16-SP-10, Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 16-ROA-01 and Development Agreement Application No. 16- DA-02 request to amend previously approved Rezone Ordinance No. 09-4851 and its associated site plan for the property which is known as Payne Park Village and is located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District with street address of 295, 301,3 325 and 6019 S. School Avenue; applicant is requesting to substitute the proposed site plan in Application No. 16-SP-10 for the previously approved site plan. Proposed changes to the site plan include reducing the number of dwelling Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 18 units from 238 dwelling units to 135 attached and detached single family dwelling units and eliminating the office and retail square footage on Parcel 1. No changes are proposed for Parcel 2, which was previously approved for 100 hotel rooms and a 4,000-sq. ft. restaurant or 62,000-sq. ft. of office space. The applicant is also requesting to amend the previous Development Agreement. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Applicant for Quincy Real Estate Holdings, LLC, and David Weekley Homes (Contract Purchaser), introduced to the record himself, Martin Frame of David Weekley Homes, Mr. Bailey, Attorney, of Williams Parker, and Mr. Smith, Arborist. Mr. Freedman stated he is presenting a revised plan for the portion of the property located south of Shopping Way; stated that back in 2008 the City Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which changed the designation of this property to Downtown Urban Mixed Use/Urban Edge, which gave the opportunity to the land owner to file a Rezoning and a Site Plan; added the property was then rezoned to Downtown Edge; noted that the old plan was very intense and involved a large amount of development; stated that this evening they are proposing changes only to the plan for Parcel 1, located south of Shopping Way; no changes to Parcel 2 are proposed; the existing development approvals are going to expire April 27, 2020 and this request will not extend or change that expiration date; added that they are proposing 135 attached and detached single family homes, and a clubhouse, but no commercial development; explained that they are four types of units, there are - A" units along School Avenue, "B" units in the interior, and "C" and "D" units along the edge; noted that they are preserving the two grand oaks on the site and stated the existing cell tower would remain; noted that the "A" units are four stories high, the "B" units are two and three stories high, and the "C" and "D" units will also be three stories high; said that the floor areas range from 1200 sq. ft. to 2600 sq. ft., each unit has a two-car garage, plus they provide on-street parallel parking for guests; added that one of the conditions relates to the dedication of right-of-way along School Avenue, the construction of parallel parking and a sidewalk along School Avenue; and pointed out that they have offered a pedestrian access easement along the north boundary of Parcel 1 to connect with the Ringling Shopping Center. In conclusion, Mr. Freedman emphasized that the current proposal is a major reduction of density and that is why they didn't have to do a new traffic study and if all goes well they will break ground and have the first models available at the beginning of next year. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked about the width of the sidewalk along School Avenue and the density of trees the developer intends to plant along the sidewalk. Mr. Smith, landscape architect for the project, stated that currently they are showing on the plans minimum code requirements, such as buffers, however they intend to provide canopy trees in between the units along that sidewalk area, and they will show more landscaping detail on the final construction plans. PB Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 18 Vice Chair Gannon commended the applicants for exceeding the requirements for tree mitigation. PB Member Gallagher asked if the 8-ft sidewalk was a code requirement. Mr. Freedman stated that the EDCM requirements call for a 6-ft sidewalk, but the Engineering Department has the authority to ask for more width along highly travelled areas. Discussion ensued about sidewalk requirements in the EDCM and in other related documents that are being instituted, the importance of transect, and that - one size does not fit all." PB Member Lindsay asked if Shopping Way is a dedicated Right of Way. Mr. Freedman stated it is private property. PB Member Normile asked legal advice and clarification on the following language, on page 13, Item 13, regarding development agreements: (13) All development agreements shall specifically state that subsequently adopted ordinances and codes of the City which are of general application not governing the development of land shall be applicable to the lands subject to the development agreement, and that such modifications are specifically anticipated in the development agreement. Attorney Connolly noted that it is a statement directly out of the Zoning Code and it appears on all development agreements. PB Normile asked if there is a definition of the term "not affecting the development of land." Attorney Connolly stated that he is not aware of such a definition. Mr. Bailey stated that he does not know the source of this statement, noting he is concerned about it but he can do nothing about it. Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; described the location of the 9.55+ acre subject parcel; stated that it is zoned Downtown Edge and it contains a few vacant buildings; pointed out that in 2009 the site received approvals for a development agreement, site plan, and a rezone for two parcels; noted that this application relates to Parcel 1 only; explained that those approvals are still valid, and expire in 2020; noted that the applicant is interested in the approval of a new development agreement, new site plan application and Rezone Ordinance Amendment, only for Parcel 1, to limit development to 135 fee simple, attached and detached residential units; the expiration date will remain the same as the existing approvals; stated that a subdivision plat is also required for the fee simple units, and will happen following this public hearing; added that site plan approval by the Planning Board is required for Parcel 2; and stated that through the development agreement the applicant is proposing to dedicate 10 to 18 ft. on School Avenue, and will be responsible for the cost, design and construction of all on street parallel parking adjacent to their lot. Chief Planner Panica further stated Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 18 the applicant is also proposing to grant a public pedestrian and bicycle easement along the: north boundary of Parcel 1, to connect with the Ringling Shopping Center, and to the future Legacy Trail; and noted that all review standards and requirements were met; and concluded that staff recommends approval with two conditions. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked for clarification about on-site parking, are these standard parking requirements or are they modified due to the location. Chief Planner Panica stated that in the Downtown one parking space per dwelling unit is required, however this development provides a two car parking garage on the first floor of each dwelling unit and ten on-site visitor parking spaces. PB Member Normile commented on the concurrency analysis, expressed concern about the methodology and the results of the study; and suggested that it may be a good idea to have someone from the Transportation Department present at Planning Board meetings where studies that like this are included in the packets, SO that the Planning Board can ask questions. Chief Planner Panica explained that the site has vested trips based on the development approvals from 2009, and that was used in this analysis. Attorney Connolly agreed with Chief Planner Panica, explaining that there is an approved and still valid development agreement that is being amended and the resulting number of trips is less than what was approved in the original development agreement. PB Member Gallagher stated that the traffic study for the original development agreement was based on previous land use. Affected Persons: 1. Patricia Varley Spoke in favor of the application because she thinks it is compatible with the existing neighborhood, and will eliminate the homeless problems at that location. Public Input: 1. Pat Koledgy - - Spoke in favor of the application, stating the developer has worked with the existing neighborhoods and listened to their concerns; she thinks that finally something good is being presented for that site, and encouraged the Planning Board to view it as such. 2. Maureen Doherty - Enthusiastically spoke in favor of the application; believes it is good for the park, the neighborhood and the City. 3. Myron Nickel - Spoke in favor of the application. 4. Linda Kitch - Spoke in support; pointed out that one of the driveways comes out at the curve, which is a blind corner, and suggested that they rethink the location of the southern-most driveway out of the project. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 18 Rebuttal There was none. Attorney Connolly made a statutory announcement that under the statutes relating to development agreements a local government is required to hold two advertised public hearings; explained that the first public hearing for the development agreement is this evening; and announced that the second public hearing will be before the City Commission on May 15, 2017, at 6:00 PM, at City Hall, in the City Commission Chambers. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked to talk to the applicants; congratulated the applicants on the public support; and requested additional information about the 2008 charrettes and other meetings they have had with the neighborhoods about development on this site. Mr. Freedman stated that the 2008 charrettes were done for the previous project and he had nothing to do with that; added that when he and the applicant got together, the applicant expressed a strong desire to speak with the neighbors, sO they started talking to people, first with the people they knew in the neighborhood; pointed out that Kelly Kirschner was very involved, he put together a group, all of them got together at the condos and exchanged ideas; stated that people would call the applicants every two weeks to find out the status of the project; and stated that the informal meetings were followed by the formal workshop at City Hall. PB Vice Chair Gannon commented on the combination of informal and formal workshops, and stated that this was an excellent process. Mr. Freedman stated that the informal workshops, prior to the required formal workshop, were very useful, and now they are: incorporated in the public participation process for more and more new projects. PB Chair Morriss closed the public hearing. PB. Member Normile moved to find Rezone Ordinance Amendment 16-ROA-01 and Site Plan 16-SP-1- consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance, Section IV- 906 and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission subject to the following conditions: 1. The Site Plan and all related development plans for the proposed project shall be in compliance with those labeled Payne Park Village, received by the Department of neighborhood and Development Services on March 24, 2017. All subsequent Site Plans approved by the Planning Board shall be consistent with the Standards for Review of Site Plans in Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code. Final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. 2. 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 Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 18 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. PB Vice Chair Gannon seconded the motion. The motion to approve the Rezone Ordinance Amendment and Site Plan with two conditions passed unanimously (vote 5 to0). PB Member Gallagher moved to find Development Agreement 16-DA-02 consistent with Section IV-1506 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB. Member Lindsay seconded the motion. The motion to approve the development agreement passed unanimously (vote 5 to 0). IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO: THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which havel been previously discussed at Public Hearings may notl be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen's 's input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. March 8, 2017 The minutes from the PB Meeting of March 8, 2017 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 bej placed on the: next available agenda for discussion. Secretary Smith stated that he wanted to introduce Steve Cover, the new Planning Director, however everyone already knows him; added today is his first day, and it was a long one. Planning Director Cover stated that he was happy to be here and looks forward to working with the Planning Board; added that there are many interesting things in the works but there are some new ideas as well. Planning Board Members welcomed the new Planning Director. 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. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 18 PB Member Lindsey distributed to PB Members and staff an article about parking published in the Economist; and stated this is only for information because this source seems to have a different point of view than other sources. PB Member Normile stated she wanted to take off the Planning Board agenda the discussion regarding administrative approvals without site plans; added that when it went to the City Commission, Mr. Fournier, City Attorney, brought it up, and they are discussing it now, sO there is no reason for the Planning Board to discuss it. Attorney Connolly stated that they have had the first reading, they made changes, and the second reading was scheduled for the following Monday. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:48 PM. Paul 1HMaue Steven R/ Cover, Planning Director David Morriss, Chair Planniag Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]