CITY OF SARASOTA Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Chair Members Present: Terrill Salem, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Dan Clermont, Michael Halflants City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Kevin McAndrew, General Manger, Development Services Lucia Panica, Director of Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, AICP, General Manager, Planning Department David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long Range Planning Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner Megan Lui, Transportation Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 1:33:05 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich called the meeting to order and welcomed Mr. McAndrew, the new Secretary to the Planning Board, and Mr. Halflants, newly appointed Planning Board member. General Manager McAndrew [acting as the Planning Board's Secretaryl called the roll. All members were present. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY 1:33:56 P.M. Secretary McAndrew stated staff recommended the Legislative and Quasi-judicial public hearings regarding Luxe on Tenth be combined into one Quasi-judicial public hearing; and noted the Applicants were in agreement. Discussion ensued. The Planning Board voted 4/1 to combine the public hearings with PB Member Halflants voting no. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she wished to add a discussion regarding the zoning text amendment relating to accessory dwelling units that will be coming before the City Commission on 7/20/21. Attorney Connolly pointed out the PB could discuss the item under the Planning Board Topics section of the agenda; and noted no action could be taken today since the item is not advertised for public hearing. 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.) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 14 1:38:14 P.M. A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary McAndrew read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for the presentations that will follow and administered the oath to those wishing to testify at the public hearings. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 21-ZTA-02: Request for Zoning Text Amendment approval to add the segment of Cocoanut Avenue between Boulevard of the Arts and Fruitville Road, including the Fruitville Road and Cocoanut Avenue intersection, as a Primary Grid Street. (Ryan Chapdelain, AICP, General Manager, Planning Department) 1:39:36 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing. Staff Presentation: General Manager Chapdelain appeared and stated the proposal was to amend the Primary Grid Street Map to include the section of Cocoanut Avenue south of Boulevard of the Arts to Fruitville Road, including a 100 section of Fruitville Road, to be consistent with the portion of Cocoanut Avenue north of Boulevard of the Arts; noted the City Commission had directed staff to process the Zoning Text Amendment at its 4/20/21 meeting; discussed the definition of a Primary Grid Street versus a secondary street; presented graphics depicting samples of development along Primary Grid Streets; and noted the section being added will be more pedestrian oriented when redevelopment occurs. PB Member Halflants questioned why the portion of Cocoanut Avenue south of Fruitville Road was not included. General Manager Chapdelain stated the City Commission had requested this be expedited due to the recent rezone without site plan applications that have been approved; and pointed out staff is looking at the overall Primary Grid Street Map and intends to come. forward with recommendations for some larger revisions. PB Member Blumetti questioned if there would be any legal ramifications if the development standards are revised after a rezone without a site plan is approved but prior to the submittal of a site plan. Attorney Connolly pointed out no development rights were being taken away. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned how future site plan applications for properties that were rezoned without a site plan would be affected. Attorney Connolly stated future site plans for those properties would have to meet the new development standards if the proposed Zoning Text Amendment application is approved. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned if any site plans that have already been approved would be affected. Attorney Connolly stated there would be no impact on previously approved site plans. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 14 1:46:11 P.M. Citizen. Input: Ms. Debbie Trice, President of the Rosemary District Association and resident of the Rosemary District, appeared and stated the Rosemary District's support of the change noting under the change development west of and adjacent to the Rosemary District will be consistent with the Rosemary Residential Overlay District development standards. Mr. David Lough, President of the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Association and resident of Cocoanut Avenue appeared and stated his support; said he wished to echo Ms. Trice's comments; and thanked all parties involved in expediting the requested change. 1:51:11 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find 21-ZTA-02 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV- 1206 and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The motion passed 5/0. (Note: The below public hearings were consolidated into a single Quasi-judicial public hearing under Changes to the Order of the Day) C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 20-PA-02: A request to amend the Future Land Use Map from Community Office/Institutional to Multiple Family - High Density for ten (10) parcels totaling approximately 3.15 acres with the street addresses of 1313 and 1315 10th Street; 1030, 1042, 1050, and 1056 Cocoanut Avenue; and 1019, 1037, 1047, and 1051 Florida Avenue. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long Range Planning) 2. Luxe on Tenth: Site Plan Application No. 21-SP-03, Rezone Application No. 21-RE-02 and Street Vacation Application No. 21-SV-01 are a: request for Site Plan approval to construct 157 residential units on parcels with street addresses of 1313 and 1315 10th Street; 1030, 1042, 1050 and 1056 Cocoanut Avenue; and 1019,1037, 1047, and 1051 Florida Avenue. The applicant also requests approval to rezone ten (10) parcels totaling approximately 3.15 acres from Residential Multiple Family-3 (RMF-3) and Industrial Light Warehousing (ILW) to Residential Multiple Family-7 (RMF-7). The applicant also requests approval to vacate a portion of the north/ south alley between 10th and 11th Streets. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) (Megan Lui, Transportation Planner, Planning Department) 1:53:04 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing. Attorney Connolly Attorney Connolly briefly explained the procedures for Quasi-judicial public hearings, recommended time limits for the presentations in petitions that will follow; and called upon Thomas Mayer, Denise Nagelschmidt, Charles Nagelschmidt, and Jesse White who. had requested Affected Person status. Mr. White was present via Zoom and the Planning Board members granted him Affected Person status by consensus. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 14 PB Chair Ohlrich noted there would be three separate motions, one each for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Street Vacation, and the Rezone with Site Plan; and requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications. PB Members Blumetti and Clermont, PB Vice Chair Salem and PB Chair Ohlrich stated they had done a site visit; PB Member Halflants had none. 1:56:46 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Joel Freedman, Agent; Chris Gallagher, Architect; Christian Dial, Capital Investment Group; Gregg Fusaro, Capital Investment Group appeared. Mr. Freedman noted Travis Fledderman, P.E., Stantec; and Scott Buttari, PLA, Stantec were present in the Chambers as well. Mr. Freedman noted the importance of combining the public hearings. Mr. Dial discussed his company's role in redeveloping the property. Mr. Freedman stated the proposal is to redevelop the property with a 157-unit apartment complex with an internal garage; discussed the requirement for affordable housing in the requested RMF-7 zone district noting 20 affordable units are required and they are proposing 47 affordable units; stated the affordable units will meet the affordable criteria for 30 years; discussed the location of the project, surrounding land uses and zoning, and current zoning of the site; noted the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment was to change the Future Land Use classification to high density residential which would allow for the density needed to provide the affordable housing; said the height would be limited to four stories; pointed out additional tax: revenues will be realized; discussed the proposed street vacation noting it is more of a realignment of an alley; said a public access easement will be provided and the property owners will maintain the realigned alley; noted a large green buffer area on the northern portion of the subject property; and discussed trash collection. Mr. Gallagher discussed the design of the building including setbacks, an outdoor recreation area requirement, height, and tree preservation/mitgation: noted the height of surrounding properties; said vehicular entry is located off of Cocoanut Avenue and the building has been set back to accommodate that; pointed out the realigned alley provides for a complete street; noted the improvements the project will bring to the overall area;a and presented graphics depicting the proposed structure. Mr. Freedman noted part of the tree mitigation plan is the provision of trees for a new park in the Rosemary District; and said the project is the first proposal under the newly established RMF-7 zone district. 2:14:57 P.M. PB Member Clermont questioned why the need for such high density; asked why the building couldn't be designed higher with a smaller footprint; and how the stormwater management system worked. Mr. Fusaro stated the cost of land and construction costs have increased significantly; the ability to provide affordable housing units; and changes in how structures are designed have contributed to the need for higher density. Mr. Gallagher noted the cost of materials needed to ensure structural integrity above four stories is also a major consideration. Mr. Fledderman discussed the stormwater system noting it will be a gravity system and will be privately maintained. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 14 PB Member Blumetti questioned if studies had been done regarding the viability of developing the property under the current zoning; and asked if the applicants had considered requesting RMF-6 zoning. Mr. Dial stated the property has been vacant for a long time; pointed out other developers had been unsuccessful in redeveloping the property; said his company specializes in multi-family development; and noted the step down in intensity. Mr. Freedman stated they had requested RMF-7 zoning because they need the additional density in order to provide the affordable housing units. Discussion ensued regarding surrounding uses. PB Vice Chair Salem stated he applauded the Applicant's desire to provide affordable housing and said this project however did not go far enough. Discussion ensued regarding the average median income and the associated maximum rental cost; and the number of bedrooms per unit. PB Vice Chair Salem stated he was looking for the public benefit to vacating the alley. Mr. Fusaro noted the alley is being realigned rather than vacated. PB Vice Chair Salem asked if the developer or the City would be responsible for the costs associated with relocating trees. Mr. Freedman stated the developer would bear the full cost. PB Vice Chair Salem noted the lack of affordable housing for families, pointing out more three-bedroom and four-bedroom units are needed. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated he was comfortable with the increased density; noted the smaller units being created are in demand; and questioned what the mix in the size of the units was. Mr. Dial stated the proposal consisted of ninety-eight studio/one-bedroom units, ten 3-bedroom units, and the balance is two-bedroom units. PB Member Halflants questioned if the parking garage would be four stories and what the green space would be used for. Mr. Freedman confirmed the parking garage would be four stories and stated the green space would be used as a passive recreation area for the residents. Discussion ensued regarding the design of the structures. PB Member Halflants stated a primary street was not an appropriate location for trash pick-up, parking garage entry, additional curb cuts, etc. Mr. Gallagher noted apartment buildings are different than condominiums; pointed out the proposed design reduces the number of curb cuts required; noted the trash area will be screened; and zoning requirements were taken into consideration. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated his concerns with putting functions that are normally in an alley on a primary street. PB Chair Ohlrich asked if the green space would be open to the public; and if the Applicants had considered burying the power lines. Mr. Freedman stated the green space was for residents only and stated FPL was not agreeable to burying the power lines due to the fact they are major transmission lines. Discussion ensued regarding the viability of burying other power lines in the area. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she also had concerns with the alley vacation and questioned what other designs were considered. Mr. Gallagher stated the Applicants had considered splitting the project into two;r noted the consolidation into one project provides for sanitary sewer improvements; pointed out a public access easement would replace the alley where services are provided to adjacent properties; said the alley is currently poorly maintained and is not part of the grid system; and said the proposed design simplifies the services to the apartment residents. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned how the conversion of the apartments into condominiums would be prevented causing the loss of the affordable housing aspect. Mr. Freedman stated the City has a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 14 monitoring system. Attorney Connolly pointed out the RMF-7 zone district contains a requirement that an agreement between the developer and the City has to be recorded in the official records; and noted rental and sales are both covered in the agreement. PB Member Blumetti questioned the monthly rental costs the applicants had indicated in an earlier submittal noting those were less than the AMI; asked if the development standards for parking garages had been taken into consideration; wondered ift the building façade would be different if the parking garage and units were on the same façade; and asked if the Applicants were taking a calculated risk. Mr. Dial stated the anticipated rental costs seemed a good threshold to start with. Mr. Freedman noted those numbers did not include utilities. Mr. Gallagher stated the development standards for parking garages had been considered and noted the high screening requirements for parking garages. Mr. Dial pointed out there are many trees on the site that will provide screening as well. Mr. Fusaro stated every project is a calculated risk; said they anticipated the market will continue to grow; and they are. hoping this project will prompt additional redevelopment in the area. PB Member Clermont questioned if the Applicants had coordinated with the City regarding the improvements to 10th street. Mr. Freedman pointed out the improvements the City would be making were contained in the right-of-way. PB Member Clermont noted Stantec had stated in a letter that there were 99 trees that needed to be relocated and the City had nowhere to put those yet the Applicants stated the trees would be planted in the new Rosemary Park. Mr. Freedman stated only some of the trees will be relocated to the Rosemary Park. PB Member Clermont questioned if there was nowhere to relocate the remaining trees to would the Applicants be paying into the tree fund. Mr. Freedman confirmed that was correct and noted they are always looking for locations to relocate trees to. 3:09:44 P.M. Staff Presentation: Manager of Long Range Planning Smith, Development Review Senior Planner Briana Dobbs and Transportation Planner Megan Lui appeared. Manager Smith discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment noting the location and size of the subject property; stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is being requested because the existing Future Land Use classification only permits multiple family as part of a mixed-use project; pointed out the existing land uses and zoning; stated per the guidelines the proposal was reviewed based on the public benefit that would be realized; presented a comparison of the existing and proposed Future Land Use classification noting the allowable density is the primary difference; discussed the public benefit findings for each chapter of the Comprehensive Plan; said there is no precedent being set by putting Multiple Family-High Density Future Land Use classification on the Future Land Use Map because each application is reviewed based upon its own merits; and noted properties that previously had a Multiple Family-High Density Future Land Use classification were reclassified as downtown zone districts in approximately 2004- 2005. Manager Smith concluded by stating that staff found the proposal to be, on balance, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 14 Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs discussed the proposed site plan and rezone aspects of the project; pointed out the size, location, existing land uses and zoning; noted the surrounding zoning; stated the proposal is to rezone to the RMF-7 zone district with a proffered site plan; said 47 units are designated as affordable housing for a minimum of 30 years; reviewed the development standards for the RMF-7 zone district noting 20 affordable units are required; discussed the breakdown of affordable units at or below 80% of AMI, at or below 100% of AMI, and at or below 120% of AMI; discussed the zoning text amendment that created the RMF-7 zone district; noted parking requirements for the affordable units were reduced; presented a chart of the development standards for RMF- 7; said the project had received a variance from the Board of Adjustment for the front yard setback; stated all other requirements had been met; pointed out the large buffer on the northern portion of the site; discussed tree preservation and mitigation; noted the required Community Workshop had been held; said a traffic study was conducted and found a concurrency analysis was not required; stated the project received DRC sign-off on July 2, 2021; and stated staff recommended approval with conditions. Transportation Planner Lui discussed the proposed street vacation stating the proposal was to vacate a portion of the alley from 10th Street to 11th Street; pointe out a rededicated east-west alley was proposed; noted the alley vacation will allow for the consolidation of five parcels; and stated staff found the application complies with the standards for review and recommends approval with conditions. 3:34:26 P.M. PB Member Blumetti requested clarification for the record if the existing Commercial Office/Institutional Future Land Use classification or the RMF-6 zone district had a requirement for affordable housing; and if the maximum density was under the RMF-7 zone district. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated there was no requirement for affordable housing in the Commercial Office/Institutional Future Land Use classification; the RMF-6 zone district does require affordable housing; and maximum density is under RMF-7. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned what the statement "no more than one-third of the dwelling units may be available to households having income in the range of 100-120 percent of AMI" meant; and questioned if expenses of approximately $2000 per month for a family was considered affordable. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated of the 47 affordable units, approximately 15 would be between 100-120 percent of AMI; approximately 15 would be 80 percent or below AMI; and approximately 15 would be 80- 100 percent of AMI; discussed the maximum monthly cost for each category. Discussion ensued regarding actual affordability for average workers (police, firefighters, teachers, etc.). PB Member Halflants questioned if a unit was purchased at an affordable price could that unit be sold later for a profit. Manager Smith noted the units have to remain affordable for 30 years. PB Member Halflants asked if the AMI increases annually does the rent increase accordingly. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs confirmed that was correct. Discussion ensued regarding enforcement of the 30-year requirement; the complicated nature of providing affordable housing; and the benefits of small units. PB Member Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 14 Halflants stated he had concerns regarding the alley vacation noting the impact to the streetscape. Transportation Planner Lui noted the standards of review relate to connectivity. Discussion ensued regarding functions of alleys inside the downtown versus outside the downtown. PB Member Clermont questioned what the overall goal for affordable housing was. Discussion ensued regarding application of the percentages of AMI; reduced parking requirements, accessory dwelling units and cottage courts being tools in the toolbox; and an Affording Housing Plan that was developed a few years ago. PB Member Clermont questioned if the proposed stormwater management system would improve stormwater runoff maintenance. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs noted that is part of the development review process and pointed out there are standards that have to be met. PB Member Clermont stated the City should have a list of places to relocate trees to. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs pointed out the City has a program where citizens can be placed on a list to receive trees; and noted additional coordination with Parks and Recreation relating to planting relocated trees in parks. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned if the northern portion of the alley that is not being vacated at this time could be vacated in the future; and if SO, what would happen to the new alley as it would then be a dead end. Attorney Connolly noted EDCM criteria has to be met. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned the statement that staff believes the industrial uses east of the property may be considered light industrial with fewer impacts to the property; and requested evidence to substantiate that statement. Manager Smith noted the uses on Central Avenue are light warehousing and retail; and pointed out the more intense industrial uses are further east. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned the statement that there would be no negative impact to open space. Discussion ensued regarding the City's level of service for parks. 4:01:23 P.M. Affected Persons: Mr. Jesse White attempted to testify via Zoom however due to technical issues was unable to do SO. Citizen Input: Mr. Bill Partridge appeared and stated he owns the property adjacent to the northern boundary of the site; said he was granted Affected Person status for the Board of Adjustment (BOA) hearing regarding this project; discussed the history of the subject parcel; and stated the alley is non-functional for trash collection due to an I-beam across the alley that precludes trash trucks from accessing a portion of the alley. Mr. Partridge's time was up however the PB agreed by consensus to grant Affected Person status as was done at the BOA meeting. Mr. Partridge continued stating the alley has become a dumping ground; and requested the vacation of the alley be expedited for health and safety purposes. 4:08:12 P.M. The Planning Board took a 10-Minute Break Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of14 4:18:14 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Manager Smith appeared and stated he had confirmed there was no numerical goal for affordable housing; and noted page 82 of his staff report contains the level of service worksheet for Parks. 4:19:57 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Fedderman and Mr. Fusaro appeared. Mr. Fedderman discussed stormwater noting the criteria in the EDCM is being met; said the quality of the stormwater runoff will be improved via a sand filter; and pointed out the stormwater runoff in not currently being treated at all. Mr. Freedman stated there is no numerical goal for affordable housing; and pointed out this is the first privately initiated affordable housing project in the City. Mr. Gallagher stated Cocoanut Avenue is the most appropriate location for access points due to the existing traffic signal at Cocoanut Avenue and 10th Street as well as the existing curb cuts; noted the applicants are improving the sanitary sewer line in the alley and paving the alley as part of the reconfiguration; pointed out pedestrian routes being improved via new, wider sidewalks; and noted the State Street and Palm Avenue parking garages. have access via a primary street. Mr. Freedman said the Cityi is developing a street tree program that will accommodate relocated trees in the future and noted funds paid into the tree fund can be used for street trees as well. PB Vice Chair Salem stated he liked the project and appreciated the attempt to provide affordable. housing; and requested the applicants proffer more two-bedroom units and less studios. Mr. Fusaro stated the applicants could look at that noting the plan is to provide as many affordable units as possible. PB Vice Chair Salem requested the Applicants also reduce the cap to 80-100 percent of AMI. Discussion ensued. Regarding the number of affordable units currently proposed and the trade-off for the alley vacation. PB Chair Ohlrich noted reducing the AMI cap would not require a rework of the site plan. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants reiterated his concerns regarding the parking garage entrance on Cocoanut Avenue. Mr. Gallagher pointed out the area residents had voiced concerns regarding traffic circulation. Mr. Fusaro stated the new alley will function as living space rather than a junkyard. PB Member Halflants presented a graphic of a proposed redesign of the building sO the parking garage access would be on the alley. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned if the Applicants were willing to stipulate that change at this time. Mr. Freedman stated they would consider the recommendation between now and the City Commission public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated the project was the Applicant's rather than the Planning Board's sO the Planning Board must vote yes or no on the Applicant's proposal based upon the criteria. Discussion ensued. 4:41:50 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 14 Attorney Connolly noted three separate motions are required and suggested the following order: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the street vaçation, and the rezone with site plan. PB Member Halflants made a motion to find that Petition No. 20-PA-02 is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and in the public benefit or interest, and recommend that the City Commission approve the petition. PB Member Clermont seconded the motion. PB Member Halflants stated he agrees with the change to multiple family. PB Member Clermont stated the private sector should be providing affordable housing; said it would be good for the area; and noted a blighted area would be redeveloped. PB Member Blumetti said he agrees with what has been said; stated affordable housing is much needed; and pointed out affordable housing would not be provided under the current zoning. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she supported the motion. The motion passed 5/0. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed street vacation. PB Member Halflants stated the requested vacation had not been justified. PB Member Blumetti stated the building type reflects the affordability and noted the need to redevelop the area. PB Vice Chair Salem stated he did not support the motion as there is no benefit to the citizens. Attorney Connolly discussed the Standards for Review. PB: Member Clermont noted there is already multiple family housing along that portion of Cocoanut Avenue. PB Member Halflants stated he wished to continue the public hearing sO the applicants could revisit the site plan; and said there was no public benefit to the parking garage access on Cocoanut Avenue. PB Member Blumetti stated the public benefit is in the rezone noting no affordable housing will be provided under the existing zoning. PB Member Clermont stated he supported the alley vacation noting there is no existing public benefit. PB Vice Chair Salem stated the trade-off should be more family size units and a lower AMI; and said the property can be developed without the alley vacation. PB Member Blumetti stated the alley would have to be vacated under PB Member Halflants' proposed revision to the site plan as well. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich stated she is protective of the street grid; said she disagrees with staff's S interpretation of the standards for review except number four; and stated she does not support the alley vacation. PB Member Halflants made a motion to continue the public hearing. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. Attorney Connolly stated the applicant needed to agree to that; said he prefers the Planning Board recommend denial versus continuing the public hearing if the applicants are not willing to revise their plans; and noted Mr. Partridge had just informed him that he prefers the current proposed design. The applicants indicated they were not agreeable to a continuance. PB Member Halflants withdrew his motion and PB Vice Chair Salem withdrew his second. PB Member Halflants made a motion to recommend denial of the application. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Members Blumetti and Clermont voting no. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 14 PB Chair Ohlrich questioned if a vote was stilll needed regarding the rezone and site plan. Attorney Connolly said yes noting the City Commission will consider the motion should they vote to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Street Vacation petitions. PB Vice Chair Salem made a motion to recommend denial of the rezone and site plan. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Salem stated there is no benefit to the City if the majority of the units are small. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Members Blumetti and Clermont voting no. 5:11:47P.M. Attorney Connolly stated there were no affected parties for the following agenda item and reiterated the time limits. 3. Amaryllis Park Place Phase 2 (2101 N. Orange Avenue): Site Plan Application No. 21-SP- 06 is a request to demolish 40 of the existing 100 residential units and construct 84 new residential units and a resident club house. The proposed Phase 2 of the project will occur on approximately 4.4 acres of the 14.64-acre site with a street address of 2101 N. Orange Avenue. Previous approvals include Site Plan 18-SP-02 (for Phase I). The site is zoned Governmental (G) and within the Housing Authority Overlay District (HAOD). The Future Land Use classification is Multiple Family (Medium Density). (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Mr. Chris Gallagher, Mr. Joe Chambers appeared. Mr. Freedman discussed the proposal stating it is Phase 2 of a multi-phased project; said Phase 1 is under construction; noted there will be a future phase; stated the property lies within the Housing Authority Overlay District; noted the Future Land Use classification is Multiple Family- Medium Density and is zoned Government (G); and said the proposal is to demolish 40 units and construct 84 new units. Mr. Gallagher discussed the proposed site plan stating four buildings are proposed, one of which will be a Clubhouse; said the project was designed for families and consists of nine one bedroom units, thirty-eight two bedroom units, twenty-eight three bedroom units, and seven four bedroom units; said all units are walk-ups with a balcony or private terrace; discussed the setbacks noting two buildings had been pushed bad in order to save a grand tree; presented a graphic depicting the proposed structures; and said a building permit was pending approval of the project by the Planning Board and City Commission. Mr. Chambers discussed other projects that have been developed under the Housing Authority Overlay. PB Member Halflants questioned if any part of the project was outside of Code requirements. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants had requested and been granted an adjustment to the setback in order to save a grand tree. PB Member Halflants stated he liked the design; questioned how the ground floor units would be separated from the parking area; and questioned why the Clubhouse was across the parking lot from the units. Mr. Gallagher stated a private terrace separates the ground floor units from the parking area; and noted the Clubhouse is included in the park area in the center of the development. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 14 PB Member Clermont stated he appreciated the setback adjustment to save the grand tree and noted the design has an upscale look. PB Member Blumetti echoed PB Member Clermont's comments and questioned the status of Phase 1. Mr. Chambers said Phase 1 was almost complete and they were hoping for occupancy in September 2021. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned what provisions were being made for the tenants that are being displaced and said she too applauded the setback adjustment to save the tree and the design. Mr. Chambers stated tenants are provided a relocation notice and have two options, they can either receive a Section 8 voucher or transfer to another property; noted that is part of the reason for the multi-phased approach; and noted tenants also have a right to return once the project is completed. PB Vice Chair Salem stated he supports the project; said individuals are being displaced and can't find housing in the City; requested Mr. William Russell, who was in the audience, appear to answer questions. Mr. Russell came to the dais. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned Mr. Russell as to how many people surrender their Section 8 voucher because they cannot find housing. Mr. Russell stated some people have. had difficulties and described the policy regarding Section 8 vouchers. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti questioned who owns the property and who owns the actual unit. Mr. Russell stated the Sarasota Housing Authority owns the property and the units are owned by a tax credit partnership and explained how that system works. PB Member Blumetti asked if any equity was realized and if there were programs that teach about equity. Mr. Russell noted the State imposes a 50-year affordability restriction; and stated the Section 8 program offers ownership as an option and described the process. 5:30:56 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs appeared; pointed out the location of the project, the size of the parcel, the zoning and Future Land Use classification; discussed the surrounding zoning and land uses; stated the proposal is to demolish 40 existing units in eleven buildings and construct 84 new units in three 3-story buildings; said the site will be managed by the Sarasota Housing Authority and all units will be affordable; stated a resident Clubhouse was also proposed; said access would be from Gregg Street and 21st Street; said parking requirements have been exceeded; stated the traffic analysis found the project de minimus with four stipulations that have been incorporated into the site plan; said one required loading space was provided; noted the development standards are specific to the Overlay District; noted a setback adjustment was approved to save a grand tree; discussed tree preservation and mitigation; noted the staff recommendation needed revised to reflect that the Planning Board will make a recommendation to the City Commission, noting the City Commission has to approve since the property is in a G. zone district; and said staff recommended approval with conditions. The PB Members had no questions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 14 Attorney Connolly pointed out the necessary change in the staff recommendation to read recommend the City Commission approve the application. There were no Affected Persons, Citizen Input or Rebuttal 5:38:29 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Halflants made a motion to recommend the City Commission approve the application. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Salem noted the units were affordable and pointed out that the unit breakdown demonstrates where the need is. PB Member Clermont stated the project looks good, is needed, and he supports it. The motion passed 5/.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 not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 9, 2021 PB Chair Ohlrich stated she had submitted some non-substantive changes to the minutes. There were no other requested changes. The PB approved the minutes as revised by PB Chair Ohlrich 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 plaçed on the next available agenda for discussion. 5:40:47 P.M. 1. Website Link to Active Zoning Text Amendments (Lucia Panica, Director of Development Services) Development Services Director Panica appeared and demonstrated how to look up active Zoning Text Amendments the Planning Department is processing; demonstrated how to look up previous and on-going development applications in the City's eDocs system; and pointed out a link to a monthly Development Application Status Report on the Development Services Department web page. 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 July 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 14 5:50:28 P.M. PB Member Halflants stated he has a number of proposed zoning text amendments he would like to work with staff on. Discussion ensued. The Planning Board members approved the request by consensus. Planning Director Cover was in the audience and approached the dais to note the City Commission must authorize the processing of zoning text amendments. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated staff also has a list and suggested all proposed amendments could be combined into one list. PB Member Halflants discussed the site plan approval process stating the process was too cumbersome; noted other municipalities have a more streamlined process; and stated the process needs to be looked at. PB Char Ohlrich requested the item be placed on a future agenda. Secretary McAndrew confirmed the item will be placed on a future agenda and noted that in his 35t years working in the private sector he has seen much more detail required to the point the site plan is engineered to issue a building permit. PB Chair Ohlrich requested examples of what other municipalities require be available for the discussion. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Ohlrich states she noticed the July 20th City Commission agenda includes a public hearing regarding the zoning text amendment relating to accessory dwelling units; said the proposed ordinance has changed significantly since the Planning Board's review and recommendation; noted the opt-in provision the Planning Board discussed extensively was not included in the proposed ordinance going before the City Commission; stated elimination of the opt-in provision made the ordinance inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; said as a result the Planning Board has not fulfilled its duty to make a recommendation to the City Commission; and stated she would be attending the City Commission meeting to express her concerns. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Salem said the City Commission sent the item back to staff. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated the City Commission sent the item back to staff with a request to make accessory dwelling units available citywide. Discussion ensued regarding if the elimination of the opt-in provision constituted a revision to the Comprehensive Plan; and if significant changes are made to any applications the Planning Board has made a recommendation on, that application would have to be sent back to the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly noted the City Commission has the prerogative to send an item back to the Planning Board however it is not a requirement. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:08:34 P.M. - Lin AMAudunt Gok felle Shon0 Kevin McAndrew Kathy elley Oblrich, Chair Development Services Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]