CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY FEBRUARY: 12, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chair Dan Deleo, Vice Chair Shane LaMay, Terrill Salem, Daniel Members Present: Clermont, Douglas Christy City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, City Attorney Alison Christie, AICP, General Manager, Development Services Noah Fossick, AICP, Development Review Chief Planner, Development Services Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Amanda Cisneros, Development Review Coordinator, Development Services I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 10:00 a.m. Chair Deleo called the meeting to order. General Manager Christie (acting as the Planning Board' S Secretary) called the roll. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF' THE DAY No changes made to the order of the day. IV. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TOTHE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge of Conduct Ms. Christie read the Pledge of Conduct. B. Quasi-Judicial The public hearing opened. City Attorney Connolly gave the Oath. Mr. Connolly recommended a change to the order of presentation and provided an explanation for the request. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, at/0:00a. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of11 The Planning Board Members agreed. City Attorney Connolly discussed time limits, clarified the order of presentation and called on affected persons. City Attorney Connolly discussed Section IV-1901 and explained the appeal process, and the Standards for Review. Mr. Connolly explained the difference between Legislative and Quasi-judicial policies. City Attorney Connolly discussed interstitial space regulations and explained Senate Bill 250 (2023) noting that the interstitial space cannot be regulated. 1. 1260 North Palm Residences, (1260 N. Palm Ave): Appeal Application No. 25-APP-01 Bay Plaza Owners Association filed application 25-APP-01 seeking to appeal the Administrative Approval of applications 24-ASP-07 and 24-ADS-04 regarding the subject property with street addresses of 1260, 1262, 1264, 1266, 1268, 1270, 1272, and 1274 North Palm Avenue. (Noah Fossick, AICP, Development Review Chief Planner, Development Services) Ex-parte communications were disclosed. Staff Presentation: Noah Fossick, Development Review Chief Planner presented and gave a brief description of his credentials. Mr. Fossick discussed the zone district, the number of units in the proposed request, parking, and noted that the site met all tree mitigation requirements. Noah Fossick referenced Section IV-1903(a) regarding the regulations in the Downtown Districts, and adjustment review process. Mr. Fossick explained the requests for adjustments to reduce the parallel façade coverage, a reduction in habitable space, and a reduction of the required retail frontage. Chief Planner Fossick explained the reason for each request. Mr. Fossick noted that the Administrative Site Plan met all applicable requirements of the Zoning Code and was consistent with the Sarasota City Plan per Future Land Use Action Strategy 3.5. Chief Planner Fossick explained that interstitial space cannot be regulated due to Senate Bill 250 (2023). Mr. Fossick discussed the compatibility of height noting that growth is incremental and differences in height are to be expected as they are common along all downtown edges. Mr. Fossick explained that differences in height are common throughout the city and provided examples of building heights. Chief Planner Fossick discussed the refuse collection and explained the reason for the adjustment request. Chief Planner Fossick discussed how the building adheres to the Zoning Code's Advisory Community Design Guidelines found in Zoning Code Appendix D. Mr. Fossick discussed enhanced human activity by incorporating storefront windows, roof top decks, mechanical and parking screening and stated that the building avoids large blank walls by providing design treatments. Mr. Fossick noted that the building incorporates the parking structure into the design of the building which meets Pedestrian Guidelines. Chief Planner Fossick briefly discussed bicycle parking and access. Mr. Fossick noted that the building respects adjacent sites by providing recess or step backs. Mr. Fossick explained that the recesses permit the flow of light and air to which may contribute to heat mitigation strategies. Mr. Fossick noted that the building is compatible with the scale of development anticipated Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, at/0:00 ain the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 11 with the Downtown Bayfront Future Land Use Classification meeting height scale and bulk guideline A. Chief Planner Fossick discussed the relationship of the building at street level and the human scale and referenced the New Urbanisms Best Practices Guide published by the Congress for New Urbanism. Chief Planner Fossick explained that the building meets the design for the Urban Core Transect by providing little to no setbacks, wide sidewalks, structure parking and a density of more than twenty-five units per acre. Mr. Fossick explained the public benefits of the proposed request by increasing density and creating walkable areas. Mr. Fossick stated that the Site Plan and Administrative Adjustments have met all Standards for Review noting that Staff recommended a denial of the appeal. PB Member Clermont posed questions regarding current garbage collection. Mr. Fossick stated that the collection is located in front of the building. PB Member Clermont posed questions regarding the proposed pickup location and collecting onsite. Mr. Fossick noted that the first floor would need to be raised for a garbage truck to enter on site. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding the number of parking spaces and public parking. Mr. Fossick spoke to the question. PB Member Clermont questions regarding the liner building and interstitial space on both buildings. Chief Planner Fossick spoke to the question. PB Member Christy posed a question regarding additional interests to pedestrian amenities. Mr. Fossick discussed public benefits provided by the applicant. PB Member Christy posed a question regarding the proposed awnings and the intent of the Downtown Bayfront zone district. Chief Planner Fossick explained that the intent asks for an urban area that is diverse, compact, and walkable. PB: Member Christy posed questions regarding details for height, bulk, and mass in reference to the Zoning Code. Mr. Fossick explained there are guidelines in the Zoning Code which are not required. Chair Deleo posed a question regarding the approval of the refuse location. Chief Planner Fossick discussed the options of the refuse location. Chair Deleo posed questions regarding the approved adjustments. Chief Planner Fossick addressed the questions. Chair Deleo posed a question regarding the height of the building and compatibility with surrounding buildings. Mr. Fossick spoke to the question noting that based on staff's opinion the building has achieved compatibility and provided an explanation. Chair Deleo posed a question regarding lot restraints. Chief Planner Fossick referred to the adjustments. Applicant Presentation: Joel Freedman introduced Gary Hoyt, Architect with Hoyt Architects, Chris Gallagher, Architect with Hoyt Architects, George Scarfe, Associate AIA Architect with Hoyt Architects, Robert Lincoln, Attorney, Brenda Patten, and Applicant Matt Kihnke. Gary Hoyt discussed the history of height in the Downtown Area. Mr. Hoyt discussed buildings in the area providing examples of height differences and explaining the need for height. Brenda Patten noted that interstitial space is reviewed with the building permit. Ms. Patten Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, atjo:00am in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 11 noted that the building is compatible, consistent with all criteria, and advised that greater setbacks are being provided. Ms. Patten discussed more retail for an active streetscape is being provided and briefly discussed the relocation of trees. Ms. Patten addressed the adjustments and explained floor to ceiling height and roof deck for elevator shafts. George Scarfe explained the reasons for height and provided the number of feet for finished floor to ceiling, elevator overrun, architectural feature, and interstitial space. Mr. Scarfe compared interstitial space in buildings Downtown. Mr. Scarfe explained the need for interstitial space and showed the separation between the adjacent buildings. Ms. Patten discussed features and mitigation by providing awnings, building separation, additional habitual space, new groundcover, pavers and an 8' wide sidewalk. Ms. Patten addressed the intent for the Downtown Bayfront and stated that the applicant agrees with all conditions. Mr. Freedman discussed the history of rezoning Downtown and noted that the evolution of building heights has changed. PB Member Christy posed a question regarding the level three floor plan showing a guest unit. Mr. Scarfe spoke to the question. PB: Member Christy: posed a question about recycling. Mr. Scarfe noted that the developer will contract with a third party for collection on site. PB Member Christy posed a question regarding condominium documentation documents. Mr. Lincoln spoke to the question. PB Member Christy posed a question regarding recycling rules being provided to unit owners and enforcement. Mr. Lincoln spoke to the question. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding public reaction to previous approved applications. Mr. Hoyt spoke to the question. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding the reason for other buildings not using higher ceilings. Mr. Scarfe spoke to the question. Mr. Hoyt discussed the history of differences of finished floor to finished ceiling height. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding the relocation of the parking access, backflow preventer, and FPL transformer. Mr. Scarfe explained that the equipment would not be easily accessible if relocated. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding the relocation of access to parking. Mr. Scarfe stated that access needs to be located from the right of way. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding the liner building and the third floor. Mr. Scarfe explained that the third floor is the resident amenities. PB Member Clermont posed questions regarding the liner building. Mr. Hoyt explained the design of the liner building. Vice Chair Lamay posed a question regarding the reduction of livability by reducing the quantity of retail. Mr. Scarfe discussed the ratios of downtown activity and retail. Mr. Hoyt discussed mixed-use buildings, smaller retail spaces, and the need for smaller spaces. Vice Chair Lamay spoke to the proposed adjustments. Mr. Lincoln discussed the adjustment process and the Downtown Code. Vice Chair Lamay posed a question about parking access through Bay Plaza. Mr. Scarfe provided an explanation which precluded access to parking. Vice Chair Lamay posed a question regarding the 14' finished floor to finished ceiling. Mr. Scarfe explained that 14' finished floor to finished ceiling is becoming more common. Vice Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, at0:00 Q-m,in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers : Page 5 of 11 Chair Lamay posed a question regarding the use for the second floor. Mr. Hoyt spoke to the question. Chair Deleo posed a question regarding staff's decision of the proposed application. Ms. Patten spoke to the question. Chair Deleo posed a question regarding an adjustment made for retail frontage. Ms. Patten spoke to the question. Mr. Lincoln explained the reason for the requested adjustments. The Planning Board took a 45-minute lunch break. Appellant Presentation: Attorneys Morgan Bentley and Cori Coser presented. Mr. Bentley discussed interstitial space and explained the use of interstitial space. Mr. Bentley noted that interstitial space is reviewed at the building permit stage and provided an explanation on the purpose of building height. Mr. Bentley discussed the number of parking spaces and addressed market requirements. Mr. Bentley stated that the adjustments did not provide public benefits. Mr. Bentley pointed out the interstitial space between the bottom of the pool structure and roof deck level. Mr. Bentley compared interstitial space for the proposed building to surrounding buildings. Architect Jonathan Parks presented and gave a brief description of his occupation. Mr. Bentley questioned Mr. Parks about defining interstitial space. Mr. Parks clarified that interstitial space is the space between each floor used for mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment. Mr. Bentley posed a question regarding staff review of a project for Mr. Parks. Mr. Parks discussed the proposed project for Main View that was submitted in 2021. Mr. Parks discussed the proposed request and the review process for interstitial space at the time. Mr. Parks noted that at the time interstitial space was undefined, and the additional height requested was denied. Mr. Bentley clarified that staff and Mr. Parks understood the interstitial space at the time. Mr. Bentley discussed the adjustment of the proposed request reducing the retail and stated the applicant is not meeting the mitigation to activate the street. Mr. Bentley stated that the palm trees are owned by Bay Plaza and reviewed the Standards for Review for Site Plans. Mr. Bentley stated that the increased height is due to the interstitial space and extra parking. Mr. Bentley questioned habitable space on the rooftop, discussed how the building is not compatible and the ways the building can be reconfigured. Vice Chair Lamay posed a question regarding structure included in interstitial space. Mr. Bentley provided clarification. Vice Chair Lamay spoke to the proposed request and posed a question about the possibility of a new project at the proposed site. Mr. Bentley spoke to the question. PB Member Clermont posed a question about a reasonable number of feet for interstitial space. Mr. Parks spoke to the question. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding Bay Plaza's approval if the building were lowered. Mr. Bentley spoke to the question. PB Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, at/0.00 Q-m-in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 11 Member Clermont posed a question about the interstitial space being reviewed at building permit. Mr. Bentley noted that interstitial space is a requirement for the DRC process but thoroughly reviewed under the building permit. PB Member Christy posed a question about what is written in the code and if interstitial space is referenced in the Zoning Code. Mr. Bentley spoke to the question. Chair Deleo spoke to the Standards for Review for Site Plans and posed a question regarding the Site Plan approval. Mr. Bentley spoke to the question. Chair Deleo spoke to the Site Plan approval addressing interstitial space. Mr. Bentley spoke to the question. Chair Deleo discussed compatibility. Chair Deleo posed a question about the decision of the Planning Board cannot be based on the interstitial space as it is not regulated. Mr. Bentley spoke to the question. Chair Deleo posed a question about reviewing the interstitial space for the decision as staff did not review the application for interstitial space based on Senate Bill 250 (2023). Mr. Bentley spoke to the question. Vice Chair Lamay posed a question regarding interstitial space and who agrees the interstitial space is adequate. Mr. Bentley explained the process. Vice Chair Lamay posed a question regarding the decision of the finished floor to finished ceiling. General Manager Christie noted that process review should be addressed to staff during rebuttal. PB Member Clermont discussed the measurements for each floor. Mr. Bentley explained how space can be saved. Citizen Input: Citizen input received. Mr. Lincoln requested a five-minute break. The Planning Board took a 10-minute break. Affected Persons: Affected Persons input received. City Attorney Connolly stated that Senate Bill 250 requires that the City review the application as if the Zoning Code still states "the uninhabited space between stories is not regulated." PB. Member Christy posed a question regarding Mr. Bentley's opinion about the interstitial space not being reviewed. City Attorney Connolly spoke to the question explaining that uninhabited space is in the Zoning Code and cannot be proposed for removal until 2026. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, at/0:00 amin the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 11 Staff Rebuttal: Noah Fossick, Development Review Chief Planner and Lucia Panica, Director of Development Services presented. Mr. Fossick discussed compatibility and noted that height is not the principle factor in determining compatibility. Chief Planner Fossick referenced an approved building is abutting a single-family home. Mr. Fossick referenced Action Strategy 3.5 regarding consistency with the Sarasota City Plan and noted that the application has met all relevant site regulations based. Mr. Fossick clarified that the applicant has provided the required information regarding interstitial space, and the 2022 Zoning Code was applied as interstitial space was not regulated. Chief Planner Fossick explained the reason interstitial space is required on plans. Mr. Fossick discussed the minimum lot size requirements and provided measurements of different sites and buildings. Chief Planner Fossick addressed removing trees from the right of way and noted that the applicant proffered pavers and enhanced landscaping. Mr. Fossick clarified that there is no maximum number of parking spaces, the parking structure is compliant with the Zoning Code, and there were no requested adjustments for parking. Chief Planner Fossick noted that mitigation is a requirement of adjustments and was provided. Mr. Fossick addressed rooftop amenities and the review process for adjustments on a separate project brought up by the appellant. Mr. Fossick addressed water retention and clarified that the applicant is required to retain storm water on site which was provided. Ms. Panica addressed the project brought upby the appellant clarifying that the mechanical equipment on the rooftop was the concern and not the interstitial space. Ms. Panica noted the "Mainview" application was withdrawn by the clerk's office as the applicant did not respond to staff comments. PBI Member Salem posed a question regarding interstitial space and the process for building permit review. Mr. Fossick noted that the applicant will provide full mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plans which will be reviewed by a building plans examiner. PB Member Salem posed a question about the review process if the equipment is smaller or larger than proposed. Mr. Fossick explained that a request will be made to size the interstitial space appropriate for the size of the equipment. Chief Planner Fossick explained it could be possible that the height of the building would reduce. PB Member Salem posed a question regarding the credentials of the building plans examiner. Mr. Fossick confirmed that the plans would be reviewed by a state-licensed commercial plans examiner. PB Member Salem posed a question regarding the qualifications for a plans examiner. Ms. Panica spoke to the question. PB Member Christy posed a question regarding the mandatory requirement for interstitial space on plans. Chief Planner Fossick explained that interstitial space is required on plans to verify finished floor to finished ceiling height. PB Member Christy posed a question about the MEP calculations. Mr. Fossick explained the interstitial space may be oversized and is an estimate for the equipment. PB Member Christy referenced Zoning Code Section IV-508 regarding the requirements fori interstitial space to be accounted for on the Site Plan. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, at)D-00 G-mein the Sarasota City Commission Chambers. Page 8 of 11 Mr. Fossick explained that if the interstitial space was not shown on the plans, it would require a Major Revision after permit review. Ms. Panica clarified that the section only pertains to zone districts that regulate height by stories as there are specific dimensions for each story. PB Member Christy posed a question regarding the roof top deck not being counted as an additional story. Mr. Fossick explained how much habitable space is alllowed on the rooftop and what would count to consider the rooftop an additional story. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding the space between the bottom of the pool structure and the roof deck on the eighteenth floor. Chief Planner Fossick provided an explanation for space. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding the interstitial space on the fourth floor. Ms. Panica noted that staff does request justification for the need of additional interstitial space. Vice Chair Lamay posed a question regarding the review of measurement between finished floor to finished ceiling and what is adequate. Chief Planner Fossick explained the review process for measurements and interstitial space. Vice Chair Lamay spoke to the proposed request and referenced the Zoning Code regarding review factors. Vice Chair Lamay posed a question about the design to compact the building and meet the Zoning Code requirements. Mr. Fossick spoke to the question noting that the building has been designed to meet all requirements and Standards for Review. General Manager Christie explained that the MEPS are reviewed by the building reviewer, and finished floor to finished ceiling measurements are reviewed by the zoning reviewer. Ms. Christie clarified that the proposed request is the first project that has been questioned based on the interstitial space which will require additional review. Vice Chair Lamay posed a question regarding mitigation compliance. Chief Planner Fossick clarified that mitigation is not required for a Site Plan but is for Administrative Adjustments and confirmed the mitigation was offered and addressed. Applicant Rebuttal: Ms. Patten addressed the interstitial space and clarified the number of feet for interstitial space. Ms. Patten referenced the Zoning Code noting that height limits are intended to control the scale of buildings. Ms. Patten explained that each adjustment shall be unique for each project and noted that the roof top complies with all requirements. Mr. Lincoln noted that stories are defined in the Zoning Code and discussed the definition. Mr. Scarfe provided measurements for space below the rooftop pool in multiple approved buildings and explained the need for the space. Mr.Scarfe clarified thati if the MEP equipment is larger than the proposed interstitial space, the ceiling will be lowered to accommodate. Mr. Gallagher explained the process of equipment installation and: noted revisions will be made if necessary. Mr. Gallagher discussed allowable adjustments that may be approved by the Director of Development Services and explained the need for adjustments. Mr. Scarfe discussed the conditions for refuse collection and noted it is not uncommon as there are multiple sites that use the same system as the proposed request. Ms. Patten explained that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, at b:00a-min the Sarasota City Commission Chambers' Page 9 of 11 complaints for refuse may be submitted if they are noncompliant and would be enforced by Code Compliance. Mr. Freedman explained the reason for the distance between the fourth and fifth floor. Vice Chair Lamay spoke to the proposed request and posed a question regarding the size of the building and the size of the lot. Mr. Scarfe spoke to the question. Mr. Freedman noted that any project proposed for the site will require an adjustment. PB Member Clermont referenced the Standards of Review and posed a question about how a project would affect adjacent buildings. Mr. Gallagher spoke to the question. PB Member Clermont posed a question aboutheight compatibility. Mr. Gallagher spoke to the question. PB Member Clermont posed a regarding the number of parking spaces per unit. Mr. Scarfe noted that twelve spaces will be dedicated to public use and explained the reason for the number of spaces per unit. PB Member Clermont posed a question regarding the garbage containers. Mr. Scarfe provided a description. Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Board members held a discussion regarding the proposed request. PB Member Clermont made a motion to approve the Administrative Site Plan and to deny appeal 25-APP-01 subject to the following conditions as listed in the Staff Report. PB Member Salem seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1. The Planning Board took a 5-minute break. There was no sound for the rest of the meeting as it was cut off and not noticed until after the meeting. 2. Fruitville Road Property (1266, 1258, 1240 4th Street and 1233 and 1241 Fruitville Road): Adjustment Application No. 25-ADP-01 requests for Planning Board Adjustment approval to locate access to the subject site from 4th Street, which is a primary street, for future development. The subject site has street addresses of 1266, 1258, 1250, and 1240 4th Street, and 1233 and 1241 Fruitville Road. The property is within the Downtown Core (DTC) Zone District. There is currently no associated Site Plan. (Alison Christie, AICP, General Manager, Development Services) Applicant Presentation: Philip DiMaria presented and provided a brief description of the proposed request. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, at0.00 a-min the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 11 Staff Presentation: Development Services General Manager Alison Christie presented and provided a brief description of the proposed request. Affected Persons: Affected Persons input received. Citizens Input: No Citizens input received. PB: Member Clermont made a motion to approve the proposed request. Vice Chair Lamay seconded the motion. V. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no citizen' S input. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 8, 2025 Minutes approved by consensus. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF VIII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:08 p.m. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 12, 2025, atjoco amin the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 11 liam Chwt Alison Christie Dan Deleo, Chairc General Manager and Secretary to the Board Planning Board/Local Planning Agency