CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay Planning Board Members Absent: Mort Siegel City Staff Present: Robert Fournier, City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Negnborhoa & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Miles Larsen, Manager-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. General Manager Smith stated PB member Siegel was out on business, stated the Planning Board needs to vote to waive the absence, and stated the vote could take place at the next meeting in case any members had questions for Mr. Siegel. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she thought the Planning Board had already decided not to vote on absences, you are either there or not, and suggested a discussion be held since PB member Lindsay was not on the PB at that time. PB Chair Gallagher suggested the Planning Board not take time now to discuss the issue. PB member Lindsay stated the discussion could be held at the end of the meeting. Secretary Smith stated he would place the item on the next meeting agenda. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the Order of the Day however Secretary Smith stated staff suggests items 1 & 21 under Non Quasi-judicial Public Hearings be combined into one public hearing, noted those are the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment applications for the Rosemary Residential Overlay District, and stated testimony would be at the same time while two separate, distinct motions would be required. By consensus the Planning Board agreed to combine the two applications. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the applicants were ok with combining the two applications. Attorney Fournier stated he had spoken to the applicant prior to the meeting, stated the Planning Board Rules of Procedure allow for 15 minutes for each application, and stated the applicants had stated they could complete their presentation in the combined 15 minutes. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 26 III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. Attorney Fournier reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures, stated there were no applications for affected person status, stated PB members will have to disclose any ex-parte communications they may have had, and reviewed the recommended time limits for the petitions. Board Members agreed to the time limits. Attorney Fournier administered the Oath to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. B. Non Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - ROSEMARY RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT: Application 14-PA-01 proposes to amend the Future Land Use Chapter and Future Land Use Map Series by creating an overlay district, to be known as the Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD), allowing for increased maximum residential density of up to 75 dwelling units per acre on individual projects within the RROD, however, the average density within the RROD shall not exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The application also seeks to amend LU-20, Primary Grid Streets Map, within the boundary of the RROD. The overlay shall be bounded on the south by Fruitville Road, on the west by Cocoanut Avenue, on the north by 10th Street and on the east by Orange Avenue. (David Smith, AICP, General Manager/ Integration). 2. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - ROSEMARY RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT: Application 14-ZTA-01 proposes to amend the Zoning Code (2002 Edition) by creating the Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD) to increase residential density allowable within the overlay district in order to promote high density residential development and use and to encourage a residential balance to existing non- residential uses within the RROD. Development within the RROD may be developed to a maximum residential density of 75 dwellings units per acre while maintaining the average density within the RROD at 25 dwelling units per acre. The application also seeks to amend Map VI-1001, Primary/Secondary Street Grid Map, within the boundary of the RROD. (David Smith, AICP, General Manager/ Integration). PB Chair Gallagher verified that the first items were legislative SO the staff presentation would be first. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she knew the hearing was legislative rather than quasi-judicial however she had a meeting with people in the City regarding the situation in the Rosemary District and wanted to reveal that to be on the safe side. Attorney Fournier stated that was not required however he had no objections if the other Planning Board members didn't. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she would feel better disclosing the information, stated she had attended a meeting organized between Ian Black and some CCNA members, noted Ian Black, Bob Easterle, Bob Fuller, Carl Shofstall, Pat Kolodgy, Tony Souza, Peter Fanning, John Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 26 Harshman, and others were present, and stated they had a detailed discussion regarding increasing the density in the Rosemary area and the value of that. Staff Presentation: General Manager Smith appeared, stated a couple of sheets had been distributed that he would discuss later, stated before the Planning Board was a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Rosemary Residential Overlay District (14-PA-01) and a Zoning Text Amendment that goes along with that (14-ZTA- 01), and stated the decision tonight on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be not only to recommend to the City Commission about adoption but also to transmit the application to the State of Florida for expedited review. General Manager Smith stated staff recommended approval, the suggested motion for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was to transmit the application to the State for expedited review and adoption by the City Commission, and the suggested motion for the Zoning Text Amendment was to approve or deny, noting that application does not go to the State. General Manager Smith discussed the proposal stating it allows for development of up to 75 units/acre of residential density within the 71 acre boundary that covers the majority of the Rosemary District noting currently 25 units/acre is allowed. General Manager Smith stated the overall residential density within the boundary cannot exceed 25 units/acre, noted it is similar to the Downtown Residential Overlay District that was in place in the early to mid 2000's, stated the maximum that could be built within the boundary of the proposed district is 1775 dwelling units, stated there are currently 386 units built, stated existing uses weigh toward non-residential, and stated the goal of the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Edge land use classification is more of a 50/50 balance. General Manager Smith further stated staff believes there is a need for more residential and this proposal is a good incentive, noted 67 parcels (38.5%) within the boundaries of the proposed Rosemary Residential Overlay District are vacant, stated staff would like to see mixed use, and stated there is potential for a greater amount of residential. General Manager Smith discussed proposed changes to the language noting he had submitted a sheet to the Planning Board this evening outlining those, stated the applicant had contacted him with concerns regarding staff's proposed language to be added regarding building permits, and stated the staff's recommended changes are highlighted in yellow on both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment staff reports. General Manager Smith stated the applicant has suggested a ten year life span with the RROD sunsetting December 31, 2024, staff consulted with the Urban Design Studio and they agreed that was too long, the Urban Design Studio plans to bring forward a density bonus program in a Form Based Code that is different than what is proposed in the RROD, the Urban Design Studio is looking at increased density for development located along mass transit lines, density for providing green sustainable buildings, and a few other factors. General Manager Smith stated staff prefers not to have two competing density bonus programs, that staff believes the Urban Design Studio's recommended density bonus program will be in place by December 1, 2017, SO staff is recommending a three year life span sO it would sunset at the end of 2017. General Manager Smith stated the second proposed change was staff added building permits, the sentence states the residential overlay district will continue in effect until December 31, 2017, Mr. Merrill contacted staff with concerns about building permits noting his client might build in two phases and if the second phase was after 2017 the building permit Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 26 would not be issued sO staff added "unless it has a previously approved, valid site plan" SO if a site plan is in place that was approved prior to the end of 2017 that allows for increased density they could still get a building permit. General Manager Smith noted the proposed changes are in both the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment. General Manager Smith stated the proposed boundary is Fruitville Road to the south, Orange Avenue to the east, 10th Street to the north, and Cocoanut Avenue to the west. General Manager Smith stated one other change suggested by staff is to the primary grid streets within the boundary, noted the applicant requested May Lane and Florida Avenue, which are now primary grid streets, be reclassified as secondary streets, staff supports that but also suggests that in front of the area proposed for the apartment complex along Cocoanut Avenue be added as a primary street, the Urban Design Studio agrees with that, the applicant has designed the development in accordance with the primary grid street requirements. General Manager Smith summarized the proposal stating density would be increased on individual sites without increasing the overall density within the boundaries and stated staff recommended approval with the suggested changes. PB: member Svekis noted page 5 of 97 states "RROD reached or exceeded 85% of buildout" and questioned why 'exceeded" was included. General Manager Smith stated a development could come in with 100 units proposed however only 50 units are needed to reach the 85% then approval would exceed 85%. PB member Svekis stated then exceeding could be 100% without a limit imposed. General Manager Smith stated if a development came in with 300 units that could go over the 85%. PB member Svekis stated SO the cutoff point for the City Commission increase in density is really missed. General Manager Smith stated staff does not expect to come close within the three years, staff will keep an eye out, and if a development comes in with 300 units staff will notify the Commission. PB member Svekis stated the next line states "the City Commission shall consider amending" and stated that was very weak in guaranteeing 25 units/acre development rights for every property owner. General Manager Smith stated there were options noting the City Commission could decide to up the base density or could decide to eliminate the RROD completely. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned how the 75 units/acre was arrived at. General Manager Smith stated the applicant had proposed that and noted their proposed apartment complex needs to be about 70 units/a acres and noted the proposed 75 units/acre is three times the existing 25 units/ acre allowed. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she understood the proposal was driven by the applicants and stated she was curious as to how the cap works. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the cap is 1,775 units and people run out and start to develop as fast as they can, and the first two, three, or four developers reach that number or get very close to 85%, are we putting ourselves in a bad situation by saying all property in the RROD shall continue to have fair, reasonable and economically viable use available to it, noting someone could say I was going to but someone beat me to it, and questioned if that is a concern of the City's. General Manager Smith stated non-residential development can be done SO it is not a taking of property if residential cannot be done and if development gets close to the cap and there seems to be a market for higher density increasing the base density could be considered. General Manager Smith further stated he had met with Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 26 folks from the Rosemary area and most are in favor of higher densities and if it takes off it could be a good incentive to up the base density, get rid of the RROD and allow higher density by right. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the point of the cap was a security measure. General Manager Smith stated in part the cap is due to required analysis for levels of service and infrastructure, noted the area is already planned for 1,775 residential units and an increase would require additional analysis. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned should you get to that point where you have your 1,775 and the people that built to that did not have to take into consideration increased traffic or any of those issues that can come with an extra boost in development, who then takes responsibility for that, is it spread evenly or do people that develop at the end, or the City that takes responsibility for that. General Manager Smith stated individual development projects will have to go through concurrency review noting right now a large project would have to go through traffic concurrency review. General Manager Smith stated the DRC looks to be sure there is enough water/sewer service, trash pick-up, etc. SO right now that would be accounted for each individual development project. General Manager Smith stated if a 10-unit apartment complex was proposed it would probably be deminimus but 350 units like what is being proposed would probably require a traffic study to determine how the roads are operating and if infrastructure improvements need to be made, noting while the staff report states that does not have to be done for the Comprehensive Plan amendment, it will be required for individual development projects. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated more often than not overlay districts are a give and take, in this case we are giving increased density, and questioned what we are taking. General Manager Smith stated there is no taking and noted the development standards are not changing, only the density. PB member Lindsay stated his concerns that this type of scheme sets up a horse race where whoever get there first gets the density, noted the City Commission may or may not act in the future to increase density, and questioned if it was fair for someone that wants to wait while a developer rushes to nail down the density before the proposed development is designed, financed and marketed. PB member Lindsay stated all it says is the City Commission shall consider at some point in the future, noting consideration at that time could be that maybe we have hit density caps, don't want to spend money on infrastructure improvements, SO we are done with that neighborhood, and the other property owners in that neighborhood have no opportunities beyond what is in the existing zoning code SO the only incentive is for a few people with resources versus the entire neighborhood, questioned if it is fair and if it would bring well designed projects that come incrementally to the neighborhood rather than the one grand scheme that gets parachuted into the middle of the neighborhood then the rest of the neighborhood is not allowed to change and adapt to the major change in the ambiance and the activity levels and all those things in the neighborhood that would go with that kind of high density. PB: member Svekis questioned why the west side of Cocoanut Avenue up to the Bayfront zoning was not included. General Manager Smith stated Mr. Freedman and Mr. Merrill could address that since it is their petition noting staff did go over the boundaries with the applicants and the applicants wanted to hold to the boundaries in Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 26 place today. PB member Svekis stated the whole plan is based on the petitioner which does not make sense to him stating it is not really a City plan, it's a petitioner plan. General Manager Smith stated staff had worked with the applicants at the beginning of the process however they are the applicant, they paid the fees, and they are proposing to do the overlay district. PB member Svekis questioned why limit the primary grid street designation for Cocoanut Avenue to that short distance. General Manager Smith stated as part of the Urban Design Studio's work they will look at all primary grid streets in the downtown area and will likely propose the entire Cocoanut Avenue as a primary grid street, and noted he had not seen any maps yet. General Manager Smith stated in consulting with Karin Murphy she stated at this stage the designation should just be on the portion in front of the applicant' S property, stated he didn't think Karin Murphy has had an opportunity to talk to the neighborhood yet, sO they didn't want to go any further at this time. PB member Lindsay apologized stating he had really made more of a statement to get across what he thought was his understanding of how the RROD works but didn't get into question form does he understand the mechanism and how it is supposed to work, and do those concerns actually play out or is he missing something in how the language is stated. General Manager Smith stated the concerns were valid, stated staff had experience with the DROD, noted all of the downtown property owners did not come in and try to develop all of the property, noted there were five DROD projects that were approved, two have not been built and still have site plans that could be built, the Biter Building and DeMarkay, stated two did not get constructed, and noted 1350 Main was constructed at around 160 - 170 units/acre where the maximum was 200 units/acre and based on that experience he can'ts say there would be a run to develop in Rosemary. PB member Lindsay questioned how close we are to the cap at this point. General Manager Smith stated there are 386 dwelling units right now, the cap is 1,775, the applicants are proposing about 450 dwelling units in an apartment complex sO 1,000 +/- units are available if the apartment complex gets approved. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted the application being processed will take up close to 30% of the available density and requested additional information on what the Urban Design Studio is going to propose, questioning if the RROD will end and blend into the bonus program they are proposing and if their proposal will be for 75 units/acre. General Manager Smith stated he does not know what the proposed density will be but bonus density will be available if the development is on a mass transit line or green building. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned what is meant by decent and affordable housing as stated on page 20, Goal 1. General Manager Smith stated the Goal is from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan and his interpretation is the housing affordability index is a certain percentage of income that should go to housing and if the percentage is not exceeded then the housing is affordable and decent means not dilapidated, slum, or blighted. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted that was vague stating what is affordable to one is not necessarily affordable to others. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted the sentence on page 15 that states "The applicant is proposing to change the status of May Lane and Florida Avenue from Primary Grid to Secondary Grid streets because these streets are currently less pedestrian oriented and more automobile-oriented" and stated that is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 26 true of the current state, noted the school is there, she picks her son up every day, kids walk down the street in all directions with no sidewalks, she would like to see the street more pedestrian friendly, and she is not sure it should be re-designated. General Manager Smith stated he believed the reason the applicants want it re- designated is because they are planning to have their building frontage along Cocoanut Avenue and will have to have two driveways with parking garages that they propose to have on the backside of the property which is not pedestrian oriented today and noted Duany created all of the primary streets and we may have too many. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she assumed everyone worked with the school to figure out the safest walking path for students. General Manager Smith stated he had not talked to the school and did not know if the applicants had. PB member Ahearn- Koch stated she felt it very important, the kids are the pedestrians at this time, and she want to see it more pedestrian friendly. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted the question from the Community Workshop on page 76 that reads "Please confirm during this process there will not be a taking for someone who does not exercise the 75 dwelling units/acre immediately, but wishes to utilize the base density of 25 dwelling units/acre in the future" and questioned what the answer was. PB: member Lindsay questioned Attorney Fournier regarding staff's S discussing specific needs of the developer who is paying for and started this, noting this is a legislative public hearing on an area wide text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and questioned where the line is crossed to where it becomes quasi-judicial and wondered how much specificity the Planning Board could get into. Attorney Fournier stated the proposal creates eligibility for the particular project, if it gets passed the applicants will have to go through administrative site plan review, noted questions that are broad based and deal with the neighborhood in general are appropriate. PB member Lindsay questioned if the process remains legislative while talking about specific street designations proposed for one specific project. Attorney Fournier stated there is not really any criteria, the primary street designation pertains more to the design of the buildings that front the street rather than if there are sidewalks, and consideration of whether to take off or add streets on has to be based on the public's best interest, stating there is no criteria to tie those designations to this project, noting it is not a site plan issue. General Manager Smith stated in answer to PB member Ahearn-Koch's question that he had covered that in his presentation, that if the density capis used up property owners can still build non-residential SO it is not a taking of property noting the policy says once development reaches 85% of available density the City will look at it and determine what, if any, action needs to be taken. PB: member Svekis noted on page 76 someone from the City states "you cannot have your 25 dwelling units/acre taken from you. We will work out the appropriate language to address this issue" stating that seems to be a guarantee. General Manager Smith stated that was from the Community Workshop and it is the applicant's response, stated that is where the 85% language came from that we would look at it if a lot of residential development occurred, and noted that is what staff is hoping to see happen. PB member Svekis questioned the statement that since a 25 unit/acre level Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 26 will not be exceeded by 1,775 we don'thave to consider if anything is missed, but on a microscale where you have 6 acres with 75 units/acre you have a tremendous amount of loading on the streets and questioned how far you can spread things. General Manager Smith stated a traffic study would certainly be required in this case, say they get 450 units then next door wants 450 units a traffic study will take into account the 450 plus the new 450 SO it may be too much noting development will be studied on a case by case basis and the second one could get fewer units. PB Chair Gallagher stated generally there are two possible scenarios for the future of the City, one is we try and take advantage of an application that is before us to get a large amount of units built in this real estate cycle and the other is the City waits for the Urban Design Studio to come up with a plan noting the expectation is additional density will be provided for. PB Chair Gallagher stated there is no guarantee the applicant will actually build, they could turn around and sell and reap the benefits, and stated personally he has as much knowledge of the area as anyone in the room in terms of designing multi-family in the area in the last ten years which is one project, he has a good sense as to why/why not, he has a couple of clients looking at developing in the area, one who thinks his property value will go up quite a bit and another sitting on his hands because he was ready to do something but is now concerned, one of the concerns about having a discussion at this time is property owners will wait to see if the density goes up then will change their project around, stated his office has been putting a lot of attention on the Bayfront and preliminary studies show May Lane is potentially a great connector between the Bayfront and Central Avenue and has potential pedestrian quality, and there is a risk in downgrading. PB Chair Gallagher noted Boulevard of the Arts, May Lane, and Florida Avenue are already primary and the code would allow garage entrances off Florida Avenue even though it is primary because if you are surrounded by primary streets you can select which one you want to have the garage entrances on. General Manager Smith stated frontages would be on Boulevard of the Arts, Cocoanut Avenue, and Florida Avenue noting the north end would not have street frontage since the owners do not own up to 10th Street. PB Chair Gallagher stated he would like to ask a few things to be 100% clear on the record and questioned if, from the City's point of view, there is a basis for the proposed 75 units/acre or if it is simply the applicant's number. General Manager Smith stated the number is arbitrary noting it is 3 times the existing maximum density of 25 units/acres. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if, from the City's point of view, there is a basis for not extending the boundary west of Cocoanut Avenue. General Manager Smith stated that is correct. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if development plans had been submitted. General Manager Smith stated none have been submitted to date. PB Chair Gallagher stated it is difficult to develop at 75 units/acre unless structured parking is provided which implies that smaller parcels will not benefit from the overlay district. General Manager Smith stated there are benefits to smaller parcels, noting while not everyone will be eligible for the maximum of 75 units/acre due to site constraints parcels could be developed at densities above the existing maximum density of 25 units/acre. PB Chair Gallagher questioned the impact on land values should one project absorb the market demand causing other property owners to wait ten years to develop and noted concerns regarding land owners assuming their property values will go up due to the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 26 increase in available density, and questioned if City staff had those discussions and/o or any concerns. General Manage Smith stated staff does not look at economics and/or marketing at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Rezoning stage. PB: member Lindsay questioned if staff had examined if the 75 units/acre is possible with other restrictions in the Code noting past criticism and lawsuits. General Manager Smith stated the proposal sets the maximum density, noting not every site can build to the maximum of 75 units/acre. PB member Lindsay stated in other cases no-one could build to the maximum due to other restrictions in the Code sO the argument was made other provisions of the Code must be revised to make that possible. General Manager Smith stated the applicants are planning to develop at 70 units/acre or more which is close to the 75 units/acre and noted not everyone can build at that density due to constraints such as parking, stormwater, etc. Attorney Fournier stated due to the fact there are two applications the applicants should be allowed 30 minutes for their presentation rather than the standard 15 minutes. Applicant Presentation: William Merrill III, Land Use Attorney and Shareholder with the Icard, Merrill Law Firm, and Joel Freedman, AICP, Planner appeared. Attorney Merrill noted Bruce Weiner and Debra Alward of Rosalyne Holdings LLC, the property owners, were also present. Attorney Merrill stated he was not going into an explanation of the project noting David made it clear noting the staff report very comprehensive. Attorney Merrill stated the application is a private initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment noting the City Commission adopted Resolution 14R-2394 allowing the applicants to proceed. Attorney Merrill stated discussions were held as to whether the application should be City initiated or private initiated and the decision was it was better as a private initiated application sO the applicants could pay and expedite the application. Attorney Merrill stated the area included is bounded by 10th Street to the north, Fruitville Road on south, Cocoanut Avenue to the west, and Orange Avenue on the east. Attorney Merrill stated the proposal allows for increased density on individual properties, a sort of clustering, without increasing the overall density of the district and that the applicants are also requesting Florida Avenue and May Lane to be deleted from the list of primary streets. Attorney Merrill stated the Rosemary Residential Overlay District is intended to implement the Sarasota City Plan and promote high density residential development and use in order to encourage a residential balance to existing nearby non-residential uses, it promotes high density development that is compatible with existing uses, density and scale of development in the surrounding area and allows a fully mixed use of residential and non- residential in order to create a functional and sustainable urbanized community in the area. Attorney Merrill further stated the proposal encourages more people to permanently reside within the boundaries of the district in order to enhance the economic vitality of the Rosemary neighborhood and downtown areas. Attorney Merrill stated the applicants are requesting a maximum density of 75 units/acre for individual properties however the overall density will not exceed 25 units/acre, the total number of dwelling units allowed is 1,775, currently 386 are built leaving Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 26 approximately 1400, and if this development takes 400 +/- over 1,000 units would be remaining. Attorney Merrill stated put in perspective, during the heyday of development in the City from the late 1990's to 2008,in the area that includes downtown to the keys, not including Golden Gate Point or North Trail, less than 1200 units were built and noted that many units will not be built in a 3-5 year period in this district and noted proposed language that provides for the monitoring of the density and a sunset provision. Attorney Merrill discussed the proposed de-designation of Florida Avenue and May Lane stating in the 12y years since Florida Avenue was designated as a primary street the school has gained access to the road and the buildings have the back to the road SO it is not pedestrian friendly and should not be a primary street. Attorney Merrill stated there is a future need for garage access that was proposed off of Florida Avenue, an alternative would be to move the garage access to Cocoanut Avenue which would face Alinari and Renaissance as well as liner buildings that have been approved, SO it made sense to put those on the Florida Avenue side. Attorney Merrill discussed the proposed de-designation of May Lane stating the request is due to the applicant contemplation of a future vacation with an easement given back to the public noting street vacations are problematic on primary streets. Mr. Freedman stated May Lane goes to Central Avenue however is not designated as primary to41, the intent is to enhance the roadway to get residents to Central Avenue, the vacation is necessary to split the density equally between two buildings, stormwater could be consolidated to the south, May Lane will remain open, will be pedestrian oriented and an amenity for the apartment complex. Attorney Merrill stated the applicants agree with staff's recommendations with the exception of the proposed sunset date which they see as a major issue noting the applicants have proposed ten years and staff has recommended three years. Attorney Merrill stated the applicants are concerned that the three year sunset date would create issues in terms of funding for the project as well as phasing, stated the applicants recognized staff' S other concerns and are proposing a compromise of five years, and noted they plan to start construction right away if approved however five years is not a lot of time for a project of this size. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants support staff's recommended changes to the language that states if the is an approved site plan and the project is phased a building permit can be issued after the sunset date if there is still a valid site plan for the property. Attorney Merrill addressed the Planning Board's S question regarding why 75 units/acre stating 25 units/ 'acre won't work. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants believe 25 units/ acre has been an impediment and that is why nothing has happened in the area. Attorney Merrill stated 75 units/acre is necessary because it allows for the project to be financially feasible, allows for more reasonable sized units that meet a diverse housing need and will be more affordable. Attorney Merrill discussed the market timing issue stating the market can be everything, if the applicants have to wait three years before the other one gets implemented then add onto that the time it takes to go through the process they will miss out, stated the market is here now and they foresee it will be here for several years, sO the 75 units/acre is not an arbitrary number. Attorney Merrill stated as for the structured parking issue if property is developed at the full 75 units/acre that would be necessary and stated the community has pointed out that level of density could encourage aggregation of properties which would be a good thing. Attorney Merrill further stated the proposal was not just the applicant's idea noting the City Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 26 conducted a community workshop in 2012 and what came out of that was the need for more density but no increase in heights and the applicants have delivered on that, stating in the plan the City prepared for the Rosemary District increased density is called for. Attorney Merrill addressed the concern that the first developer in gets all the density and there will be a rush to develop stating the greatest land rush in the history of the City did not result in as many units as could be developed under this proposal, the applicants don't see that happening now, and noted the monitoring provision. Attorney Merrill stated a rush is the best thing that could happen, stated the need for incentives and more residential in the downtown and nearby area, noted the proposal meets that need, very few people at the community workshop were against the proposal, and the primary concern was others wanting to be included. Mr. Freedman stated the reason the properties west of Cocoanut Avenue were not included was because the proposed Renaissance property is already planned for, Player's Theatre has not been planned for, the Jefferson Center property is already developed, and it did not make sense to jog the boundaries noting as a planner he likes straight lines. Mr. Freedman also stated if other property owners want to be included they can request the City Commission authorize that. Attorney Merrill stated the fact the owners of the Renaissance and Alinari projects did not request inclusion proves their point. Mr. Freedman discussed the property to the south stating the zoning district is Downtown Core which allows for up to ten stories noting the property owners would not likely want to give that up. Attorney Merrill stated according to City staff and the City Attorney an overlay district should only have one underlying zoning district noting the applicants do not object to including other properties however they are not willing to do SO noting the City Commission can address that. Mr. Freedman stated the Urban Design Studio is considering 75 units/acre in the Form Based Code they are preparing. Attorney Merrill addressed the question could the applicants achieve 75 units/a acre stating studies have shown they can. Mr. Freedman presented a concept for a four story solution consisting of approximately 72-73 units/acre and stated a small lot development with 5,000 sq. ft. of property could build up to eight units, parking could be an issue however on-street parking can be counted, and stated 75 units/acre gives a great opportunity for small properties and encourages aggregation. Attorney Merrill stated with regard to the impact on land values and one project absorbing the density the applicants are looking at an apartment complex which is only one type of potential residential development, stated the project will provide housing for an area that is in sore need and a variety that provides diversity of population in the area. Mr. Freedman discussed concerns regarding impacts on traffic and water & sewer services stating every project will have to go through the development review process and those issues will be addressed at that time. Mr. Freedman also stated the applicants had met with the SSAS board and understand the school's traffic patterns, stated the applicants will have to provide sidewalks along Florida Avenue, they are. looking at solutions for the queuing of traffic at drop-off and pick-up times, they want to be a good neighbor to the school, and they feel the school is an amenity to the project. Attorney Merrill stated the project has the support of staff, is long overdue, has been called for by the Rosemary District residents and business owners, is important to the revitalization of the area, will support the businesses in the area, and noted the area is rundown. Attorney Merrill stated the applicants were requesting the Planning Board Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 26 recommend approval and transmittal noting the only change the applicants are requesting is the five year versus three year sunset time period. PB member Svekis stated three letters were in the packet from property owners west of Cocoanut Avenue requesting inclusion and noted while the applicants had stated it would not be to those property owners benefit the property owners apparently believe it would be. Mr. Freedman stated he didn't know why those property owners would want to give up their ability to develop at ten stories. Attorney Merrill stated those are to the south, stated the Player's Theatre and Jefferson Center want a portion of their properties included however if the applicants added those properties it would derail their project, the application would have to be re-noticed, noted they have talked to all the property owners and they are all supportive of the project however do want to be included and if the City deems they should be included the City can make that change, noted the property to the southwest that wants to be included does not have the same future land use classification and the City has indicated properties that are not classified the same should not be included however if the City wants those included the applicants have no objections. PB member Svekis stated a critical question is the size of the units. Mr. Freedman stated the proposed units would be one, two, or three bedrooms with approximately 750-1200 sq.ft. noting the majority would be one or two bedroom. PB member Svekis questioned if the applicants has considered smaller units. Mr. Freedman stated not at this time noting the current market is for rentals the size they are proposing. Attorney Merrill stated they are not proposing luxury condominiums but apartments that are reasonable sized, are at market rate and are affordable. PB member Svekis noted in the minutes of the Community Workshop it was brought up about 25 units/acre being guaranteed for property owners and the applicant's response was language would be included to address that. Attorney Merrill stated the applicants had stated that would be looked at and they would come up with language, stated they cannot bind a future City Commission which is why language was added that says the issue will be reviewed once the 85% mark is approached, noted the City Commission could change the base density to 75 units/acre, could make it 50 units/acre, could go back to 25 units/acre or eliminate the overlay district completely, and stated the addition of the sunset provision which is meant as an incentive to encourage additional changes. Attorney Merrill stated the statement "fair, reasonable and economically viable use available to it" was included as a failsafe provision SO a taking is not committed and noted the applicants are open to additional information. PB: member Svekis stated it bothered him to have a response that is not true. Mr. Freedman stated it was true, noted that once the sunset provision goes into effect the property owners get their 25 units/acre back, noted the City Commission can remove the overlay district once the peak is reached, or could possibly change the density in the Downtown Edge zone district. Attorney Merrill stated a significant portion of land in the Rosemary District is now commercial that could be bulldozed flat and redone as residential however the market is not there for that SO it will not be a an issue. Attorney Merrill stated it is fully within the power of the City Commission to make those changes and noted the applicants did not state the 25 units/acre could not be taken away. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 26 PB member Ahearn-Koch read the definition of Downtown Edge and questioned how 75 units/acre encourages new urbanism work/live/retail. Mr. Freedman stated the 200 units/acre provided for in the DROD created rather than discourages mixed use, stated the project would not contain a lot of commercial, stated it is an apartment complex and they want to encourage the residents to use the commercial on Central Avenue, noted they may have small commercial uses in the future which would be minimal, and stated both buildings would be mixed use by definition. Attorney Merrill stated the applicants had talked to people in the area, that they want to support the business on Central Avenue however could have retail in the future. PB Chair Gallagher sated the applicants had indicated the reason they requested the de-designation of May Lane was density cannot be transferred across a right-of-way, noted the Urban Design Studio has proposed language that will eliminate that issue and questioned why the applicants were proposing de-designation rather than the language from the Urban Design Studio. Mr. Freedman stated it was an issue of timing and noted the applicant has no desire for access. PB Chair Gallagher requested the applicants go over the vacation process. Mr. Freedman stated it would be a street vacation that immediately grants back easements and has other conditions that allow for use of the vacated area as if it is a public street. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the application would go before the Planning Board and City Commission. Mr. Freedman confirmed that is the case noting the applicant plan to start that process very soon. PB Chair Gallagher noted the applicants had stated it is more difficult to vacate a primary street and questioned if there is a policy that would prevent that. Attorney Fournier noted the Code does not differentiate between street designations. PB Chair Gallagher stated density is not the only problem in the Rosemary area, there is another problem that he won't get into. Mr. Freedman stated that having more people on the street would help with that problem. PB Chair Gallagher stated he does not agree, nor does he believe the Urban Design Studio agrees with, the fact that aggregation of property is a good idea, stating a finely gridded street system without mega blocks has some validity in urban design thinking. Attorney Merrill noted a lot of aggregation could occur due to the number of single parcels. Citizen Testimony: PB Chair Gallagher stated Ms. Susan Payne had requested to speak as a representative of Alinari and then as a private citizen. The board agreed to allow Ms. Payne to give testimony twice. Ms. Payne appeared as a representative of the Alinari Board and stated the Board adopted a resolution at their April 23rd meeting and read the resolution into the record which stated support of the project with concerns relating to the impact on long term development potential in the area and if the demand will be there to fill the supply. Ms. Payne appeared as an area resident stating she has lived in Alinari a little over five years, has been an economic development consultant for the past 25 years, and stated since the proposal is a request from a private developer versus the City she feels the onus should be on the developer to demonstrate the demand is there and is sustainable long term noting other projects in the area. Ms. Payne stated the developers should be required to demonstrate the ability to bring the project to full Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 26 fruition, demonstrate the financial capacity for long term sustainability including the financial capacity to build out as planned, the financial strength to respond to changes as the project develops, demonstrate the viability of the project based on a competitive demand analysis which Attorney Merrill referred to however they have not evidence of, and stated she hoped the City would take a comprehensive approach in reviewing the proposal including these concerns. Mr. Ian Black appeared stating he represented Blackbush Star Inc. at May Lane and Central Avenue. Mr. Black stated he located his business in the area ten years ago, stated the Rosemary District has been the forgotten stepchild for the past twenty years, stated all the extra complications are short sighted and stated the need to do everything to encourage this type of density. Mr. Black discussed the issue the Chair referred to that is intolerable and disgraceful at 10th Street and Cocoanut Avenue outside the Salvation Army noting he and his staff feel threatened. Mr. Black stated he felt this proposal would help the situation by putting more eyes on the street, stated the increased density is necessary to support the commercial and retail in the area, stated it is an emergency situation, and noted the proposal should be approved SO the project can proceed while the market is still there, stated todays developers are well funded and experienced, stated more complications in place could mean missing the market, and requested the Planning Board approve the request with the inclusion of the request that the sunset provision be extended to five years. Mr. Black stated the need to be supportive of this type of initiative to revitalize the Rosemary District, stated it is fundamentally important, and stated a 24/7 living/work population in the Rosemary District would benefit the entire City. Mr. David Jennings appeared and stated he represented the Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences (SSAS) Board of Directors. Mr. Jennings stated the school is a tuition free, multi-cultural, public middle school founded in 1997, has 750 students in the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, is second in accreditation in the Sarasota district, and noted he is a SCAS parent as well. Mr. Jennings stated the campus has been located at 645 & 715 Central Avenue since 1999, has completely redeveloped the property contributing to the revitalization of the Rosemary District, and occupy an area bounded by Central Avenue to the east, May Lane to the north, Florida Avenue to the west, and the southern boundary is an alley north of Boulevard of the Arts. Mr. Jennings noted the plat map shown this evening is incorrect noting 7th Street was vacated in 2011 and public access is no longer available. Mr. Jennings stated the Board of Directors at SSAS appreciated the applicants reaching out to them, noted Mr. Freedman had remained accessible throughout the entire process however he wanted to reiterate the school's S concerns for the record. Mr. Jennings stated Florida Avenue and May Lane are the main streets used by parents and buses for drop-off and pick-up which occurs twice per day, from 8:30 - 8:50 am and 3:50 - 4:20 pm, stated there are 350 cars and 8 buses utilizing the streets, in addition to day classes there are dozens of extra- curricular activities that run into the evening, and 17 summer camps are scheduled for this summer with morning and afternoon sessions. Mr. Jennings stated the school has benefitted from the property being vacant however they knew it would be developed at some point, stated the Board has not taken a position on the overlay district but generally feels positive about it, the Board has concerns relating to the safety of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 26 kids, post-development impacts of traffic, traffic flow, and in particular parent drop- off and pick-up, increased parking on May Lane and Florida Avenue impeding parent drop-off and pick-up as well as the ability of the buses to navigate corners, parents inadvertently blocking tenant access to the apartment complex, and a few hundred new neighbors developing resentment towards the school due to inconveniences caused by traffic. Mr. Jennings noted two common denominators were child safety and the efficiency of the drop-off and pick-up procedures and satisfaction and goodwill with the new neighbors. Mr. Jennings stated the Board would like these concerns taken into account as street designations are considered, street designs are finalized, and parking ratios are approved. Ms. Lauren Wood appeared stating she is a business owner and homeowner in the Rosemary District and parent of SCAS student. Ms. Wood stated the project is desperately needed, Mr. Black has not overstated the desperation the district is feeling financially, economically and residentially. Ms. Wood stated she survived the recession however is very close to giving it up due to the situation that has not been fully named but the overtaking of the residential and commercial district by the homeless making it an unattractive place to do commerce and to live. Ms. Wood stated she does not want to leave, loves where she works and lives, will not leave where she lives, stated the situation has to be addressed and she wants to be a responsible member of the community that addresses the concerns regarding the safety of the children at the school, making sure the community is a happy, healthy place to live, with all members openly communicating meaning this and any future projects will have to take into account traffic and the pedestrian nature of the area. Attorney Fournier administered the oath to those that had not been previously sworn. Ms. Brenda Patten, Land Use Attorney with Berlin Patten Law Firm, appeared and stated the boundaries of the RROD were determined by the applicants, the RROD encompasses 6.5 acres of the applicant' S property as well as 64.8 acres of property owned by others, and there is a fairness issue. Ms. Patten stated she represents Drazmar 599 Land LLC which is managed by David Shapiro and noted Mr. Shapiro is one of the three property owners that sent letters asking for inclusion in the district. Ms. Patten presented a working map she developed outlining the proposed RROD area, stated all of that area is zoned Downtown Edge, the area alongside the proposed boundary west of Cocoanut Avenue is also zoned Downtown Edge and is the location requested by the three property owners to be included, stated Attorney Merrill had stated the applicants included like kind and those were not like kind, sated she thinks they are like kind because the properties are also zoned Downtown Edge, and stated it makes great sense to add a condition if approved that all property west of Cocoanut Avenue, south of 10th Street, and north of Fruitville be included. Ms. Patten stated is the fair thing to do, is what the City should do, noted the applicants have stated they don't object to the inclusion and stated she supports the proposal if all properties west of Cocoanut Avenue that are zoned Downtown Edge are included. Mr. John Harshman appeared stating he is a 40 year resident of Sarasota, has had his commercial real estate license downtown for 30 years, he was the agent for Rosalyne Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 26 Holdings when they purchased the property and his company continues as management for the site as well. Mr. Harshman discussed density and market issues from a commercial real estate perspective, stated in 1990 when a recession that was worse than the recent one hit 15 of 18 major projects proposed for downtown went back to the bank, one of which was known as the Mission Harbor site that encompassed 11 acres bounded by US 41, Boulevard of the Arts (known as 6th Street at that time), Player's Theatre, and back up to Cocoanut Avenue with an acre on the east side of Cocoanut Avenue. Mr. Harshman stated the property was acquired out of receivership by Sarasota County to put the Library there, eventually the Library was located at Five Points, the City then did a very creative thing and removed the development rights obtained by Mission Harbor, the property reverted back to the original development rights which was single family with a little bit of multi-family, the Planning Director at that time put out an RFP without saying what was wanted there but gave general goals, the Rosemary District was worse then than it is today SO the goal was to bring projects to the area that would lift up the neighborhood, his client was one of five that responded and the only proposal for mostly residential, noting the area now has Renaissance, Alinari, and Hotel Indigo. Mr. Harshman stated the City Commission at that point recognized residential would help uplift the neighborhood and agreed to increase the maximum density from 5 units/acre to 50 units/acre, stated that was the first kind of an overlay district, then there was the DROD that was very successful, had a 10 year sunset period, during that ten years only one project was built, three others have rights however probably only one of those is likely to be built, and he would recommend expanding overlay districts to include all of Rosemary, the area east of US 301 Downtown Core and Downtown Edge stating there is a tremendous opportunity to enliven downtown, stated timing is critical in development and he encourages as a community we move forward to take advantage of the window we have to get the type of development we want. Mr. Manny Lauria appeared and stated he was Secretary of the Board of The Renaissance and read their position statement into the record. Mr. Lauria stated they support the City's basic plan for residential, small business, and retail development in the Rosemary District and believeit can lead to the creation of a dynamic neighborhood atmosphere. Mr. Lauria further stated the Board feels the City should ensure that those projects that are approved in the Rosemary District result in a viable neighborhood without pockets of undeveloped lots, to avoid unintended consequences a residential supply/demand analysis is critical to the final decisions being made on amendments and exceptions to the current 25 units/acre density limits, and they urge the City to consider the potential number of new units from all development and determine the actual demand will fill the expected supply. Mr. Lauria stated with respect to the Rosalyne Holdings proposal for the Cocoanut Avenue site the Board believes the plans for a four story market rate apartment complex, parking and traffic flow on Florida Avenue and the dedication of May Lane as a pedestrian walkway are appropriate for the site however they defer on a position on the request for a change in the density pending the completion of a supply/demand analysis, stated they want to ensure the project is viable noting if it can't be filled it will become an eyesore. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 26 PB member Svekis requested the exact wording of the phrase Mr. Smith had included that was not in their package regarding the extension of site plan approvals. General Manager Smith stated that is staff's recommendation for three years regarding building permits that is in red that was added today "unless it is a previous approved site plan". Attorney Fournier pointed out the Rules require the PB to offer 5 minutes to staff and the applicant to address any comments the public made if they SO choose. PB member Lindsay questioned Attorney Fournier regarding suggestions that had been made that the district be enlarged, can it be done without re-advertising. Attorney Fournier stated they can recommend that to the City Commission and they would need to re-advertise if they chose to expand the boundaries beyond what is proposed. General Manager Smith noted a Community Workshop would be required as well. PB member Lindsay stated it would be more appropriate to add it to the next regular Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. General Manager Smith stated an applicant can come in and petition the same as the applicants did. PB member Lindsay stated yes they could do that and pay for it or it could be included in the next scheduled revision. General Manager Smith stated that is a few years away, December 2015 is when that is due to the State, and noted it would be another year after that until actually adopted. General Manager Smith stated there is nothing to prevent an applicant from coming in and making application to expand the boundary and stated the deadline for the annual cycle of amendments is in 2 weeks. PB member Lindsay stated SO that can't be made a part of this process. Attorney Fournier stated the Planning Board could make the recommendation but there would have to be some way to address the required advertising noting this application could be held up until that caught up or could be done subsequently. PB member Lindsay requested confirmation that if the Planning Board were inclined to approve this application it would not inhibit any other action to expand the boundaries noting the normal process would have to be followed. Attorney Fournier stated the Planning Board does not necessarily have to recommend the procedures to be followed and if they want to add more land it would be as a recommendation in a separate motion. PB Chair Gallagher requested any rebuttal from staff or the applicant. There was no rebuttal. PB Chair closed the public hearing and called for a 5 minute break. The Planning Board was in recess from 8:20 pm - 8:25 pm. PB Chair Gallagher requested a motion on application 14-PA-01. PB member Svekis stated he would make a motion but first wants to inject something sO if someone else wanted to make a motion he could inject what he wants to later stating it is a matter of consideration. PB member Svekis further stated Sarasota is in distinct need of affordable, first home type housing rentals, there is a real need for many reasons, noted an article in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune stating everyone in the service sector, including police, are priced out of the market and Sarasota landlord Harvey Vengroff has over 1,000 low income units that are full and there is wait list and noted Mr. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 26 Vengroff' S statement that people need place to live and people that work for a living just can'ta afford it right now. PB member Svekis made a motion to approve 14-PA-14 with the changes with a three year limit and a chance to evaluate whether there is enough interest and if there is interest the City Commission will act as stated here earlier, second would include all Downtown Edge properties west of Cocoanut which will probably require some changes that might not make it possible to fully approve the motion tonight, and thirdly and most importantly since we are dealing with abstract numbers pulled from the air at 75 units, or 25, for the first time the Rosemary District offers an opportunity to have smaller rental units, more affordable, to me it seems we should add in there that on certain sized projects the requirement should be 20% of units should be 350 - 500 sq. ft. PB member Lindsay stated that was general for a motion and stated the need for a motion specific to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment first that deals with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment issues and a separate motion for the Zoning Text Amendment because PB member Svekis' concerns fit with that. Attorney Fournier stated the first two issues do fit with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment because the sunset provision is in the Action Strategy in the Comprehensive Plan and overlay district is in the Comprehensive Plan and noted the size of the units would fit in the Zoning Text Amendment if anywhere. General Manager Smith noted the issue of the property west of Cocoanut Avenue that was not advertised needs addressed as well. Attorney Fournier stated the recommendation can be made as a separate motion and how that happens is up to the City Commission. General Manger Smith stated as staff he would prefer to have a second motion on the west of Cocoanut, if the Planning Board wants to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with a three year sunset do that as one motion then if they want to make a recommendation regarding the properties west of Cocoanut do that as a second motion. Attorney Fournier state a second motion is appropriate. PB member Lindsay stated doing as a second motion would be appropriate noting if you are talking adding land it could cause a delay of up to six months. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if PB member Svekis was ok with a single motion based on a three year sunset. Attorney Fournier stated nothing prohibits making a second motion after that to add area. PB member Svekis asked what about the size of the units. Attorney Fournier stated that belongs in the zoning Text Amendment. PB member said fine however the motion died for lack of a second. PB: member Lindsay made a motion to approve as printed with the understanding that includes a five year time limit. General Manager Smith confirmed the motion was "Move to find 14-PA-01 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and recommend that the City Commission approve transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for Expedited State Review and upon its return, adoption with identified changes" and noted the changes would be the 5 year versus 3 year sunset timeframe and the language in red regarding building permits. PB Chair Gallagher seconded the motion. PB member Lindsay stated he was not comfortable with ten years but based on his experience three years it too tight, noting if approved and a project is not already well Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 26 down the path of planning and obtaining financing they won't be ready in three years. PB member Lindsay stated to stay with three years would say we are doing this for this project only which justifies the five year sunset, stated otherwise he feels it is a good process and has no objection to a separate motion to recommend including the property to the west and would for that just doesn't want to delay this one since it would affect the feasibility for these petitioners that have paid for it. PB Chair Gallagher stated he agreed, the issue will go to the City Commission, key topics have been raised, and he is ready to support the motion. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she was concerned about looking at the overlay district to solve the problem in the Rosemary District, stated there are big and important issues we are all aware of, she is not sure enough thought has been done to ensure this is the solution, stated she is encouraged, this could be a trial program over three years and the Urban Design Studio's program would kick in, stated she is cautious about concerns expressed by others, particularly SSAS, she feels caught between a rock and a hard place, noted this is not just about this project but the entire overlay district, she would support the motion with a three year sunset but not five, she feels three years is a good testing ground, and the Urban Design Studio could come up with something this could run into, and stated she could not support the motion. PB member Svekis stated with the inclusion of the language regarding previously approved site plans there is some protection beyond 2017, he does not want speculation, he wants to see if something happens in three years, ifit doesn't the Urban Design Studio will have a plan that kicks in, and stated he could not support the motion. The vote was tied 2/2. Secretary Smith stated the Rules of Procedure require that this come back at the next meeting and PB Siegel cast a vote. PB member Lindsay questioned if an alternate motion could be made. Attorney Fournier stated if there are three votes one way or the other the application can move forward, if not it would have to be continued, and noted it does not prevent the Planning Board from trying again. PB member Svekis stated how about in good spirit revise the sunset period to four years. PB member Lindsay seconded that stating he supports that to keep the application moving. PB: member Svekis stated the time frame was a little long but to keep it moving he would agree with it. The motion passed 4/0. PB: member Ahearn-Koch made a motion Move to find 14-ZTA-01 inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find thati it does not satisfy the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend denial to the City Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the need for an additional motion for recommending adding properties to the RROD. PB member Svekis made a motion to add all of the Downtown Edge property west of Cocoanut Avenue to the RROD. PB Chair Gallagher noted it is a separate recommendation to the City Commission. General Manager Smith questioned the boundaries and if that would include Alinari. PB member Svekis stated the boundaries would be between 10th Street and Boulevard of the Arts. PB Chair Gallagher question if it should go to Fruitville Road. Discussion ensued regarding the exact properties to include. PB Chair Gallagher confirmed the boundaries as proposed are 10th Street to the north and Fruitville Road to the south. General Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 26 Manager Smith stated the boundaries are Fruitville Road to the south, 10th Street to the north, Cocoanut Avenue to the west, and Orange Avenue to the east, stated on the Future Land Use Map the area west of Cocoanut Avenue that is Downtown Edge is from 10th Street to Fruitville Road and about midway from Boulevard of the Arts north the Future Land Use classification is Urban Edge, south to Fruitville Road the Future Land Use classification is Downtown Core, and noted all of the properties are zoned Downtown Edge. PB member Svekis amended his motion sO the boundaries would be 6th Street to 10th Street. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the property zoned Downtown Edge below that that Mr. Shapiro requested be included was part of that. PB member Svekis questioned if it was Downtown Edge. General Manager Smith stated the zoning is Downtown Edge however the Future Land Use classification is Downtown Core. PB: member Svekis questioned if Downtown Core is more developable. General Manager Smith stated if the property was rezoned to Downtown Core that would allow for 50 units/acre and ten stories in height. PB member Svekis stated he felt it would be a stretch to go below 6th Street. PB Chair Gallagher noted this is a separate recommendation to the City Commission and the public can weigh in then. PB member Svekis stated he agreed, Mr. Shapiro can approach the City Commission with his request if he wants to. PB Chair Gallagher confirmed the amended motion was for 6th Street to 10th Street. General Manager Smith noted 6th Street is now Boulevard of the Arts sO the boundaries would be Boulevard of the Arts north to 10th Street. PB member Lindsay requested clarification that whether the proposal is the City Commission include this in the next scheduled review of the Comprehensive Plan, suggest they add the properties to this application which would require new public hearings before these applicants could move forward, or the City create and fund a City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attorney Fournier stated that could be added to the motion or a separate motion could be made to include the properties then let the City Commission and staff figure out the best way to proceed, noting either option is appropriate. PB member Lindsay stated it is important to be clear. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if doing SO would hold this up. Attorney Fournier stated if the vote was to include the properties in this application the applicants would have to wait for another round of public hearings before proceeding. PB member Svekis questioned if it could be added separately. Attorney Fournier stated put simply the issue is does it get added or is it separate. PB member Svekis stated in that case it should be considered as a subsequent amendment. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion. General Manager Smith requested confirmation that the motion is for the City Commission to consider those properties that are Downtown Edge subsequent to this application. PB member Lindsay stated as a matter of procedure a motion with specific language is needed to be clear on what it is, stated it should be in writing, and suggested Secretary Smith put it in writing and bring it back at the end of the meeting for an actual vote. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she was not going to support the motion if the recommended boundaries do not go all the way to Fruitville Road noting it give those property owners a fair option. Attorney Fournier stated his understanding is that the intent of the motion is the properties south of Boulevard of the Arts that are in a different land use classification would get the increased density and the ten stories and the increased density in the overlay district would only be available if the properties were rezoned to Downtown Edge. General Manager Smith Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 26 read the proposed motion "Recommend to the City Commission to add to the RROD the Downtown Edge zoned properties west of Cocoanut Avenue between 10th Street to the north and Boulevard of the Arts to the south in a subsequent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. PB member Ahearn-Koch made a motion to amend the motion to include the area between Boulevard of the Arts and Fruitville Road. PB member Svekis accepted the amendment to the motion. PB member Lindsay questioned what the point was about properties being in different zone districts currently. Attorney Fournier stated the properties are in the same zone district but have different Future Land Use classifications SO conceivably could be rezoned to Downtown Core and go up to ten stories and still get the overlay and that he understands the intent of the motion is to have a choice to opt to stay at five stories and get the density rather than go up to ten stories. General Manager Smith noted the proposed text states it applies to the Downtown Edge zoned properties SO if a rezoning to Downtown Core was applied for the additional density would not apply and noted that would allow for 50 units/acre. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted the other option would be to apply to be included in the overlay district which would allow for five stories and up to 75 units/acres. PB member Lindsay stated the text language only allows the increased density in the Downtown Edge zone district. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted those properties are zoned Downtown Edge. PB Chair Gallagher requested the motion be read again. General Manager Smith stated the motion is to "Recommend to the City Commission to add Downtown Zone District properties west of Cocoanut Avenue between 10th Street and Fruitville Road to the RROD in a subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The motion passed 4/0. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if there were any other Comprehensive Plan related motions. Being none, PB Chair Gallagher requested a motion on the Zoning Text Amendments noting there is a text amendment related to this change and text amendments related to the change in primary and secondary streets. General Manager Smith stated all of the changes are included in the Zoning Text Amendment application, noted the proposed changes to the primary grid streets include adding Cocoanut Avenue to the primary street grid and changing May Lane and Florida Avenue from primary grid street to secondary grid street, stated to be consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments a four year sunset provision should be included, and the additional language regarding site plans and building permits should be included. PB member Lindsay made a motion to adopt the proposed Zoning Text Amendments using the language in the packets with a sunset provision of four years. PB member Ahearn-Koch seconded the motion. The motion passed 4/0. PB: member Svekis made a motion that any property that takes advantage of the increased density, 26 units or greater, has 20% of all units in the 350 - 500 sq. ft. range. PB member Ahearn-Koch seconded the motion for discussion purposes stating she wanted to hear the thinking behind it. PB: member Svekis stated the Sarasota Zoning Code is designed for maxing out development by using living units versus square footage as a basis which is why there are no small units and the RROD allows for that while still having larger units and gives the chance for service people, people who Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 26 can't afford to live on their own to finally have a home. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned where the 350 - 500 came from. PB: member Svekis stated those are what he considers IKEA structures. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned what that meant. PB: member Svekis stated those are living units that are reasonable for one or two people. PB Chair Gallagher stated as a clarification that PB member Svekis meant 26 units/acre rather than 261 units. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned how that would work legally. Attorney Fournier stated in the DROD there was a requirement that if you took advantage of it 20% of the units could not exceed a certain square footage and noted there was more testimony about where that line would be drawn and what was reasonable and stated the Planning board could do that but he was not sure enough information has been provided to know where to set the size. PB: member Svekis stated that was correct and work needs to be done to determine what the right formula is, noting there is a desperate need for smaller unit housing. General Manager Smith stated the motion is "any development using the RROD for those units is excess of 25 units/acre, 20% will have to be in the 350-500 square foot range". PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she appreciated the intentions behind the motion however there is nothing to say those would be affordable. PB member Svekis stated the market will accomplish that noting if 350 sq. ft. units are priced the same as a 900 sq. ft. unit everyone would build the smaller units. PB Chair Gallagher stated he could not support the motion, it would good for the Urban Design Studio to consider, noted there are other issues like parking and stormwater requirements that get in the way of cost SO it is good feedback for the Urban Design Studio but is too descriptive for this. The motion failed 3/1. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. The Q [1750 RINGLING BLVD]: Subdivision application 14-SUB-01 requests subdivision plat approval for a previously approved project located at 1750 Ringling Boulevard, known as The Q. The proposed plat depicts 40 townhouse lots, common areas, internal roadway (to be known as cosmopolitan court) and associated infrastructure. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Attorney Mike Furen, Chair of the Board of the Icard Merrill Law Firm, and Matt Morris, PE, Morris Engineering appeared. Attorney Furen stated the applicants were here on an non-consequential housekeeping item regarding the Q Subdivision Plat, the infrastructure and several of the units are already under construction, the Planning Board approved the vacation of an alley and easements that the City Commission subsequently approved, and the staff has administratively approved a site plan. Attorney Furen stated the applicants were seeking approval of the plat, staff has reviewed and the project meets all of the criteria, and the applicants are requesting the Planning Board recommend approval to the city Commission for 40 townhome lots. Attorney Furen stated the Laurel Park neighborhood had asked that the entrance be moved from Morrill Street to Ringling Boulevard and that has been completed and noted two minor technical changes are requested, the first being that while the plat is located within the City limits the Certificate of Approval is recorded by the Clerk to the Circuit Court who has requested the wording on the Certificate of Approval be revised to be consistent with the wording on plats located in the County and the second being a request by staff to move the emergency access off of Morrill Street slightly to the west. Attorney Furen stated the applicants were available to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 26 answer any questions and requested the Planning Board recommend approval to the City Commission. Staff Presentation: Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner appeared and stated the project had already gone through a number of reviews from alley and easement vacations to adjustments that were approved administratively and administrative site plan approval and each has passed compliance with the Zoning Code. Senior Planner Mendez stated this request drops lot lines over an approval plan, stated the findings of consistency have already been made and still applies, and the change in ownership from multi-family to townhomes does no change any performance criteria. There was no citizens input. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB member Ahearn-Koch made a motion to find Subdivision 14-SUB-01 consistent with Section IV-1007 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB member Svekis stated it is an inconsequential thing that is needed. PB Chair Gallagher stated it is of some consequence as it is a benefit for a City to have a wide variety of housing types, this project adds to that variety and it is a good thing. The motion passed 4/0. 2. 2700 Fruitville Road [2724, 2732, 2748]: Rezone application 14-RE-01 and Site Plan application 14-SP-03 propose to rezone property located at 2724, 2732 and 2748 Fruitville Road from the Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2) Zone District to the Office Community District (OCD) Zone District. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residential structures on the property and construct an approximately 5,048 sq. ft. single story professional office building with parking. The applicant proposes to utilize a cross access easement to access the property from an existing access on Briggs Avenue as well as one two way access from Fruitville Road. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Thomas Jackson appeared and stated he is a managing member of 2700 Fruitville LLC, the project is in the Fruitville Corridor Overlay District, the property is bordered by Briggs, Tuttle, Ringling and Fruitville, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, there are currently three residential units on the property, the applicants own all of the property from Briggs Avenue to the gas station at Tuttle, two previous projects that have been rezoned to commercial currently have offices on them, the three existing houses on the subject property will be torn down and a 5,100 sq. ft. office building constructed, access will be from Briggs, the applicants have obtained approval from the FDOT for a curb cut onto Fruitville Road for right turn only, and four driveways will be eliminated and one added. PB member Svekis if the questions from the Community Workshop regarding what kind of buffer there will be and this is great for the area came from the same person. Mr. Jackson stated he believed SO and noted the application includes a site plan and the buffering requirements have been met. PB member Svekis questioned if the offices would operate during normal working hours. Mr. Jackson stated the offices would operate based on the requirements of the OCD zone district. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 26 Staff Presentation: Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner, appeared and stated there are two applications, one for a rezoning from RSF-2 to OCD, and one for a site plan. Senior Planner Mendez stated in terms of the rezoning OCD is an implementing district of the Community Office Future Land Use Classification, noted there are three implementing districts and this one is the mid-range in terms of intensity, and staff feels that is appropriate, stated an advantage is the OCD district has some aspects of a form based code including minimum and maximum setbacks which is particularly advantageous in this case because it brings the buildings closer to Fruitville Road and it increases the separation and buffering to the residents to the south. Senior Planner Mendez stated due to having shared facilities including internal access the site plan application is being considered for the entire site, including the portion already zoned OCD, stated the new building will be on the area proposed for rezoning, it is just over 5,000 sq. ft. which is just over double the existing square footage, and noted that is not out of scale for the zone district or the Fruitville Corridor. Senior Planner Mendez stated the parking is located to the rear and all parking requirements have been met, the applicants have shown they meet the criteria in the Zoning Code for the OCD zone district & the Fruitville Road Corridor Overlay District, staff recommends approval of both the applications subject to the conditions recommended, noted the first two conditions are treated together and the third is the standard condition placed on all applications. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if there were any drainage issues in the area. Senior Planner Mendez stated not that she was aware of and noted when a rezoning was processed in that area in 2006 for the existing building and a new building stormwater was addressed and this will be treated the same way and stated the issue did not come up at DRC. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated sO in general there are no drainage or flooding issues in the area. Senior Planner Mendez stated there are issues further east along Fruitville Road however none that she is aware of on this parcel. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned if this is a zoning enclave at this time. Senior Planner Mendez stated that was correct. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if there was any historical significance to the houses on the property. Senior Planner Mendez stated there was none. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked about trees. Senior Planner Mendez stated there were mainly palm trees on the site, no grand trees, and stated a tree mitigation plan has been submitted. PB member Ahearn-Koch requested confirmation that there would be a right-out only, four driveways would be eliminated, and the entrance is on Briggs. Senior Planner Mendez stated Briggs is the current entrance, when the site plan was approved for the two existing buildings cross access across the rear of the property was required, stated the applicants have met the required distance separation by adding the additional property and providing right-in and right-out access. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned what the four white things going across the street on the aerial map were, questioning if those were indicative of where the exit would be, and noted if people want to go right they can but if they want to go left they can't cross over. After discussion Senior Planner Mendez stated those are the markings for a school zone. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she thought it was put there for cars that want to go left. Senior Planner Mendez stated cars cannot go left currently as there is already a raised median there. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated cars that do want to make a left have to go all the way across noting that is not a problem with residential but commercial business is more active. PB member Lindsay stated there is a solid median there. PB Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 26 member Ahearn-Koch stated she knew that, that was her point, that cars will have to go out right onto Fruitville Road then cross four lanes in a short distance to go left. PB member Svekis stated they have to do that now. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that was what she was asking. Senior Planner Mendez stated that was correct. PB member Ahearn-Koch noted those are residents now SO that happens maybe once a week as opposed to commercial. Mr. Jackson appeared and stated residential has to back out, the applicants are working with the FDOT engineers and are following their guidelines, noted rather than traffic backing out for the length of the project, and stated it is more difficult for emergency vehicles without the ingress/e egress at that point. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if there was an ingress there as well. Mr. Jackson stated yes, both a right turn in and a right turn out. Senior Planner Mendez stated Briggs is narrow sO you would not want to put a lot of traffic on it. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated her concerns regarding someone getting across Fruitville Road to make a left turn noting it could be a bigger issue with commercial property having more traffic flow than three homes. PB member Lindsay stated he had just spent a week and a half in Orlando and that is what you have to constantly do to get around. There was no citizens input. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB member Svekis made a motion to find Rezone 14-RE-01 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code, find Site Plan 14-SP-03 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code, and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions subject to the three conditions. PB member Ahearn-Koch seconded the motion. PB member Svekis stated hel had no problems with what is planned, it is compatible with the Future Land Use Plan, it is better for the residents behind because of the buffering, and stated it is a win-win in every way. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated aside from the traffic concerns she does not have any major concerns, stated she is generally not thrilled about rezoning from single-family to office but thinks it is totally appropriate for this area and on this street, and that she agrees with PB member Svekis that it is better for the neighborhood SO she supports it. The motion passed 4/0. IV. 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 citizens input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PB member Ahearn-Koch stated on page 6 of 13, line 71 "crate" should be "create", / on page 9 on the third to last line "buildings" should be possessive and "size" should be added after "buildings". and on page 10 on the second line "as per the traffic backing up through the roundabout creating a domino effect" should be added after "urged the applicants to use caution". PB member Svekis stated he thought part of the discussion was the fact the roundabout was not cast in stone yet. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she thinks they talked about it not being cast in stone, stated she was cautioning she was worried that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 26 once four cars piled up the 5th, 6th or 7th cars would block the movement through the roundabout, it was not that the applicants use caution. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Consideration of a special meeting to be held on June 18th or June 25th Secretary Smith stated there would be no need for a special meeting in June after all and noted the regular meeting of June 11th would be held. 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. PB: member Svekis stated that there is probably nothing that can be done about it but there is a topic that impacts the City of Sarasota greatly, stated we have Hotel Sarasota and a number of other hotels in the planning stage, we have the Ritz and Hyatt, but no convention center, stated the ideal place for a convention center would be the Quay as it is close to hotels providing for walkability which is needed, it would be an amazing addition to revenue for the City and would probably increase traffic at the airport. PB member Svekis stated he does not know who is actually doing it but is raising it as a discussion point in hopes someone will hear it and act on it, and stated it would help Sarasota to be in the convention business noting we have the hotel space. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm. CGL a75sd David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]