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 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board David Morriss, Chair Members Present: Patrick Gannon, Vice Chair Members Robert Lindsay, Chris Gallagher, Eileen Normile City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Timothy Litchet, Director, Neighborhood & Development Services Lucia Panica, Chief Planner Dan Greenberg, Planner John Shamsey, Assistant City Attorney John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLI MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Morriss called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: AT1 THIS TIME. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK AT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS WILLI BE REQUIRED TO' TAKE AN OATH. (TIME LIMITATIONS WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.) A. Reading oft the Pledge of Conduct Secretary Cover read the Pledge of Contact. Attorney Connolly explained that there are no Quasi-judicial hearings this evening, and as such he does not need to describe the procedures that are followed in those hearings, or ask for disclosure of ex-parte communications; recommended time limits for this evening's speakers; and administered the oath to all who intended to speak at tonight's public hearings. B. Non-Qusit-ludicin! Public Hearings 1. 16th Street Right of Way Vacation: Application 17-SV-01 is a request for approval of the vacation of the unimproved 60' x 50 segment of 16th Street, just west of Shade Avenue Drainage Canal. The right of way has never been improved and there are no future plans for improvement. If vacated, the owners of the abutting parcels on the north and south sides would assume ownership of half the width of the vacated portion. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 27 Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; stated that the petition is a request for approval of a right-of-way vacation of the unimproved 60'x50' segment of 16th Street, located south of 17th Street and west of the Shade Avenue Drainage Canal; noted that the City boundary is at the north edge of the subject parcel, and all of the lots north of it are located in the unincorporated area of Sarasota County; explained that the subject right-of-way was created by a subdivision plat in 1925, the lots and the rights-of-way in that area have been modified since then, and the subject parcel is left-over from the old right-of-way; the applicant is the owner of the lot immediately north of this right-of-way, who needs this approval to correct an encroachment that was built in the 1980s; the encroachment is the area under the covered area, a metal frame structure on an unfinished concrete slab; stated that since the applicant's lot is in the County'sj jurisdiction, the County is responsible for permitting all structures; added that City staff has been in contact with County staff who have verified that the structure meets all County code standards, however they cannot find a building permit due to the age of the building; stated that the lot to the south of the right-of- way is owned by the City and it is an existing drainage pond; typically when a right of way is vacated, the land goes back to the lot from which it was vacated from; in this case, if the application is approved, half of the area goes to the north lot and the other to the south lot owned by the City; added that the applicant would like to purchase the south half from the City; noted that the applicant has been in contact with the City to pursue the required steps for the purchase, one of which is the vacation of the right-of-way; noted that the purchase will go back to the City Commission for approval or denial; a condition in the staff report calls for this to happen prior to the effective date of the vacation; added that the right-of-way is not maintained by the City, there no City sanitary services in the right-of-way, and private providers do: not object to the vacation; the letter from the Florida Gas Transmission Company was not clear if they need an easement or not, although there were no indications of utilities within the right-of-way; this is addressed in staff's Condition 1; the proposed vacation will not require rearrangement of streets or other rights-of-way, easements, or non- fee interests to maintain traffic circulation, and it has no potential connection to any other rights-of-way; and concluded that staff believes all standards for review have been met and recommends approval of the application with the recommended conditions. PB Member Lindsay asked about the status of the extension of the right-of-way to the west. Chief Planner Panica stated that one is owned fee simple by the railroad and the other is railroad right-of-way; and added that she spoke to the Engineering Department and there is no way to connect that. PB Vice Chair Gannon requested clarification of the term "unimproved. Chief Planner Panica stated that the right-of-way is unimproved as far as being a road or something that is used by the public. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked what happens next, when a portion of the parcel is in the City boundaries, will they have to de-annex? Chief Planner Panica stated that there are several similar situations along 17th Street, the owners would not be able to de- annex, however they could annex to the City if services are available at that location; and added that in terms of permitting, the owner would have to go to the County to get all their permits. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked what happens if the street vacation is not approved, since it is City property, and they have encroached on City property, can they be asked to tear the building down and get off the property. Chief Planner Panica stated that she is not sure what would happen, and noted that the structure had been there for thirty years. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 27 Attorney Connolly stated that it is a City Commission decision; added that the City Commission could direct the City Attorney's office to file a suit of ejectment requiring that they leave the property, however this is a policy decision to be made by the City Commission. PB Member Lindsay asked if this was erroneously permitted by the City. Attorney Connolly stated that there is no evidence of that, sO it would be speculation. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked who owns the property to the west. Chief Planner Panica stated it is owned by the City. Vice Chair Gannon asked if there was a possibility for this right-of- way to become a pedestrian path in the future. Chief Planner Panica stated that she spoke with Public Works and Engineering, and they do not have any plans to use this are in the future; added that no one had any issues with the fact that the building was there the last thirty years; noted that due to its size, it would not qualify to connect with anything other than provide access to the abutting lots; and stated that, to the best of her knowledge, no one has expressed need or interest in doing something with this right-of-way. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if the City could use this and build a sidewalk to the 17th Street Canal. Chief Planner Panica stated that she did not think it would be possible considering the engineering structure of the canal. PB Vice Chair Gannon suggested that now that there is a new City Planning Department, there is the possibility the development of future pedestrian ways could be considered prior to - giving away" City land. PB Member Lindsay noted that this is not City land, it is a right-of-way on private land, and it is different with what the City owns, next toi it, fee simple; added that based on his understanding, if there is a City right-of- way, and the City cannot demonstrate the need to use the right-of-way for public use, then the City is obligated to release the right-of-way. Attorney Connolly stated that he would not support the term "obligation, 1 however the applications are reviewed against the criteria for review, the findings are stated in the staff report, and then a legislative decision is made; added that the Shade Avenue Canal is also a right-of-way easement which is improved for drainage, because that is the public purpose that needed to be served. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that his concern is about the future use of the right-of-way by the public, and questioned if the issue has been given due consideration. Attorney Connolly stated that staff has investigated and has found that there are no plans for future use; added this is not binding for the Planning Board, however that is staff's investigation and conclusion. PB Chair Morriss asked, if this is approved, how do tax authorities know that this parcel of land is now taxable. Attorney Connolly stated that, first, the adopting ordinance will be recorded in the Official Records of Sarasota County, which is used by the Property Appraiser, secondly the deed by which the City would be transferring the southern portion of the right- of-way to the property owner will also be recorded in the Official Records, the Property Appraiser finds it and adds it to the parcel to the north, changes the description of the parcel to the north to show the addition of the approximately 300 sq. ft., and the taxes will reflect the addition of the 300 sq. ft. of the property. PB Member Normile asked who owns that building, and asked of squatter's rights play a role here, since the building was sitting on the property in an open and notorious way for a long time. Attorney Connolly stated that it is difficult to establish that against a municipality, it would not likely be an adverse possession argument. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 27 PB Member Lindsay asked if they are creating a non-conforming use in terms of setbacks or are there zero setbacks in that area. Chief Planner Panica pointed out that this is under the authority of County permitting agencies who have said that the building meets all the requirements of their zoning code. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if anyone knew the tax value of the additional 300 sq. ft. No one could respond to that question. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Erin Christy, Esq., Williams Parker, representing the applicant, introduced herself for the record; stated that there is no sidewalk in the right-of-way; noted that there are other encroachments in the right-of-way that are not related to this evening's discussion, however they are also impeding the transportation across the 16th Street right-of way; added that she has confirmed with Donna Thompson, Sarasota County, that once this right-of-way is vacated, it will meet all Sarasota County Zoning Code requirements; noted that the application has met all of the right-of-way review criteria for right-of-way vacations in the City's Zoning Code, and the findings are on pages 18-19 of the staff report; added that if this is approved, the north part of the vacated right-of-way will go to the north, to 2332 17th Street, LLC, the owner she is representing, and the other half will go to the City of Sarasota; noted that she has been in contact with the City of Sarasota regarding purchasing the southern half of the vacated right-of-way; if it is approved, it would benefit the City by putting this property on the tax rolls; added that the staff report is thorough and the applicant agrees with the staff report; and concluded by requesting a recommendation for approval of the right-of- way vacation. PB Member Lindsay asked Ms. Cristy who she was representing. Ms. Cristy responded that she is representing the current owner and contract seller, 2332 17th Street, LLC.; explained that when they were doing title work, they discovered this encroachment, and they are trying to clear it up; added that, in response to PB Chair Gannon's earlier question, should this not be approved, one option would be that the owner finds a buyer who will be willing to take title and accept this, however they hope that it will not be necessary. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked who is 2332 17th Street, LLC. Ms. Cristy responded that the owner is Brandon unintelligible) and noted an ownership disclosure is not required, however she can provide it later. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked to whom is the City selling this property. Ms. Cristy responded the City would be selling the property to 2332 17th Street, LLC. Public Input: There was: none. PB Chair Morriss closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. PB Member Gallagher moved to find Street Vacation 17-SV-01 consistent with Section IV- 1306- of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to the following conditions: 1. A condition preceding the second reading of the 16th Street Vacation Ordinance, the applicant, at their sole expense, shall either provide a non-exclusive utility easement for Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 27 Florida Gas Transmission Co. or provide written evidence that Florida Gas Transmission Co. does not need an easement. 2. A condition precedent to the effective date of the vacation of the right-of-way, the applicant at their expense shall order an appraisal from a member of the Appraisal Institute, for the southern half of the right-of-way, submit into the City and purchase the southern half of the vacated right-of-way from the City. 3. Upon completion of the above condition, the City will record a Notice of Effective Date of Street Vacation in the Official records of Sarasota County. Alternatively failure to meet these conditions one (1) year after the date of the approval shall render the vacation approval void and a Notice of Failure of Street vacation shall be recorded in the Public Records of Sarasota County. PB Member Normile seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Gallagher stated that he supports the application because it meets the review criteria for right-of-way vacations in the City's Zoning Code. Speaking to her second, PB Member Normile noted that she agreed with what was just said. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that based on the right-of-way vacations he has seen, he feels that the staff analysis should include a more in-depth evaluation of the future potential use of the right-of ways, based on the City's long range land use plan, SO that the City does not give up rights-of-way that could be useful in facilitating future development. Motion for approval with recommended staff conditions passes with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. Zoning Text Amendment: Application No. 17-ZTA-03 - Discussion regarding a proposed ordinance which would amend the Zoning Code, Article II, Definitions and Rules of Construction, Division 2, Definitions, by creating a definition for Medical Marijuana Treatment Center; also amending Article VI, Zone Districts, Division 4, Office Zone Districts, to show Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers as permitted uses in the Medical Charitable Institution (MCI), Office Professional Business (OPB), Office Regional District (ORD), Office Community District (OCD), Office Park (OP) and Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) Zone Districts; also amending Article VI, Zone Districts, Division 4, Office Zone Districts, to require that Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers which process or cultivate marijuana must obtain a Major Conditional Use permit; also amending Section VII-602 of the Zoning Code to require certain separation distances between Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers and certain properties. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Staff Presentation: Dan Greenberg, Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services, introduced himself for the record and outlined the objectives of staff's S presentation regarding Zoning Text Amendment Application 17-ZTA-03, relating to Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers (MMTCs). Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 27 John Shamsey, Assistant City Attorney, introduced himself for the record; presented background information regarding medical marijuana in Florida; noted that, in November 2016, the voters of Florida voted in favor of medical marijuana in Florida; added that this vote made medical marijuana "more legal," meaning that its use was previously allowed in limited ways, as described in Ch. 381, FS; pointed out that November's vote expanded the previous limitations to allow the use of medical marijuana in more cases, and more ailments can qualify for its use with doctor's orders; stated that in anticipation of this vote, the City established a nine month moratorium, where no one could open up a retail establishment in the City to dispense medical marijuana; added that meanwhile the City Commission wanted staff, the City Attorney's office, and the Police Department to research the best way to regulate medical marijuana use and dispensaries in the City; these City agencies are collaborating, they divided the work into two distinct parts the "where" these establishments would be allowed, and the "how" they will operate; pointed out that this evening's presentation relates only to the "where" part of their work, which relates to the Zoning Text Amendment, based on direction given to them by the City Commission in March, 2017; stated that the City Commission felt it would be appropriate to allow these uses in a variety of office zones with distance limitations from schools, parks, and residential areas; explained that staff was hoping to receive direction from the Planning Board about zoning issues, sO staff can incorporate the Planning Board's direction in their work before they present the ordinance to the City Commission; stated that the place to start is the definition of the term Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (MMTC), which will be included in the Zoning Ordinance; added that this definition comes straight from Amendment 2, with the exception of the last sentence, which states: For the purposes of this Code, 'Medical Marijuana Treatment Center" shall include a medical marijuana "Dispensing Organization" defined by Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. Planner Greenberg summarized staff research and considerations, stating that they have looked into what other Florida municipalities are doing, such as adopting ordinances or moratoria to wait on the State language; noted that, in the near future, there is the potential that the state can supersede any local regulations; pointed out that staff has considered the effects on potential development standards, such as separation distances of MMTCS from residential areas, public facilities, other MMTCS, schools, etc.; added that staff has also evaluated the ways MMTCS may function, and have considered two types of approval process for them, which are MMTCS that are cultivating and processing medical marijuana on site, and MMTCS that are only dispensing; referred PB: members to pages 9 - 22 of the staff report, where the proposed amendments are summarized; mentioned that this evening is about potential zoning districts where MMTCS could potentially be allowed, noting that staff was suggesting the following districts: Office Community Park (OCD), Office Park (OP); Office Professional Business (OPB), Office Regional District (ORD), Medical Charitable Institutional (MCI), and Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH); stated that staff is proposing that MMTCS which are not associated with on-site cultivation or the processing of marijuana, or marijuana product distribution, be a permitted use in the above mentioned zone districts, while the MMTCS which are associated with on-site cultivation and processing be Major Conditional Uses in these zone districts; added that staff is proposing additional development standards relating to the display of products, drive-through operations, and separation requirements from pubic facilities, schools, other MMTCS, and residential zone districts; stated that staff hopes that the Planning Board reviews and discusses staff's S proposals and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 27 forms a recommendation for the City Commission; and introduced Captain Stannish and Officer Harold to speak on behalf of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD). Captain Stannish introduced herself and Office Mike Harold, a civilian investigator in the Narcotics Division; listed officer Harold's credentials; stated that they want to encourage the Planning Board not to make a rush decision about zoning requirements until they have done more research because the "where" is just as important as the "how;" noted that their research shows that these facilities have secondary public safety issues, as well as quality of life issues; added that she wanted to have on the record that, they are asking the Planning Board and the City to allow staff to do their due diligence and see what the State is going to come up with, during this time, they are not limiting patients from having access to medical marijuana; noted that currently we have doctors in the area that serve patients, and a dispensary in Clearwater will deliver to Sarasota patients at no costs; repeated that if we take our time to make sure that we research this issue, and create something that is good for our community, patients are not being withheld from this treatment; suggested that when the Planning Board decides the "where" they take into account some of the things that happened in Colorado; pointed out that the state law language refers to dispensing the products, but it is not clear how this will take place; noted that this business is currently against federal law, and therefore it is a cash only business, SO some of the public safety issues that they foresee include the propensity for robberies; stated that some of the machinery used in production is dangerous, and production sites have experienced wiring, fire, and odor problems; and recommended that the City start with a conservative approach, and broaden regulations as things evolve, because it is hard to get the horse once it is out of the barn. Officer Mike Harold stated that he began his research in July, 2016 in anticipation of what may happen with Amendment 2, and he thinks that calling this a "gray area" is an understatement, because the DEA, the Department of Justice, the State Department of Health are looking at it in different ways; added that the Legislators could not agree on a law that would enact the amendment, SO we have the old statute, Ch. 381,FS, which we will obey, however the Department of Health has told over 300 physicians in Florida, who have passed the test and are able to order medical marijuana, that they can order it from whomever they basically see fit, just to remember that there is an amendment, and there is Ch. 381 FS, however there are no rules yet, and to use their best judgement; explained that the dispensaries that we have now are wholly owned by the seven organizations that have been licensed by the Department of Health, they are vertically integrated, which means that they have to do the whole thing, grow it and sell it, they cannot become only one component, sO those seven have the business in Florida; added that they are bound geographically by where they cultivate it, SO they were all awarded a section of Florida, which means they can cultivate it in the section they were awarded but they can sell it and deliver it anywhere in the state of Florida; offered the example, Trulieve which was awarded the northwest section of Florida, however they have nine retail locations in Florida, one just about to open in Bradenton, and they deliver everywhere at no charge; noted that 50% of their business is delivery, anyone who receives an order for medical marijuana can get it filled right away; added that none of these companies has set up a retail store yet they are strictly delivery; added that there are a lot of questions because the state did not give any laws, SO we rely on the experiences of other communities; asked, for example, what happens when a facility is located near a residential area, and it operates past 9:00 PM, this will generate pedestrian and delivery vehicle traffic, the customers are coming with a lot of cash, an armor vehicle would have to collect the cash Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 27 to take it to the only bank that will do business with a marijuana dispensary, which is located in Orlando; added that right now they are still called dispensaries, even though the amendment makes them treatment centers, and gives them a lot more area to operate; noted that right now they cannot cultivate or experiment with products in the dispensaries, they can only dispense the end product, as an MMTC however they will be able to experiment with other methods to deliver the marijuana product, such as edibles, oils, or creams, which they can produce in the MMTCI location, which is the reason they have brought this before the Planning Board, to discuss where the MMTCS need to go; pointed out that there are safety issues, predominantly with the use of high pressure CO2 extraction to get the resin out of the plants; noted that MMTCS have to do something with the plant material when they are done with production; noted that MMTCS also have the issue of the high pressure devices within the building, which are a potential safety hazard, and the product is flammable at different points of production; stated that those are the things the Planning Board needs to consider when selecting a location for these facilities; pointed out that an MMTC is not just a pharmacy, as many people think; added pharmacies cannot do anything medical marijuana related because it is a controlled substance according to the Federal Government, that is why we have MMTCS, these independent dispensing locations; stated that there is a lot of information about this subject out there; and said will be happy to answer the Planning Board's questions. PB Chair Morriss asked if the patients consume the medical marijuana at the dispensaries. Officer Harold stated "No," however the language in the amendment states the dispensaries may dispense and "administer" added he asked the owner of Trulieve, who owns dozens of these facilities, what the term "administer" meant to him, and he did not know, at this time. Both Officer Harold and Captain Stannish agreed that there is a potential for on-site use of marijuana. PB Chair Morriss asked how they separate the issues of recreational and medical marijuana in Colorado. Captain Stannish stated that in her opinion, Florida will go recreational, and these facilities can turn around and sell retail. PB Member Gallagher stated that in reviewing the staff report, he saw that the Building Department has addressed separation from certain land uses, however they did not comment on the potential safety and fire issues Office Harold mentioned; asked the planners, when trying to determine an appropriate location for the MMTC, do they compare it to a liquor store or a pharmacy; asked if there are $5.00 dollar products and $500.00 dollar products in the MMTC; pointed out that the Sarasota Zoning Code, in several instances, allows the manufacturing of a product in one location and its sale in another location; noted there are manufacturing zones and retail zones, and asked for the logic followed by the planners in selecting the appropriate location for MMTCs. Planner Greenberg stated that there are many ways to look at this; noting one way is to look at office districts, because office districts do not allow sales, which would be a concern should the state go recreational, which is another issue to be evaluated separately. PB Member Gallagher asked for clarification, because the definition in the staff report mentions 'sells and distributes. Planner Greenburg stated that an office district is different than a commercial district. PB Member Gallagher asked why the downtown area is precluded. Planner Greenberg stated that staff received direction to look in the Office District, noting the Planning Board may make recommendations to look into other districts. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 27 Captain Stannish stated staff avoided the downtown area because of what has happened in other states, the advertisements, the signs, etc.; asked if MMTCS were allowed to be located in the downtown area, would the equipment be allowed there as well; stated that there could be an increase in robberies and the homeless population would triple; stated the team was trying to find areas where the impacts of public safety issues would have the least impact; stated that the Police Department's recommendation is to locate them in an industrial area where they can manufacture things; and added that the Planning Board will have to also consider the location of the doctors' offices who will care for these patients, their proximity to residential areas, adequate parking, etc. PB Member Gallagher asked to see substantiated evidence for the concerns that have been mentioned; adding he did not see reference to Conditional Use in the staff report. Captain Stannish stated that they have requested additional time to do research; noted that Colorado needed ten years to develop regulations, and Florida is expected to have the regulations by July 1, when the State does not have the regulations yet; their recommendations are based on personal experiences, what has happened to pain clinics here in Sarasota, which had to be managed by ordinance, and what the SPD have been told by their counterparts in Colorado; added that theyare recommending that the City go slowly sO that the regulations are not too broad, to avoid problems that may require years to be resolved; and emphasized that there is no need to make rush decisions when patients have access to medical marijuana. PB Chair Morriss asked what type of research needs to be done, in which format are the results going to be presented, and how much time is needed to create a credible, substantiated report that will guide the Planning Board in their decision making. Officer Harold noted that in Colorado, the state law came ten years after the amendment, and for ten years they were in a gray area; added that, as a result, in Colorado they did not collect data that would differentiate the impact of medical VS. recreational use of marijuana, for example, the data shows sharp increases in certain crimes, they know marijuana was involved, however they cannot say if the persons responsible for the crimes were users of medical or recreational marijuana; added that there was a street in the Downtown area of Denver with many antique stores, which were bought out by businesses and doctors of medical marijuana patients; noted that the City of Denver has an office with 15 staff members to address marijuana related matters, and they have also increased the staff members in both the City's Fire Police Departments; and noted both departments have staff who are dedicated strictly to marijuana related issues. Captain Stannish added that in the City of Denver, in terms of taxation, the income from the taxes did not cover the costs of regulating marijuana related issues thus far. PB Member Normile suggested that the names of the facilities be different based on the use of the facility, just like other cities have done, not call all facilities MMTCS, ; and explained that this will make it easier for people to understand and to identify appropriate locations for these facilities in the City's zoning districts. PB Member Normile suggested that the names of the facilities be different based on the use of the facility, just like other cities have done, not call all facilities MMTC's. for example, if they manufacture products, they can be in an industrial area; noted that we do not call a "farm" Publix"; manufacturing, growing and dispensing are completely different things, giving a growing facility the same name as a dispensary is like calling a "farm" a Publix." and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 27 explained that this will make it easier for people to understand and to identify appropriate locations for these facilities in the City's zoning districts. Attorney Shamsey stated that people from this industry have contacted his office and they want the ratio of MMTCs per population mentioned earlier, because they want to ensure a certain share of the market; explained that the reason they did not include this information at this time is because they did not know what the state would do; added that limiting the facilities could be considered as putting limitations on a constitutional right; noted that another reason was they did not know whether references to this ratio should be included in the Zoning Ordinance, or in the City Ordinance that will be created to regulate the special registration of MMCTs; and pointed out that his office is considering all these issues and will present them to the Planning Board later. PB Member Normile stated that The Municipal Dispensary License Allocation talks about the risk of unprofitable dispensaries, that, if they go out of business, they dispose of their product in illegal markets, resulting in additional law enforcement issues. Planner Greenberg pointed out that there are only seven companies licensed in the State of Florida, not small mom and pop dispensaries, and the likelihood of them folding and operating in the black market is not a concern. PB Member Normile asked if that was an argument with the bill. Officer Harold stated that originally there were six bills, some of them had these setbacks built into the bills, some of them specified one facility per 25,000 residents, some said local jurisdictions cannot do anything, and when it got to the last two, one in the House and one in the Senate, they failed because they could not agree on the number of dispensaries each of these seven corporations could have, one side wanted to limit it to ten and the other side wanted to allow 100; added that the House wanted to put a sales tax on the sales on the first two years, the Senate said no sales tax. Captain Stannish stated that there was also discussion of increasing the number of licensed operations to seventeen. PB Member Lindsay stated that things are still unclear as to what is a dispensary because the legislation has not acted. Captain Stannish stated that the language is very broad, and as a result there will be an increase on the patients that will use medical marijuana, and therefore an increase on DUIS, etc.; and stated in the medical marijuana alone, there will be problems with the doctors who will be coming on to deal with pain management, and other side issues. PB Chair Morriss stated that it appeared Captain Stannish wants the Planning Board to continue the discussion, and asked how long they thought they needed to exhaustively research the topic and provide reliable answers to the questions Planning Board members had asked this evening. Officer Harold said that in Colorado the statistics are available, and he could have them in a few weeks, but they do not distinguish between recreational and medical marijuana; added that in most of the states where marijuana use is not permitted for recreational purposes, there are no sanctioned statistics; pointed out that, in addition to Florida, there are twenty- seven states and the District of Colombia that allow the medical use of marijuana, seven of those and the District of Colombia also allow its recreational use; added there are some statistics but they do not separate data that relates to the medical use from the data that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 27 relates to the recreational use of marijuana; and stated they do that for taxing purposes only. Captain Stannish stated that she would need at least sixty (60) days, because there is a symposium in June on the subject that she would like Officer Harold to attend. PB Member Lindsay noted that, years ago, the City was at risk of facing lawsuits, because in the Zoning Code there were no areas for the location of adult entertainment facilities; added that in order to avoid the lawsuits, the City reviewed the Zoning Code, and, within a certain window of time, they had to identify locations in the City where these facilities could be located; and asked if they could be facing something similar here, and if there is a window of time within which the Planning Board must decide. Attorney Connolly reviewed the history; stated that in November, 2016, Florida voters approved the constitutional amendment; added that now there is a constitutional right to the industry of marijuana, both for those who cultivate and dispense it and those who use it; pointed out that the state of Florida did not do anything about it in the legislative session; noted that, seeing this coming, the City Commission, in October 2016, adopted a moratorium for nine months, which expires on July 16, 2017; stated that on July 17, 2017, anyone can open up an MMTC anywhere in the City; pointed out that this is a concern, SO a continuance of this public hearing is not a viable option, as far as timing is concerned; noted that this is a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the adoption of which requires two public hearings before the City Commission; pointed out that the earliest this could go to City Commission for public hearing is on June 19 and July 3 and these dates are very near the end of the moratorium; stated that it appears that the two viable options are to either recommend approval of what is presented to you, or to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance because you do not think there is enough data; added that if the Planning Board recommends denial, they must also recommend that the City Commission immediately address the extension of the moratorium; explained that as far as the moratorium is concerned, we have to consider the issues PB Member Lindsay discussed earlier, and stated it cannot be an open ended moratorium, there has to be some expectation that, within a reasonable time, we will have the data that we need in order to regulate MMTCS. Responding to PB Chair Morriss' question, Attorney Connolly repeated that if we do not do anything, on July 17th, 2017 anyone can open an MMTC anywhere in the City of Sarasota, because there are is nothing in the Zoning Code to regulate an MMTC. PB Member Normile asked if the City of Sarasota can be held liable, considering that patients can get medical marijuana in Bradenton, or can have it delivered to them, and therefore the City does not deny them the product. Attorney Connolly stated that this is a good defense to a lawsuit from the customer, but it would not be relevant to a lawsuit from the industry. PB Vice Chair Gannon suggested that the discussion focus on the "where, 1 because that will be addressed in the Zoning Code, while the "how" will be addressed in the City Code; and asked if the City can specify in the Zoning Code that the MMTC can only dispense the products but there should be no on-site consumption, just like in Colorado. Attorney Shamsey stated that one could argue that consumption on site is covered by the MMTC definition in the amendment. Planner Greenberg stated that other communities have differentiated the MMTCS based on the on-site uses, such as MMTCS that cultivate on site, MMTCS that dispense products, etc. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 27 PB Vice Chair Gannon asked for clarification about the maps in the staff report. Discussion ensued about the separation between MMTCs. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if Planner Greenberg recommends a separation of 500 ft. between MMTCS. Planner Greenberg responded that literature review and research on this subject indicates that the separation is not needed because the MMTCS would be a nuisance to each other, but rather to avoid concentration of MMTCS in one location, especially in a community with the population size of Sarasota. PB Chair Morris noted that, regardless of which map is selected, MMTCS will be Conditional Uses, and will therefore be subject to extensive vetting; and recommended that the Planning Board members select a map from the staff report to review. Attorney Connolly repeated the urgency for PB action due to time limitations. PB Member Gallagher stated that, based on what he heard, the concerns about MMTCS and their solutions are similar to those of liquor stores; and asked if MMTCS can be located in the same areas as liquor stores, or adult entertainment facilities. Planner Greenberg introduced a new map, Map 18, that was not part of the staff report, that shows 500 ft. separation from residential areas, however it does not show the location of places of worship. PB Member Gallagher stated that, as a community, we are comfortable with a set of laws that determine the location of liquor stores, and asked why not use the same model to identify locations for MMTCs. PB Member Normile stated MMTCS are different from the liquor stores, because this is a cash business, it is illegal under federal law and they cannot have bank accounts; and added that the local governments who have already developed regulations have include tremendous security measures in the regulations to guard against major robberies and other related crimes. Discussion ensued about the differences between these two types of facilities. Captain Stannish stated that one cannot consume liquor in a liquor store, however, according to the language of the amendment, one can vape inside an MMTC. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Morriss noted that based on Map 17, there are three or four areas in the City where MMTCS could be located, which organically takes away separation concerns, because, with the separation requirement of 1000 ft. between MMTCs, it would not be possible to have several MMTCS in the row. Discussion ensued. PB Member Normile stated that alcoholic beverages are for recreational use, and the Planning Board is considering the location of MMTCs for medical uses, sO an analogy to liquor stores is not a good way to approach this; and suggested that they first focus on how many MMTCS the City of Sarasota needs, then determine where to locate them. Attorney Connolly stated that it is not SO simple, it is all data driven, and then there is the issue that the City faced a few years back with the adult entertainment facilities; stated the City had to find a balance between the desires and the constitutional rights of the industry and the secondary effects on the community; added that, in the case of the adult uses, the City introduced to the record many studies that were done in many communities worldwide; noted that this is SO new we do not have many studies here; added that PB Member Normile referred to the MPG report, which has been introduced to the record, which supports their professional opinion of one MMTC for roughly 67,000 people; stated that if the City Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 27 Commission wanted to, they have some factual basis to go down that road; and pointed out that whatever road you take you are at risk, because this is brand new. PB Chair Morriss asked if this is related to the "how" part. Attorney Connolly stated that it is both the "how" and the "where;" it ties to the "where" if your disbursement requirements leave only one place, or the Zoning Code states there should be only one MMTC within the municipal limits; and stated it is legally possible, but we do not know yet if it is legally supportable. PB Member Lindsay suggested to start with one, and, if necessary, increase the number; added that it is easy to increase, but it is difficult to decrease the number; noted that the City can start with a restrictive number of one or three, and if we get pressure we back off a little. Attorney Connolly noted that Captain Stannish suggested this earlier. Planner Greenberg suggested to look at Map 14: Potential MMTC Districts, 100' Residential and 500' Parks, Facilities and Schools Separations in the staff report; identified areas that appear on all the maps as potential MMTC Districts: the New College/USF area, the Sarasota Memorial Hospital area, the Plymouth Harbor Assisted Living /Sarasota Yacht Club Area, zoned MCI; noted on Map 14 there are areas along US 41 near existing medical offices; and added that there is a possibility MMTCS could be located within areas zoned MCU. PB Member Normile asked Captain Stannish and Officer Harold, now that they have seen the potential MMTC locations on Map 14, in their opinion, where is the best location for a dispensary facility, near the hospital or near offices. Captain Stannish stated that the best location, with the least negative impacts, is within an industrial area; noted that they visited an MMTC that was located in an industrial area in Clearwater; explained that MMTCS in an industrial area would not impact residential areas, they self-police themselves, and part of the 'how' will be to ensure there is security; added that for all the secondary impacts for which you select certain areas for the location of a strip club, for the same reasons an industrial area is the best location for an MMTC. PB Member Lindsay gave an example of an adult bookstore in an industrial area on 17th Street. Captain Stannish stated that in the industrial areas there is plenty of parking, and the facility does not back up to residential areas. PB Member Gallagher noted that it is not a very safe area to be in at night. Captain Stannish stated that we do not want them to do business at night because there are no people around. PB Chair Morriss suggested MMTCS be located near a Police Station. Captain Stannish stated that there is a park nearby, added that during the day, the police department is full of civilians, while the law enforcement officers are out on the streets doing calls on service. Officer Harold stated that he visited the dispensary in Clearwater twice; stated it is located at the end of an office building at a dead-end street, about a quarter of a mile behind a car lot that you cannot see, behind US19; noted that this location was not imposed on the owner by City or Zoning Code, rather the owner selected this location because he wanted to be off the beaten path; added that when asked why not a location in the downtown area, the owner responded that the downtown areas are more expensive, they have their own taxing assessments, parking is a nightmare, delivery trucks come in and out, delivery drivers are Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 27 coming in and out continuously, and they have no place to park; and noted at the location they are in they are not around anybody, sO nobody will complain. PB Chair Morriss asked for comments regarding Map 14. Captain Stannish stated that a separation of 500 ft. from park facilities and schools is a short distance. PB Chair Morriss asked everyone to comment on Map 17: Potential MMTC Districts, 250 f. Residential and 1000ft. Parks, Facilities and Schools. Separations. Planner Greenberg showed several maps with different separation distances between MMTCS and residential areas. Discussion ensued about mass transit accessibility, and the option of delivery. PB Vice Chair Gannon noted that the separation requirements prevent the creation of grouping MMTCS in one area and asked if staff recommends separation between MMTCs. PB Member Gallagher stated that the State's definition does not limit the City from breaking down the MMTCs to those that manufacture the product, and those that dispense it; stated they can be allowed at different locations within the City, as Conditional Uses, and the rest is left to enforcement, just like we do with alcoholic beverages; and stated if there are problems then the Conditional Use is revoked. Discussion ensued comparing MMTCS and alcoholic beverage facilities and their location within the City. Attorney Connolly stated that the definition of the State tells us what an MMTC is, but it does not say that all MMTCS must be in the same zone; PB Member Gallagher is saying that the MMTCS are permitted in zones that would be better conducive to the functions of the MMTC, for example an MMTC that manufactures would be in a different district than an MMCT that dispenses products. PB. Member Lindsay stated that in the case of alcoholic beverages, the State has a licensing agency which has a well-developed structure of regulation as it relates to types of consumption and types of sales, where this amendment passed without any of that, and probably nothing will happen until next spring. Attorney Connolly stated that the Department of Health is required to adopt administrative regulations, which may be along these lines, and are due on July 1, 2017. PB Member Lindsay noted that, at this point, the only State model in effect is the one for liquor, SO the City could use this model as an example, until it is superseded by a higher authority; and asked what the Planning Board should share with staff this evening, to follow the model used for the liquor industry and come back, or to identify specific locations at this meeting. Attorney Connolly stated that he is concerned about the expiration of the moratorium, noting the City Commission has no choice but to move forward, either with this ordinance and the two public hearings on June 19th and July 3rd, or with an Ordinance to extend the moratorium; added that the Planning Board can either recommend to adopt the Ordinance presented this evening as is or with modifications, or can recommend not to adopt the Ordinance and send it back to staff, but the Planning Board must realize that you have to extend the moratorium in that case. Discussion ensued about extending the moratorium and the fact it can be extended for certain reasons and for a specific length of time, as justified by the reasons, for example additional time is needed sO that the City can develop a workable model for MMTCs. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 27 PB Vice Chair Gannon suggested that the Planning Board must give specific direction to staff, taking PB Member Gallagher's S approach; added that under Major Conditional Uses, we can add "MMTC - On Site Cultivation and Processing" in the zone districts that would be best for such a use; noted that, in the initial work by staff, there is no reference to Industrial Zones, where these seem appropriate; and added that the other MMTCS would fit in the six zones staff has specified [OCD, OP,OPB, ORD, MCI, and SMH]. PB Member Gallagher stated that he does not support that, because he does not think that the Office districts are appropriate locations for MMTCS. Planner Greenberg stated the MMTCS are medical treatment centers, and seem appropriate uses in Office zones. PB Member Lindsay stated that the Planning Board needs specific language relating to MMTC related uses, broken down by type of activity, and determine the districts based on the type of activity, for example if someone is cultivating, maybe it should be in the agricultural district; recommended the inclusion of the industrial zones; and added that there is also need for a text amendment, and then decide in which zones these will go, because the text amendment will not distinguish between the use and the activity., PB Member Gallagher stated that if it becomes recreational, then it is no longer an MMTC. Captain Stannish stated that medical marijuana comes in consumable forms such as a lollipop. PB Member Normile expressed concern that the Planning Board is preparing to act on something about which they do not have enough information. Public Input: There was no public input. PB Chair Morriss closed the public hearing. PB Member Lindsay stated that the Planning Board needs a structure, starting with differentiating the uses, because clearly there are different types of facilities; noted that the Legislature usually passes a big thing, and the local governments have to carve it down and itemize it; pointed out that the Planning Board needs some sort of report back on types of uses and structures, structures of the businesses, i.e., whether they are retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, etc., and then recommend the types of locations for each of those types of uses, by activity, and add a discussion or examination of industrial zones for those uses, because it was not included in the first round here; and stated this would tighten it up and bring it down to where the Planning Board can make a decision. Attorney Connolly stated that what PB Member Lindsay suggested has to be a second motion, because what the Planning Board needs to act on is the Ordinance that is presented, because of the pending moratorium that expires in July; added that staff has been instructed by the City Commission to bring this Ordinance back to the City Commission in June; stated that doesn'tmean that the Planning Board has to recommend approval, they can clearly recommend denial; if they want to recommend denial, then the second thing to do is what PB Member Lindsay suggested, go down that path, and give recommendations to the City Commission about what you would instruct, or recommend to the City Commission to do in Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 27 lieu of this Ordinance; stated before they can get to that, they have to make a decision of whether they are going to adopt the one that is in front of them now; and added that if the City Commission does not adopt it, they have to go ahead and adopt an extension of the moratorium. PB Gallagher moved to find Zoning Text Amendment 17-ZTA-03 inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan (1998) and/ or find that it does not satisfy the Standards for review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend Denial by the City Commission. PB Member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that he thought the Planning Board was heading in PB Member Lindsay's direction to make changes to the current proposed Zoning Text Amendment, and taking a much more conservative approach from staff's initial distance separations, as we saw them on the maps; added that if we extended the residential zones to 200 ft. from 100 ft., extended the separation between MMTCS to 1000 ft., which would have an effect to significantly limit the potential MMTC districts, and separation between those, that would at least provide a structure, then the City Commission would begin to discuss the "how" and other usage regulations that the Planning Board is not entitled to do. PB Chair Morriss stated that there is a piece missing, there may be other zones that could be incorporated on the maps based on the use. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that that was the second item, the Planning Board could recommend that additional changes be made to deal with zones allowed for manufacturing and processing. PB Chair Morris stated that this could be a second motion after the one that is on the table now. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that he thought that, as part of the motion, the Planning Board could incorporate additional changes. PB Member Gallagher stated that the changes are SO drastic, the Planning Board would not be approving what is in front of us, and would be misleading the public as to what was noticed for approval tonight, because what we will be voting on would be sO far off what has been suggested. PB Chair Morriss asked if this could be done in a month, SO that the Planning Board could ask for extension to the moratorium for a month, which is more reasonable than 6 more months or a year. Attorney Connolly responded that the other problem with that is that the Planning Board does not have authority to give instruction to staff, the City Commission does, and has, and they will follow it. The motion for denial of Zoning Text Amendment 17-ZTA-03 passed with a vote of 3 to 2. (PB Chair Morriss, and PB Vice Chair Gannon voted "No.") PB Member Lindsay moved for staff to make a list and identify the types of MMTC uses by activity and by the nature of the activity, then locations and appropriate zones for each type of use, and third to include a study of industrial areas as to their appropriateness for those uses. PB Member Gallagher seconded the motion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 27 Speaking to his motion, PB Member Lindsay stated that he does not know how these uses function, we have heard stories about the way it is manufactured, extracting THC, do they use volatile, potentially explosive chemicals, or benign chemicals, or if there are issues of odor and contamination in those processes that would affect decisions on the appropriate locations for manufacturing: added that then there is the retail or wholesale part of it, depends upon traffic loads, and the separation from schools and the other places we talked about; noted that all of these need to be looked at just the way the Planning Board would look at things if someone else came in and wanted to build boats, or some other ordinary activity; and pointed out the Planning Board should not only examine the social aspects, but also look at it as a technical problem, how does this, just like any other use, affect the location where we might locate it, do we need to do traffic studies with it, those are the technical issues that we lost sight of in most of our discussion here tonight. PB Member Gallagher had nothing to add. PB Member Normile stated she agrees with PB Member Lindsay's comments, and added that all that should be looked at along with background information, such as the estimated size of the population to be served, and the experiences of other cities. PB Member Lindsay asked if these comments can be specific enough SO that they can become amendments to the motion. PB Member Normile stated that she does not think they need to be part of the motion, she is just requesting additional information based on which tojudge it. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked the maker of the motion for clarification about this motion, what different things do the staff need to present; stated it appears staff went through the types of uses and came up with zones for those types of uses; stated other than separating out ,or coming up with zones for cultivation and processing, he is not clear what the Planning Board expects staff to come up with that is more detailed, unless if they try to go down the list of specified uses and come up with zones for each one of them; and noted that seems to be a more complicated process than just saying those who relate to manufacturing and processing should go to the industrial zones, and everything else goes into the six zones staff has suggested. PB Member Lindsay, the motion maker, explained that we have lumped together all the MMTCs, and from what we heard tonight they are not all the same; noted a retail dispensary with no on-site consumption is different than one that allows on-site consumption; stated there are different needs from the physical standpoint in terms of parking and other things; and added that the Planning Board has not been given a lot of guidance, but we need to differentiate these things and decide what resources and restrictions they need, based on the actual uses. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that he does not find in the proposed amendments any uses dealing with consumption. PB Member Lindsay responded that he could add "consumption" in the wording of the motion, the wording now states "identify the types of MMTC uses by activity. - Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that, earlier in the discussion, it was mentioned that the regulations about the administration will be addressed in the City Code; and added that if the Planning Board goes by the definition, consumption is not in there, and we should not be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 27 planning for consumption. PB Member Lindsay stated that the State handed out a very general definition, because that is their role, to pass general rules at their high level, and for us to pass specific rules at our lowly level; and stated they poured out the whole bottle of wax and it is up to us to carve it up into reasonable and rational sectors, SO that we can control each aspect of that. PB Member Gallagher noted that there are some more distinctions in looking at this, and looking through the Zoning Code, some of these can go in zones where we allow manufacturing, some go in zones for the selling of the product, some for the consumption of it; asked what about the guy that just wants to warehouse it; added that the City's Zoning Code deals with warehousing and wholesaling; and noted that the other component, cultivation, he does not see it happening in the City, it will be in the County, in an agricultural area. PB Member Lindsay stated that we are not dealing with the medical aspects of it, but with the zoning and land use aspects of it, and we need to break it down in components that affect the land use regulatory aspect of things; and stated from the zoning and regulatory aspect, this is not any different than regulating liquor and other similar uses. Secretary Cover, read the motion again: Recommend that the City Commission direct staff to investigate types of uses, nature, and activity, the locations and zones appropriate for this kind of use, and to also study industrial areas and zones for applicability. The motion passes with a vote 5 to 0. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 10-MINUTE RECESS 3. Ordinance No. 17-5213: An ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida amending the Zoning Code (2002 Edition) of the City of Sarasota by amending Article II, Definitions and Rules of Construction, Division 2, Definitions, SectionlI-201, Definitions, by adding thereto definitions of "Food Pantry" and "Nutritional Counseling and Food Distribution Services", / as well as Article VII, Regulations of General Applicability, Division 9, Accessory Structure and Uses, Section VII-904, Non-Residential Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures, by adding thereto a new Sub-section (14) permitting Nutritional Counseling and Food Distribution Services" as an accessory use to an approved "Community Service" Conditional Use in certain districts; providing for severability of the parts hereof; providing for reading by title only; and providing for an effective date. (Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney) Staff. Presentation: Attorney Connolly explained that he is presenting this application because the City Commission has waived the formal filing of the amendment application review by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and the staff report, sO there is no staff report; noted that this is a Zoning Text Amendment, it is legislative, and it applies citywide, but it is based upon a particular problem, and a particular piece of property; explained the history; stated that it relates to the Bethesda House, which is located at 1670 4th Street, and has been there Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017. at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 27 continuously since 1990, providing services to people who have been diagnosed with HIV Aids; in 2016, Caritas, which is also run by the Catholic Services, was moving from its old location behind the old Bank of America Building to share the property at 1670 4th Street; stated that at that point staff found out that this community service use has been at that location since 1990, and the City was unaware of it; stated that there was a Conditional Use application and a public hearing before the Planning Board, and it was affirmed by the City Commission for the Caritas to locate at 1670 4th Street; added that one thing that was discovered through this process is that one of the services Bethesda House provides to their clients, who are referred to them by medical service providers, is counseling for nutrition that is best to serve the clients' physical needs, and that involved providing not-prepared food that the clients can take home to cook and maintain their diet; pointed out that the distribution of food under the definition of "food pantry" in the Zoning Code was a problem because food pantries are prohibited in the downtown districts; stated furthermore, there is no definition in the Zoning Code of what a food pantry is; stated that the Director was required to use the dictionary definition; added that as the Conditional Use went through the process for Caritas it included a requirement that at their new location 1670 4th street they will not have food pantry uses; stated that after that, the Catholic Charities filed a Zoning Code Interpretation with the Director to get an interpretation that what the Bethesda House was doing was not a food pantry, using the argument that Bethesda House was not providing food based on financial need, but was providing food based on physical or medical needs; noted that, since there was no definition of "food pantry" in the Zoning Code, the Director reviewed the dictionary definition, could not find anything to support the dichotomy of the argument; added that the Director felt that the use is the use, and it does not matter whether people are lining up for the food because they do not have money to pay for it, or they are lining up for the food because they have a health or medical condition; noted that that is the interpretation Director Litchet gave, which was taken to the Board of Adjustment; stated that the Board of Adjustment upheld the Director's decision; said that at that point Bethesda House had a problem, because they could no longer provide the food service, sO they went to their Commissioners; stated that the City Commission discussed this in a couple of meetings and decided that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and instructed the City Attorney's Office to prepare a Zoning Text Amendment that would define "Food Pantry," SO now there would be a definition in the Zoning Code, and to create a use that would allow the Bethesda House to continue doing what they are doing; and concluded the background information of this amendment by briefly describing the definitions. The proposed definition of Food Pantry is: "Food Pantry" shall mean a non-profit organization or establislment which maintains a store ofumprepared food, orother provisions, for distribution at no cost, or very low cost, to people in need, i. e. low income, unemployed or homeless individuals or families, or those facing emergency or distress. Attorney Connolly stated that this would achieve what Bethesda House was hoping to accomplish with the Zoning Code Interpretation; added that then the Attorney's Office had to find a way in the Zoning Code to allow what is happening in the Bethesda House, and to make it an appropriate use, thus the next definition, which is called "Nutritional Counseling and Food Distribution Services." Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 27 "Nutritional Counseling and Food Distribution Services" shall mean those certain services described herein which are provided by a community service as that use is defined in Section II-307(c). A nutritional counseling and food distribution service shall only be provided to clients zoho have been referred to the service provider by a medical care provider. The purpose of nutritional counseling and food distribution services shall be to offer mutritional counseling, and he concurrent umprepared food items, for treatment ofa diagnosed medical need, disease or illness zohich has particular nutritional needs. The food products are to be provided uncooked and for the referred client as well as his/her direct family members. The nutritional counseling and food distribution services are to be provided on an appointment only basis. Nutritional counseling and food distribution services shall be provided to no more than 24 clients per day at any one location. A nutritional counseling and food distribution service is not a food pantry or soup kitchen. Attorney Connolly explained that this is intended to be a service that is a combination of counseling, nutrition, and actually providing the unprepared food to allow the client to implement that counseling; added that this service would have to be provided by a community service, which is a defined term in the Zoning Code; stated the client would have to be referred to the community service by a medical care provider, the purpose of the nutritional counseling and food distribution would be to offer nutritional counseling and the concurrent unprepared food items for the treatment of a diagnosed medical need, disease or illness which has particular nutritional needs; noted it would have be by appointment only, because if it were first come first serve, in terms of use and its impact to the neighborhood, it would be the same as a food pantry; added that there is a limitation of 24 clients per day; and added that the definition makes it clear that a food distribution service is not a food pantry or soup kitchen, because food pantries and soup kitchens are prohibited in the downtown districts. Attorney Connolly stated that this was reported back to the City Commission, and was found acceptable to the City Commission; and stated the City Commission instructed that the Ordinance be scheduled for this public hearing, therefore he is here this evening with a recommendation that the Planning Board would recommend to the City Commission adoption of Ordinance No 17-5213. PB Member Lindsay pointed out that the "Food Pantry" definition says it is a non-profit, but in the definition of "Nutritional Counseling and Food Distribution Services" there is no reference to non-profit. Attorney Connolly stated that Nutritional Counseling and Food Distribution Services are provided by a "community service" and that is a defined term in the Zoning Code, in Section II-307 of the Zoning Code, it is almost a full-page definition, sO I will not go through all of it, but it is of public, non-profit or charitable nature. PB Member Lindsay asked about the definition of "medical care provider." Attorney Connolly stated that there is no definition for this term in the Zoning Code; and noted in this particular case, it is the Community Aids Network that makes the referrals, and they have licensed physicians as well as other medical staff. PB Member Lindsay wondered if this a tight enough definition for what they want to accomplish. Attorney Connolly stated that at first, the definition included the word "physician, and thought it was too tight, because it is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 27 not necessarily the physician that makes the referral, it is the medical care provider, i.e., Community Aids Network, and added that this is a discussion item for the Planning Board. PB Vice Chair Gannon noted that the definition says 24 clients per day, and he asked how is that measured, by whom, and how it is managed. Attorney Connolly stated that this could be a code enforcement issue; added that the way to enforce it is through Code Enforcement, SO if there are neighbors who are complaining, it is going to be a requirement to request records from the service provider and testimony from the neighbors to find out if the number of clients exceeded 24. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked how the service providers will be required to keep records. Attorney Connolly stated that they keep records of the appointments. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that this is going to the Code in this generic form, and anyone of these counselors can become a Nutritional Counseling and Food Distribution provider. Attorney Connolly pointed out that the definition states it must be a community service provider, which is a defined term; and added that Community Services are allowed by Conditional Use, SO there will be a public hearing for any community service. PB Member Lindsay added it must be for treatment for a diagnosed medical need, disease or illness. PB Vice Chair Gannon noted that the Planning Board just got through another public hearing regarding the treatment of diagnosed needs with food supplements. PB Chair Morriss asked who proposed the 24 clients per day. Attorney Connolly said that was consistent with the testimony from Bethesda House as to how many people they see per day. Public Input: 1. Nigel Mould - Board Member of Catholic Charities - spoke in support of this amendment; requested fast processing sO that they can resume services to their 274 clients; stated that they are able to keep appointments, however, should the City need to verify the number of patients seen per day, HIPPA issues prevent them from disclosing patient information; expressed concerns about limiting the number of clients to 24 per day; and added that they see an average of 15 clients a day, but in short work weeks, these clients are seen in fewer days, and on those days, they see more than 15 clients. PB Member Gallagher asked if "150 clients per week" would be a better expression than the "24 clients a day. Mr. Mould agreed. 2. Reverend Fausto Stampiglia spoke in support of the amendment, and expressed gratitude for the work the City has done. PB Member Gallagher asked where the expression "24 clients a day" came from. Attorney Connolly stated that it was based on the testimony received during the Caritas and Bethesda House Conditional Use [public hearings); added that they see an average of 15 clients per day, and this was increased to 24 clients per day, because the averageis not the high; and noted that the testimony was in terms of clients per day, however he does not have a problem changing the language in the definition to a number of clients per week. PB Member Gallagher asked if he had a problem with striking the number all together. Attorney Connolly stated that it was a major part of the public hearing process for both the Conditional Uses and the Administrative Appeal for the Interpretation; noted that this is not an overwhelming use against the community; pointed out that based on the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 27 testimony the community did not know they were there; explained that he thinks there should be a limit, or otherwise is it is going to become a food pantry, if you have one hundred and fifty people lining up a day, you are going to have lines and impacts on the community. Mr. Mould added that they are working with clients with a specific illness, and they will never reach a big number of clients; and added that if someone opened Nutritional Counseling and Food Distribution Services that relate to another illness it may be different, but with AIDS, it is a specific small target group. Pastor Stampiglia noted they there are also privacy concerns, thee clients do not want everyone to know that they have AIDS. 3. Dan Bailey spoke in support of the amendment; stated that they want to have some relief in the interpretation of the 24 clients per day, to allow them to take care of the occasional spikes. PB Member Gallagher stated the discussion of the numbers would be better addressed at the Conditional Use public hearing, because what is good for one may not be good for another institution. Discussion ensued. PB Member Lindsay stated that we only have one such facility in the community, if another were to come along, they could request an amendment to this Ordinance should this not work for them. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked what the range of frequency of client visits was. Mr. Mould stated that their internal policy is one visit per week for food services, if clients need counseling, or therapy, or have an appointment they can come in multiple times at the drop-in center for services excluding food services. PB Member Gallagher asked what the hours of operation were, and if they are tied to the Conditional Use. Mr. Mould responded 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM, Monday through Thursday. Attorney Connolly stated that based on his recollection, there are time limits in the Conditional Use. PB Chair Morriss thanked the speakers for their service to the community, and closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated that based on the Conditional Use for Bethesda House and Caritas, Subsection 2.B. states the hours of operation for Bethesda shall be limited to 8:30am 4:00pm Monday through Thursday and 8:30am - 1:00 pm on Friday, and the hours of operation for the Caritas shall be limited to 9:00 am - 11:00 am Monday through Friday; and noted this comes from the Conditional Use Resolution, and to change it one must to go to public hearing and use due process. PB Vice Chair Gannon moved to recommend the City Commission adopt the Ordinance with the edit right after the "24 clients per day" (averaged over a thirty-day period). PB Vice Chair Gannon added that he heard there are peak seasons not just in a given week but also peak months, SO basically if they are tracking it and record how many clients they see a day and then average it on a monthly basis; added maybe, instead of - 'average over a thirty-day period" say "average over a calendar month." Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 27 PB Vice Chair Gannon repeated the edit: insert after the second to the last sentence [of the definition for Nutritional Counselling and Food Distribution Services] parenthesis (averaged over a calendar month). PB Member Lindsay stated if they wanted to have a meeting of all these people they would have to use the sanctuary of the church or the parish hall, they have other facilities. PB Chair Morriss pointed out this relates to the food services only, no other services. The motion for adoption passed unanimously with a vote 5 to 0. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. East and Fruitville Commercial (204, 210 & 218 N. Egst Avenue): 16-ADP-05 request for approval of an adjustment from Sectip ning Code (2002 Ed.) to allow access to the site from a priman 1 ande) Tor a proposed commercial project located on property in e Do L own Core (DTC) Zone District and the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) 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.) V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 12, 2017 PB Member Normile pointed out the following revisions to the Minutes of April 10, 2017: 1. Page 3, paragraph 4: Code: delelions-arestrieke"; additions are underlined PB Member Normile asked if the fees charged to the developers for mitigation mnelude included the costs of planting the tree and caring for the tree until it is established. Director Litchet explainedthepresess. indicated that the City will be responsible for those costs. PB Member Normile asked how much of the Tree Mitigation Fund has been allocated to planting mitigation trees. Director Litchet stated he did not have that information, the Parks Department hasthatinfermatien handles most plantings; asked if there was any line item in the fund specifically for the purchase of trees, to indicate how much is actually spent on tree mitigation, Director Litchet responded "No." 2. Page 8, paragraph 3: PB Vice-Chair Gannon witherew continued his motion to continue the matter, his-metion-and PB Member Normile withdrew her second, and the motion failed due to lack of second. The minutes were approved, as revised, by consensus. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 27 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. Attorney Connolly stated that there will be more specific guidance coming in a couple months, but he wanted to talk about the Sunshine Law for two reasons: 1. The Citizens for Sunshine against the Chapman case is over, the Second Court of Appeals has affirmed, without an opinion, the decision of the Circuit Court, SO without an opinion there is no chance that the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Attorney Connolly added that this will be reported to the City Commission by the City Attorney at one of the June meetings, and at that point in time, we will get a decision by the City Commission as to what policy they want to set with regard to members of Planning Board, or any other Advisory Board of the City Commission, any of the sunshine bodies, guidance as how to move forward, because, since that lawsuit was filed in October, 2013, we have been a whole lot more conservative than we used to be, because we were under a litigation that was looking to extend the Sunshine Law beyond what anybody in the City believed it was, and we wanted to avoid unnecessary risk of litigation, SO that is one reason why it is relevant now. Also, right now, there are several meetings going on around the community, they are talking about the Administrative Review Process, and often multiple members of the Planning Board appear in these meetings, and obviously that gives the Planning Board's Attorney a little bit of consternation. Attorney Connolly added that he just wanted to speak a little bit about this now, and in June, or July, he will be able to give the Planning Board specific guidance after he sees what the City Commission decides. Attorney Connolly stated that his opinion of the Sunshine Law has always been that if two or more of PB Members are in one place, and something comes up that is reasonably foreseeable to come before the Planning Board, the Sunshine Law prohibits any type of dialogue between two or more of you, that could be verbal or implied dialogue, like nodding affirmatively, anything indicating to the other your opinion on something being said; added that if two or more PB Members are at an event, and something comes up that is reasonably foreseeable to come before the Planning Board, his first advice is, to please, don't talk, because if you never say a word, then it is going to be very difficult to prove that there was a dialogue going on; added that if for any reason the PB Members feel the need to talk at that meeting, then he would ask while the one is talking, the one who is not talking leave the room and come back again; and explained that he is trying to make it as difficult, if not impossible, for a plaintiff to argue that there was some type of a dialogue between two Planning Board Members. PB Chair Morriss noted that this is a bit of a softening from the current policy of you cannot be in the same room at the same time. Attorney Connolly agreed, and emphasized that after we see the decision the City Commission makes, he will be able to be more specific. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017. at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 27 PB Chair Morriss asked if this is becoming a statewide thing after the ambulance chasing. Attorney Connolly stated that the ambulance chasing has become known to the Legislature over the past few years, and several bills have been brought up, but he doesn't know what has passed, he will find that out over the next couple weeks; and added that it is more of a hot button issue than it used to be, SO he recommends to be aware of the abuses. PB Member Normile asked if they know that two people are going to appear and there is going to be dialogue, who do they notify to have the meeting noticed, would that be the procedure. Attorney Connolly stated that is what has occurred during the pendency of this litigation, he thinks the City will get away from that and he will be able to respond to that question specifically after he sees what decision the City Commission makes; and noted that PB Members should always keep in mind the difference between an official meeting of the Planning Board and an unofficial meeting, which is just a meeting in the minds of the Sunshine Law; explained that an official meeting of the Planning Board is where we have given notice of the Planning Board meeting, we put an agenda out, like tonight, told everybody what we are going to do, and we have a quorum of the Planning Board, and we take action; the unofficial meeting of the Planning Board is where two or more of the PB Members happen to be together, and something comes up, that is reasonably foreseeable to come before the Planning Board; and stated that is not an official meeting, because you cannot take any action there, but it is a meeting in the eyes of the Sunshine Law, if you have any dialogue amongst you. PB Member Normile stated that she is asking if it is predictable, and scheduled, and two PB Members are scheduled to come there to speak and we know it, that would be a violation of the Sunshine Law, unless if we were to have the meeting noticed. Attorney Connolly stated that in that case there is impact on two different departments of the City, the City's Clerk's s Office would have to do a reasonable notice of that meeting, (reasonable being 721 business hours, or three business days in advance), and someone must take minutes of the Planning Board Meeting, SO unless you can get that support from City staff... PB Member Gallagher stated that the person who takes minutes doesn't have to be City staff; added that at regular meetings at the Chamber where they had two City Commissioners, and they prepared the notice, send it over to the Clerk's office, took the minutes, brought them in and made sure that everyone knew this is a public meeting, open, ADA accessible, and anyone who was available could come to the meeting, but we cannot do it in a private place. PB Chair Morriss asked if ADA needs to be factored in. Attorney Connolly explained that it has to be a public meeting in a place where everybody can come; added that it is discouraged to have it in a private club or a restaurant, like Tiger Bay Club meets at Michael's on East; explained that you have to be able to allow people to come in even if they will not buy a meal, sO it depends on what place you are talking about; and added there are meetings where you buy a meal and listen to the event, but you still have to allow others to sit in the back and watch. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 27 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 Normile stated that the head of the Condo Association at Essex House is working toward making a presentation to the City Commission about what they are going through during the construction process, and they also want to present to the Planning Board; added that she thinks it would be a good opportunity for the Planning Board to allow a 15-minute presentation to weigh in and possibly assist the City Commission; and noted that what she is doing on their behalf is requesting that the Planning Board put on their agenda fifteen minutes for them to make a presentation at a future meeting. PB Chair Morriss stated that seems to be a good idea because it will be an issue; and added that his ex-wife had to put her house on the market because she could not stand it anymore, there was too much construction. PB Member Gallagher asked if that is the appropriate sequencing, or the best vehicle, adding that usually it goes to the City Commission, then the Commission decides if they want to put some staff time in it, they direct it downhill, and say OK work it through the process. Attorney Connolly stated he did not know the answer; stated that he has received a couple e- mails from PB Member Normile relating to this matter, he had some idea that this was coming up, and he has taken a look at the Planning Board Rules of Procedures, the Zoning Code sections that deal with Planning Board authorities, and looked at the Rules of Procedures for the City Commission; pointed out that the difference is that the City Commission's procedures have at the beginning of the evening portion a section called Presentations" dedicated to presentations by persons other than City staff, and it is limited to seven minutes per presentation; noted that there is not anything like that in the Planning Board Rules of Procedure, sO the only way to get on the Planning Board agenda is to do what PB Member Normile did; stated that if the majority of the Planning Board wants to instruct staff to add that item on the agenda for the next month, we can do that, it will be on the agenda, it will be on the public notice sO the public will know what it is; cautioned the PB Members not to turn this into a de facto public hearing; explained that he doesn't know what it is they will be asking the Planning Board to do, and what recommendation the Planning Board will be able to make; and concluded that it is something the Planning Board can do, but he is not sure what the unintended consequences would be, because we have not done anything like that before. PB Chair Morriss stated that the time limit helps preserve the public hearing; added that he gets the sense that PB Member Normile is asking the Planning Board to act as coaches; and asked if they have distilled their issues into something they want to present to the City Commission. PB Member Normile stated that she has seen the presentation and it is about the hazards of being very close to a construction project; added that they approached her asking if she can assist them in making a presentation before the Planning Board since she is a member; stated that she thought that it might factor into Planning, because there is SO much infill in the City; and stated it is possible that special precautions need to be taken into consideration, and those can be built into a development agreement. Secretary Cover stated that they can bring these issues up to staff, however, one thing the Planning Board should take into consideration is that if one group requests a presentation, then it sets a precedence for a whole host of other groups requesting the same presentation time. PB Member Gallagher stated that area of activity is managed by the Building Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 27 Department, and the Engineering Department, they are the ones looking at staging agreements, and what you can build over and how. PB Lindsay stated that it is a dynamic thing, the construction process changes at different stages depending on the parts of the building being built, sO aj problem today may not be a problem at all two weeks later, SO it is a dynamic thing that needs to be managed. PB Chair Morriss asked ultimately what can the Planning Board do other than just hear them, we cannot make a motion, or a recommendation. PB Member Gallagher stated it is within the purview of the Planning Board to make recommendations to the City Commission if the issues relate to Zoning; and added that if they relate to construction staging, then a meeting with the Building Department and Engineering Department would be a better idea, to get some feedback before they go to the City Commission to present their concerns. PB Member Normile stated that she understands something like this has not been done before, but she thinks it is a good idea to see what the precautions could be. PB Chair Morriss stated that it opens the door to everybody who has a gripe to show up and take 15 minutes. Mr. Timothy Litchet, Director, Neighborhood & Development Services, stated that he has no objections to whatever the Board does, but just like Mr. Gallagher, he has heard comments about zero lot line construction; suggested that the PB would need to hear both sides of the story; and stated that he thinks that the construction company may tell you that they have offered some things as well, but they were not accepted, SO it would be fair to have somebody from the construction company there as well. PB Chair Morriss stated that a possible scenario would be for PB Member Normile to make a presentation on their behalf. PB Member Normile stated she does not want to be their representative; she offered as a member of the Planning Board to bring it upi added that she was in New York City recently, and saw that the buildings that under construction were completely wrapped, and these buildings here are not, and they are sO close to construction; and added that maybe it is not the Planning Board'sj job to do that, but she thinks with infill construction maybe there should be development agreements. PB Member Gallagher stated that after 1350 was built, a whole set of new staging requirements were introduced, but it was not Zoning, it was the Building Department that stepped up the game for everybody; stated that some people have expectations of the Planning Board that are not part of the Board's portfolio; added that when you hear from one side only, you may be set up, because they may have another agenda in mind, like the people of 1350, who wanted something very different. PB Member Normile stated that these people are concerned about safety issues. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:22 PM. DallMaue StevenR Cover, Planning Director David Morriss, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]