Revised April 26, 2016 CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE. PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Robert Lindsay, Chair Members Present: Chris Gallagher, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, and Vald Svekis Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager/Integration, Neighborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Lindsay called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath for all who intended to speak this evening. B. Non Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Hotel Sarasota (1289 N Palm Avenue and 1255 N Palm Avenue): Application 16-SV- 02 is a request for approval of the vacation of a 390 square foot portion of the Palm Avenue right-of-way and a 918 square foot portion of the Cocoanut Avenue right-of- way adjacent to a planned hotel on Palm Avenue, known as the Hotel Sarasota project with a street address of 1289 N. Palm Avenue and 1255 N. Palm Avenue. These areas are currently covered by a Major Encroachment Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement. (COURTNEY MENDEZ, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 24 Senior Planner Mendez introduced herself and Chief Planner Steve Stancel and explained that the City is both the applicant and the review agency, therefore Chief Planner Stancel will describe the request, and she will present the review comments. Applicant Presentation Chief Planner Stancel stated that on December 7, 2015 the City Commission gave their final approval to the Hotel Sarasota project, including an amendment to a Major Encroachment Agreement, authorizing minimum encroachments, and an Addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, which calls for the City to prepare and file applications for Right-Of-Way vacations for the areas covered in the new Major Encroachment Agreements; explained that plans submitted for the building show encroachments into the North Palm Avenue and Cocoanut Avenue right-of-ways; stated that the buyer prefers that the ROWS are vacated to prevent potential future disputes; referred to Attachment C (p.7 of 9 of the staff report) to illustrate the encroachment areas; pointed out that the dark gray areas represent the building of Hotel Sarasota, the light gray areas are the sidewalks and balconies, the red areas represent the areas for ROW vacations, and the orange areas represent canopies and the portico on Cocoanut Avenue; added that the orange areas on Palm Avenue represent 390 sq. ft., while the orange areas on Cocoanut Avenue represent approximately 918 sq. ft.; noted that there will be 10 foot wide sidewalks on Cocoanut Avenue and Palm Avenue and that the sidewalks will be lined with trees; and concluded by stating that Mr. Rogers, the developer's representative, is available to provide additional information on the plan at the Planning Board' S request. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Mendez stated that the Street Vacation request was reviewed according to Section IV.13.02, evaluating the impacts of the street vacation on the public interests; added that this project will result in major improvements in the area in terms of active space, sidewalks, and the improvements to the pedestrian environment; all issues and the vacations have already been permitted; and concluded that staff recommends approval of the Street Vacations without conditions. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked for clarification regarding the need for a ROW vacation. Senior Planner Mendez explained that the Encroachment Agreements have been approved but the applicant wishes to have the ROW vacations as well. Chief Planner Stancel stated that the applicant wants to have a clear title to prevent potential future problems. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked if this has happened before. Chief Planner Stancel stated that the financing company for this project had concerns and wanted a clear title. Attorney Connolly explained that what makes this project different is that the City sold the property to the developer and it also owns the adjacent ROWS; added that the City Commission, by contract, agreed to file this request for the ROW vacations, but the City cannot contract away this legislative function, sO it is an open question, and staff has to evaluate this application based on the review criteria. PB Chair Lindsay asked if most ROW vacations do not involve a structure. Attorney Connolly stated that most often the encroachments are due to balconies or underground footers, but, sometimes you get the pillars to support the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 24 building at the ground level, but that is not the majority of the ROW vacations. PB Member Gannon stated that the PB has not received a Site Plan. Chief Planner Stancel provided architectural renderings showing a building elevation with the raised sidewalk connecting the 2nd floor of the building to the City's Palm Avenue Garage, and pointed to the raised terrace area, and the raised drive up to the front of the building on Cocoanut Avenue. PB Member Gannon, referring to the January 15, 2016 e-mail from City Attorney Fournier in which he states that pedestrian members of the public will lose the right to walk over the areas that are proposed for vacation, pointed out that the statement in the email is contradictory to review comments in the staff report which states that the existing ROW benefits to the general public in terms of vehicular and pedestrian access will not be lessened by the proposed vacations, and asked for clarification. Senior Planner Mendez stated that one must consider the overall project, where the developer provides ten foot wide sidewalks on both Palm Avenue and Cocoanut Avenue, which do not limit pedestrian access to the site or through the ROWS. PB Member Gannon asked how the terrace on the ROW can be considered public. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the majority of the ROW has footers, the terrace is a small portion of it; added that the canopies over the sidewalk create minor encroachments; and noted the canopies are required by code. PB Member Svekis asked who is providing the round-about on Cocoanut Avenue and Palm Avenue. Chief Planner Stancel stated that the City sold the property for 2.5 million dollars, the appraised value of the property at the time, and agreed to use 1.2 million dollars to provide off-site improvements, one of which is the round-about. PB Member Svekis asked about the dimensions of the round-about, if itis a City design, and if the ROW vacation at that corner interferes with the round-about. Chief Planner Stancel stated that the round-about is a City design and the ROW vacations do not interfere with it. PB Member Svekis recalled that when the applicants were before the Planning Board there was a concern about gridlock being created by traffic coming off the round-about and the traffic going to the hotel, and asked if there were any changes to resolve that issue. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Discussion ensued about the ROW line not being a straight line along Cocoanut Avenue. Chief Planner Stancel explained that the ROW of Cocoanut Avenue is wide because there were residential lots at that location; and added that the City purchased the lots but one of the lots was deeper than the others, and therefore the property lines did not line-up, resulting in this line. Citizen's Input Mr. Angus Rogers, developer for the project for the vacation requests, introduced himself and stated that staff presented the project thoroughly and he will be willing to answer any questions PB members may have. Mr. Jim Dupre member of the development team explained that when they ran the titles the Title Company had issues and asked for ROW vacations before the closing. PB Chair Lindsay closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 24 PB Member Svekis referred to a statement in Attorney Fournier's January 15, 2016 e- mail, which states that a community workshop is unnecessary, because the vacations do not result in closure of public vehicular or pedestrian passage where it had previously existed. Discussion ensued. PB Member Svekis stated that not only total closure of public access, but any substantial change to public access, should receive public input. PB Vice-Chair-Gallagher: moved to find Street Vacation 16-SV-02 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Vice-Chair Gallagher stated that in reviewing a ROW vacation, PB members try to protect the public pedestrian and vehicular access, and the proposed development will result in better pedestrian and vehicular access than the present conditions, therefore he supports the application. Speaking to his second, PB Member Morriss stated he supported this application noting lenders have become more and more stringent in their requirements, sO this ROW vacation makes sense it. PB Member Svekis stated that this project is going to be a great addition to downtown Sarasota, and he fully supports the application. The motion passes unanimously. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 15-PA-02 is a request to amend the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan by amending the Future Land Use Map to change a 7.878+ acre piece of property located at 2211 Fruitville Road and 300 Audubon Place from the Urban Edge Future Land Use Classification to the Downtown Core Future Land Use Classification. The applicant has proffered the following: To construct no more than 393 affordable apartment units; retain the existing Boxing Club (club house) and restaurant; add a Zip car type rental service for residents only; limit building height to 6 stories; and discontinue the existing Call Center. (DAVID SMITH, AICP, GENERAL MANACHW/NTECRATION, Staff Presentation General Manager Smith introduced himself and stated Application 15-PA-02 is a Small Scale Future Land Use Plan Amendment for 7.8 acres; noted that the applicant is proposing to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Urban Edge to Downtown Core, and has offered six proffers which will be included in the text of the Future Land Use Plan Action Strategy 1.10. "Specific Limitations" pointed out that the limitations are found on page 22 of the staff report, and read the limitations for the record: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 24 A. Construct no more than 393 affordable apartment units. B. Building height limitation of 6 stories. C. Boxing Club (club house) will continue to operate. D. Existing restaurant (known as Bob's Train) may continue to operate. E. On-Site car rental services would be for resident use only. F. Call center business will be discontinued. General Manager Smith added that if the application is approved, the applicant would have to seek a rezone to the Downtown Core Zone District in the future; referred to staff report llustration 1, Aerial Photograph, 2015, and pointed out the location of the call center, Bob's' Train Restaurant, the old warehouse space remnants from the time this was a lumber site and the extensive paved parking area; noted that the site comes down to meet Fruitville Road; referred to staff report Illustration 2, Zoning Map, and stated that the majority of the site is zoned Industrial Light Warehousing (ILW), and a portion is zoned Downtown Edge (DTE); referred to staff report Illustration 3, Future Land Use Map (Current) noting that the current Future Land Use designation on the property is Urban Edge; added that south of Fruitville Road the Future Land Use designation is Downtown Core, the Future Land Use Designation of the area west of the subject site is Urban Neighborhood, and to the north and east of the site there is a combination of Urban Edge and Urban Neighborhood Future Land Use designations; referred to staff report Illustration 4, Future Land Use Map (proposed), which depicts the site with its proposed Future Land Use designation; explained that this evening the Planning Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission, and once it goes to the City Commission, there will be an adoption public hearing; and noted that infrastructure and services related to Levels of Service (LOS) will not be negatively impacted by the proposed development. General Manager Smith stated that for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment staff provides on balance findings; noted that there are some negative and some positive aspects to this application; stated that, on the negative side, the City normally would not change Future Land Use classification to DTC in areas adjacent to the Urban Neighborhood Future Land Use classification as proposed in this case, because of the density and the height of buildings, but in this case the proffers keep the height to 6 stories maximum; stated that on the positive side are the construction of affordable rental units, which is an identified housing need in the county; noted that the proposal is consistent with Housing Policy 4.10 relating to the provision of affordable rental housing; pointed out that a multi-family development is a good transition between the single family development west of the site (Park East) and the light industrial and commercial uses to the east of the site; added that the proposal is also consistent with several policies in the Future Land Use Chapter and the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan which calls for residential uses in downtown Sarasota; and concluded stating that Staff recommends approval of the Amendment. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 24 PB Chair Lindsay asked if the Downtown Core Future Land Use classification would be appropriate for the two parcels located south of the subject site, between Third Street and Fruitville Road. General Manager Smith stated that it could be an appropriate future land use classification for those parcels, but the maximum allowable building height of 10 stories might be a concern. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked what this meant for the industrial acreage available in the City. General Manager Smith stated that there are 300 acres reserved for industrial uses north of the subject property; pointed out that the Urban Edge future land use classification is a mixed use category; and stated multifamily is a good transition between single family and more intense commercial land uses. Discussion ensued about the stepdown of the intensity of land uses that is required at the borders between some future land use classifications. Responding to PB Member Svekis' question, General Manager Smith stated that the owner of the properties between 3rd Street and Fruitville is owned by the same people who own the subject site. PB Member Gannon asked if the Planning Board needed to consider the text amendment in this evening's meeting. General Manager Smith explained that the proposed Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment includes both the text revisions and the revisions to the Future Land Use Map. PB Member Gannon asked if the requirement for these units to be in the affordable housing cost range stays with the units in perpetuity. PB Member Morriss asked why the packet did not include any plans. General Manager Smith explained that if the proposed Future Land Use Plan is approved, then the applicant will have to file a rezone application which will be accompanied by a site plan including elevations of the proposed development; and added this evening the Planning Board is only considering the Future Land Use changes. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked Attorney Connolly for clarification on the language of each of the six conditions of the text amendment. Discussion ensued regarding the Boxing Club, which may continue to operate; the car rental services, which are intended to be an accessory use to the residents of this development; the call center which may be gradually discontinued; the ultimate zone district for this parcel being Downtown Core (DTC), which is a mixed use district; and the possibility that the call center could return on the site. Attorney Connolly explained that certain things could not happen on this parcel without limitations, such as the number of stories on the buildings, therefore these site specific limitations are included in the text of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that, in perpetuity, any development on those pieces of property has to comply with these six criteria, such as no more than 393 affordable apartment units can be built on this site with a limit of six stories of height; and added that these regulations will apply to this property in the future unless there is another Comprehensive Plan amendment. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked why the car rental service is for the exclusive use of this development. Discussion ensued about the need for clarification on the language of the car rental service condition. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 24 Applicant Presentation Mr. Joe Barnette introduced for the record himself and Mr. Harvey Vengroff, managing members of VW Village, LCC; stated that the proposed project includes 393 residential units in five six-story buildings; apartment units are 350 sq. ft. to 842 sq. ft.; noted that due to the size of the units the market will keep the prices within the affordable range; One Stop Housing is Mr. Vengroff's S business, and for 25 years it has provided workforce housing without governmental subsidies; stated Mr. Vengroff works with Social Service Agencies to provide housing to transitional persons while they are searching for a job; stated current operations are located from Venice to Palmetto; they are quiet, safe, clean and pet friendly; cited University Oaks Apartments, Palms Apartments, Patio Apartments and Hillview Apartments as examples; stated this is the business model that will be applied to the proposed development; added that construction will be in phases; the call center that is currently on site and employs 900 people will not be shut down until it is necessary;noted there is no room to otherwise accommodate the call center on site when the project is built out; noted that the Boxing Club has been operating at that location for 25 years and provides services to the area residents for free, therefore he feels it should continue to do so; pointed out that the buildings will have exterior walkways and stairs; the majority of the residents will have no cars; noted that there are railroad tracks along the eastern boundary; there are Indian Burial grounds on the rear of the property which will not be developed; stated that they need 393 units to make the development feasible since they do not receive public subsidies; discussed parking mitigation stating that 60 percent of the tenants will not have cars; stated it is adjacent to downtown; there will be van and bus service; the development is bicycle friendly; rent will be reduced for non-car-owners; there will be à car rental service on site; stated this is a green plan; the project is ready to start; financing is in place; and it meets a tremendous need. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked when in the review process the parking requirements will be discussed. General Manager Smith stated that parking requirements will be discussed at the Rezoning and Site Plan Review; and noted that there are provisions for parking requirement relief through the Adjustments process or the Alternative Parking Plans process. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked for applicant input and clarifications about the six conditions. Mr. Barnette emphasized that they are interested in providing the 393 housing units, and will not reduce the number in order to provide commercial uses on site; added that when their plan is built on that site, there will be no room to add anything else; and stated that they want Bob's Train to stay because it is a local attraction. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher noted that there is no interest on behalf of this applicant to put any commercial uses on the site other than preserving Bob's Train (a local treasure) and asked what happens when these owners sell the property, and the new owner wants to have commercial uses on site. General Manager Smith stated that the new owner will have to go through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Discussion ensued about the relationship between the terms "work force housing" and "affordable housing". Attorney Connolly stated that the language in the conditions needs to be objective sO that someone in the future can Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 24 determine if the project is in, or out of, compliance. PB Chair Lindsay stated that affordable housing is often related to household income. Attorney Connolly agreed, stating that usually affordable housing prices are based on a percentage of the area's median area income, as adjusted for household size. General Manger Smith read definitions of affordable housing from the glossary of the Housing Chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Vengroff stated that he did not want to prevent people from renting in this project because their income is higher that a certain amount. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher suggested new language for the first condition to read "Construct no more than 393 apartment units, 100% of which will be no more than 900 sq. ft., and at least 50% of which will be no more than 650 sq. ft.". The applicants agreed to the proposed revised language. PB Member Gannon asked ifi it was a requirement that the tenants work. Mr. Barnette stated that retired persons, or handicapped persons are welcome, but they do not accept persons with housing vouchers, Section 8, or anyone who gets public subsidies. PB Member Svekis noted that the City created the Rosemary Overlay District which increased the density tremendously, in hopes of getting affordable housing which is desperately needed in Sarasota, and to this date, nothing that has been presented to the Planning Board proposes housing costs like the ones on this proposal; added that the Planning Board needs to work with this applicant, be creative, because this represents new urbanism with a kick; and recommended that the PB: members do not change the proposal much, it works, and Sarasota needs this. Citizen Input 1. Valerie Guillory - provides support services to the homeless - in favor of the application 2. Tobin Page - manager of the Oak Ridge Apartments- spoke in favor of the application 3. Marisa Dawson - registered nurse- volunteers for Mr. Vengroff S communities- spoke in support of the application 4. Sharon Miller - disabled - spoke in favor of the application 5. Karen Bush - Sarasota resident/behavior specialist - spoke in support of the application 6. China Smith - local resident, employee in Mr. Vengroff S communities, spoke in support of the application 7. Madonna Sullivan - spoke in favor of the application 8. Gabriel Reed - not in the audience 9. John Susce - spoke in favor of the application 10. Steve Scott - a Sarasota resident and a resident in one of Mr. Vengroff's communities, and has no car., spoke in favor of the application. 11. Alex Nathan - local resident who received help from Mr. Vengroff - spoke in support of the application. PB Member Svekis moved to find Petition 15-PA-02 is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is in the public benefit, and recommend that the City Commission vote to approve the petition. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 24 PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Svekis stated that he is waiting, month after month, to see before the Planning Board a proposal for something affordable, something that is needed in the community, and the last time we. had that, it was a proposal by Mr. Vengroff, and today we have aj proposal by Mr. Vengroff; and stated that hei is in full support of the application, it will be a plus in the downtown area and the community, and it will help people from becoming homeless and give them a chance to have a home. PB Chair Lindsay asked Attorney Connolly if he planned to propose revised language for the conditions. Attorney Connolly explained that Petition 15-PA-02 consists of two parts; the first is the change on the Future Land Use Map; and the second part is the text changes, the addition of the new subsection (4) to Action Strategy 1.10 of the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as it appears on page 22 of the staff report. Attorney Connolly asked for confirmation on revised language for the conditions based on earlier discussions as follows: A. Censtructme-mere-thndealemiahl-bleaparimentunis. Construct: no more than 393 apartment units, 100% of which will be no more that 900 sq. ft., and at least 50% of which will be no more than 650 sq. ft. B. Building height limitation of 6 stories. C. Boxing Club (club house) will may continue to operate. D. Existing restaurant (known as Bob's Train) may continue to operate. Discussion ensued about revisions to the language of condition E. The following language was agreed to: E. Op-siteaarsentalseriewoaidheferresidentuseenly On-site transportation-sharing service allowed. F. Call center business will be discontinued- by the final phase of the project. Attorney Connolly suggested the addition of condition G to read as follows: G. No other use will be allowed. Discussion ensued about other commercial uses that could potentially locate in a large apartment rental. PB Chair Lindsay mentioned an office for the complex or home occupations noting there are people that work from home. General Manager Schneider stated that home occupations would be allowed at this development, subject to the City's home occupation regulations. PB Member Svekis, the maker of the motion, did not agree with the addition of Condition G. Additional discussion ensued regarding the addition of a condition that specifically states if and which type of commercial uses should or could potentially locate on this site, under a variety of scenarios. Attorney Connolly pointed out that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 24 the Traffic Study that was done to determine the impact of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Levels of Service was done based on the land uses in the six conditions on page 22 of the staff report. General Manager Smith confirmed that. Discussion ensued regarding adding Condition G. The consensus was that additional LOS analysis will be conducted at the time of Rezoning and Site Plan review. PB Chair Lindsay asked that the Secretary read the revised motion. Attorney Connolly stated the revised motion as follows: It is a motion to recommend to the City Commission approval of 15-PA-02. It consists of two components; one is the changes to the Future Land Use Map; the other is Action Strategy 1.10 of the Future Land Use Chapter new subsection (4) which consists of the following: A. Censiruetme-mere-tham3gaafemiahementunis. Construct no more than 393 apartment units, 100% of which will be 900 sq. ft. or less, and at least 50% of which will be 650 sq. ft. or less. B. Building height limitation of 6 stories. C. Boxing Club (club house) will may continue to operate. D. Existing restaurant (known as Bob's Train) may continue to operate. E. Or-sileearrentalseriewoaldhefereferresidentuseenly On-site transportation- sharing service allowed. F. Call center business will be discontinued: by the final phase of the project. PB Member Gannon, speaking to his motion, stated that he is happy to see affordable housing coming to fruition. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher stated he supports the application. PB Chair Lindsay asked for a vote. The motion passes unanimously. The Planning Board was in Recess from 8:20 PM to 8:30 PM. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. SCHOOL AVENUE TOWNHOMES (41 School Avenue and 2185 Main Street): Site Plan Application 15-SP-15,Subdivision Application 15-SUB-01 and Street Vacation Application 15-SV-09 request Site Plan and Final Subdivision Plat approval for a 37 dwelling unit fee simple townhome development on property located in the Downtown Core (DTC) Zone District with street addresses of 41 School Avenue and 2185 Main Street. The proposed townhomes are three stories with a possible roof top deck and attached 2 car garages. Applicant has received approval for Adjustments from the Downtown Code to reduce the minimum zoning lot size for several of the proposed lots and is also requesting a vacation of a sidewalk easement approximately eight (8) feet wide (width decreases at each end) by 55 feet long located at the: north east corner of Main Street and Audubon Place. The purpose of the vacation is to facilitate the townhome development. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 24 (LUCIA PANICA, PLANNER) Applicant Presentation Mr. David Kiraly, Planning Manager with Icon Residential, introduced himself, Mr. Reginald Wallace who will be handling the construction for the project, and Mr. Chris Anuskiewicz, Landscape Architect/Certified Arborist with Placemaker Design Studio; stated that their company specializes in urban infill townhomes in several urban areas; this evening they are here for an administrative site plan, re-plat, there was previously an administrative adjustment for a reduction in minimum lot size (approved in August 2015), and there is a sidewalk easement vacation request; identified on an aerial photograph the site location between Fruitville Road, Main Street, Audubon Place, and the North School Avenue YMCA buildings that have not functioned in the last three years; stated that they are proposing 37 single family attached townhouses, they are fee simple townhomes, meaning the homeowner will own the land underneath the townhome as compared to a condominium, and the advantage of that is that it opens up conventional mortgage options, and in the platting process each unit will be a lot; added that the site plan is a true new urbanist design, the units are facing internal or external sidewalks, and in the middle there are motor-courts, SO the external units all have pedestrian connections to existing sidewalks; pedestrian and vehicular traffic are separated, there is guest parking, loading areas, and some street parking along Audubon Place; stated that the site is approximately 1.79 acres with a proposed density of approximately 20.67 units per acre; noted that the architecture is post-modern, the units will be three stories high and some will have a roof top deck; and pointed out that they are accomplishing tree preservation to a considerable extent. PB Chair Lindsay interrupted the presentation, and asked Attorney Connolly to briefly describe the quasi-judicial public hearing process to the audience. Attorney Connolly stated there were no affected persons for this public hearing. The time limits for presentations was established; and there were no ex-parte communications. Mr. Kiraly continued his presentation describing the location of the sidewalk vacation at the corner of Audubon Place and Main Street; noted there was a public workshop for this on September 3, 2015; explained that the City had a 55 ft. easement but the sidewalk within the easement is approximately 14 ft.; emphasized that they will significantly improve the existing conditions as they will provide a full length side walk from Main Street to Fruitville Road, and also provide on-street parking; and concluded by stating that they meet all applicable review standards and requirements of the City's regulations. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked what the reason for the city easement on the site was. Mr. Kiraly stated that the staff report mentions that the easement relates to an earlier development on the site, which was eventually abandoned. PB Member Gannon discussed tree protection; noted that the applicant is mitigating to the minimum allowable standard in terms of number and size of trees; and asked if the applicant could mitigate with larger trees. Mr. Wallace explained that the space is limited and not conducive to the use of larger trees, and added that the existing trees have Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 24 marginal structure but the mitigation trees are all Florida friendly and they have exceptional structure, sO in the long run this is better for the structure and character of the trees; and stated the quality of trees is better and therefore will produce a better canopy than the existing trees. PB Member Morriss asked about the sidewalk along Fruitville. Mr. Kiraly stated that it is a 12 ft. sidewalk and noted the applicants were not proposing to change that. Staff Presentation Lucia Panica, Planner introduced herself and explained that the reason for the easement was to put the sidewalk around a driveway; spoke of the site location, and stated it is zoned Downtown Core (DTC) and it is within the Fruitville Gateway Overlay District; noted that the surrounding properties are zoned Downtown Edge (DTE) on the north, Downtown Core (DTC) on the south, east and west, and Commercial General (CG) further east of the property; pointed out that the fee simple units are divided into six buildings, each with their own garage; stated that easements have been proposed for the public utilities, private utilities, drainage and private access; stated the Site Plan shows compliance with thea applicable set-backs, height and wall coverage, parking requirements, refuse and recycling requirements, and minimum lot size, for which an administrative adjustment was granted for 18 of the 37 lots; stated that trees were a significant component of this project; noted that during the DRC process the applicant presented different design options in an effort to preserve as many trees as possible, and they submitted an inventory and an evaluation of the health of all the existing trees; noted certain areas of the project were redesigned to save trees, and the applicant has agreed to transplant one of the grand trees on-site in order to preserve it; pointed out that the trees to be removed were either in poor condition, damaged by development or they interfered with utilities; added that an easement vacation is requested for the sidewalk easement on the southwest portion of the lot where the applicant proposes to construct the sidewalk from Main Street to Fruitville Road; stated that a Quitclaim deed is proposed for the reduction of the 40 ft. easement for the north part of the property; explained that the purpose of the deed is to reduce the easement to twenty feet for City utilities in order for the structures to be within the easement area; added that the utilities department stated that 20 feet is sufficient for their needs, and the deed will be taken to the City Commission with the subdivision and vacation for approval; and stated that staff recommends that the Planning Board finds Site Plan 15-SP-07 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the zoning Code and approve the site Plan subject to three conditions; Subdivision 15-SUB-02 consistent with Section IV-1007 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission; and Street Vacation 15-SV-01 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to one condition. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher stated that it appears that the requirements for primary streets, with the exception of setbacks, are also met on the other streets surrounding the site even though they are secondary streets, and asked staff if they agree with his observation. Planner Panica confirmed that his observation is correct. PB Member Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 24 Svekis asked for clarification about the situation with First Street running through the site. Planner Panica stated that the public right-of-way for the First Street portion running thought this property was vacated in 1999, but they kept the same width of the right-of-way for private utilities, and now it has private utilities and City utilities, sO the Quitclaim deed will reduce its width to 20 feet for City utilities. PB Member Svekis asked who is maintaining it since its vacation in 1999. Planner Panica stated that possibly the City maintains the area covered by easement rights for sewer and utilities. PB Member Gannon asked how the application meets review standards if they are reducing the tree canopy with their mitigation, when tree canopy is in a deficit at this time. Planner Panica stated that in the long term the trees that were planted are better for the site, because the trees that were removed had problems or were invasive species, sO in the long term this will improve the canopy and meet that goal. PB Chair Lindsay stated that there are no affected persons for this proposal. Citizen Input Mr. Chris Jaensch, owner of a neighboring property, asked if there is a timeline as to when the derelict structures on the site will be removed. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Kiraly stated that the applicant has a contract on the property pending approval, and until they own the property they cannot demolish any of the buildings; and added they have quotes for all site work that needs to be done. Mr. Wallace commented on the earlier tree discussion, pointing out that they are removing 38 trees and replacing them with 52 trees, therefore adding more trees to the site, and in the long term there will be more caliper at the site. PB Chair Lindsay asked for a motion, noting items will be considered one at the time. Motion regarding Site Plan 15-SP-07 PB Member Morriss made a motion to find Site Plan 15-SP-07 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled School Avenue Townhomes, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 24 received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on February 11, 2016. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. 3. Quitclaim deed for the reduction of the 40 easement to 20 on the northern portion of the lot (previous 1st Street Right of Way) shall be approved by the City Commission prior to final approval of the subdivision. PB Member Svekis seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that the applicant has done a nice job with the site plan and protected as much as possible, because one can only do sO much and still have a usable site. PB Member Svekis stated that with this project and the one that is going in north of this site, there will be a real increase of activity in this part of the City; added that this is a great improvement of conditions compared to what is there now, and the sooner it can be done the better; and stated he supports the application. PC Chair Lindsay asked for a vote on Site Plan 15-SP-07. The motion for approval of Site Plan 15-SP-07 passes unanimously. Motion regarding Subdivision Plan 15-SUB-02 PB Member Morriss made a motion to find Subdivision 15-SUB-02 consistent with Section IV-1007 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB: Member Svekis seconded the motion. PC Chair Lindsay asked for a vote on Subdivision 15-SUB-02. The motion for approval of Subdivision 15-SUB-02 passes unanimously. Motion regarding Street Vacation 15-SV-01. PB Member Gannon made to find Street Vacation 15-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 condition. 1. Vacation of the easement shall become effective on final recording of Subdivision 15- SUB-02. If the Subdivision and Site Plan do not move forward then the subject existing sidewalk easement should remain in order to provide public access from Main Street to Fruitville Road. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 24 PC Chair Lindsay asked for a vote on Street Vacation 15-SV-01. The motion for approval of Subdivision 15-SV-01 passes unanimously. 2. Caritas (1670 4th Street): Site Plan Application 16-SP-04, Major Conditional Use Application 16-CU-01 and Adjustment to the Downtown Code Application 16-ADP- 03 request Site Plan and Major Conditional Use approval to allow two community services uses including the existing Bethesda House HIV/Aids support services and proposed Caritas Outreach Ministry whose primary purpose is to provide temporary, emergency assistance to those in acute financial need, on property located at 1670 4th Street in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District. No changes are proposed to the existing Bethesda House structure or use. Applicant is requesting to remove an existing accessory structure on the property and build ai new two-story structure for the Caritas Outreach, with operating hours proffered as Monday thru Friday, from 9:00 am to 11:00 am. Applicant is also requesting adjustments to the Downtown Code regarding front setback, percentage of glazing within the first story frontage, and permitted exterior finish materials. (COURTNEY MENDEZ, AICP,SENIOR PLANNER) PB Chair Lindsay asked if any PB: member had ex-parte communications regarding this Site Plan Application. There were: none. PB Chair Lindsay asked if there are any applications for affected person status. Attorney Connolly stated "Yes," and called Alex Lancaster, Judith Klug and Paul Jost, all of whom own property within 500 ft. of the proposed site, are present at the public hearing, and are therefore granted affected person status. Attorney Connolly also called Scott Needham. Mr. Needham was not in attendance and therefore could not be granted affected persons' status. General Manager Smith stated that Mr. Needham was not sure if he would be able to attend the meeting this evening, and he has submitted comments to be distributed to the PB members and be entered into the record. Applicant Presentation Rev. Fausto Stampiglia, St. Martha's Church, introduced for the record himself; Sandra Clark, Project Manager; Anthony Cocco, Caritas Chairman; and Deacon Kevin McKenney, Director of Bethesda House. Ms. Clark stated the applicants were requesting the relocation of Caritas, currently located on 2nd Street, to property located at 1670 4th Street that is also owned by the Diocese of Venice; added that the proposed location has a house with a detached garage that is currently used for storage; noted that the main house is the home of Bethesda House, a community service that has operated for 25 years; explained that they hoped to demolish the garage and build a similar size structure in its place to house Caritas; added the application is for a Major Conditional Use noting Bethesda House is a Community Service and Caritas is an addition to that SO it requires approval as a Major Conditional Use, as well as site plan approval because of the new construction; pointed out that during the review process the City was unable to find records approving Bethesda House as a community service Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 24 sO they are requesting approval of a Major Conditional Use in this location; stated that the site is zoned Downtown Edge (DTE); Community Service is an allowable use in that district with Major Conditional Use approval; the footprint of the new building will be similar than the existing garage footprint, but two stories; Caritas will occupy the first floor and the second floor will be used for storage; stated that the entrance to Caritas' new building will be on the south side where it abuts the Church parking lot, therefore avoiding pass through traffic and possible disruptions to traffic on 4th street; stated that they also need Adjustments to the Downtown Code in order to continue with the neighborhood fabric, to keep the accessory structure in the rear as is done in the existing neighborhood, they have also selected size, siding, scale, and materials that match the neighborhood; and stated since these are not allowed in the DTE Zone District and they are asking for adjustments as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Cocco, the Chair for Caritas of St. Martha's, appeared and explained what Caritas does stating that it is an ecumenical ministry of five downtown Sarasota churches, the First United Methodist Church, the Church of the Redeemer, First Presbyterian Church, First Baptist Church, and St. Martha' 's; added that their primary purpose is to provide assistance to Sarasota residents with acute financial need; noted that the assistance is offered in the form of vouchers for food, clothing, partial utility assistance when they are about to lose their utilities; vouchers for prescription aid and local transportation; and stated there are no services provided on site beyond interviewing the clients, who receive their vouchers and go out to the community to acquire the services they need. Rev. McKenny spoke about the Bethesda House; stated it is an AIDS drop-in center; noted it is the only one between St. Pete and Naples performing a unique service to a close-knit community; stated it has been in existence at that location for over 25 years providing case management, showers, laundry, a food pantry, and counseling; stated that they try to be good neighbors and respond immediately to any issues that arise, such as the recent increase in the fence around the property in response to comments received in a recent meeting; and stated that there were concerns with trespassing they are trying to address. PB Member Svekis asked what a drop-in center is. Deacon McKenney explained that the clients walk-in and ask for a service and leave, noting they do not sleep there during the operating hours of the facility (8:30 AM - 4:00 PM). PB Member Morriss asked how long they have being operating without a permit. Deacon McKenney said for 25 years. PB Member Gannon asked for the hours of operation. Deacon McKenney stated that the hours are Monday through Thursday, 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM, and Friday 8:30 AM - 1:00 PM. PB Member Gannon asked how often people are lined up outside for a long time. Deacon McKenney said that they do not line up outside before 8:30 AM. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher referred to comments received at the neighborhood meeting regarding people showing up at 7:30 AM, and concerns about people hanging around before and after hours. Deacon McKenney stated that this may have been past history but is not happening now. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher read from letters submitted Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 24 for the record stating that convicted felons are visiting the site regularly. Rev. McKinney stated that they did an analysis of their clients and found that less than one percent of them were convicted felons; added that there is a lot of homeless traffic through that neighborhood and people think they are our clients. PB Member Gannon asked Deacon McKenney if he agrees with the stated proffer that food services/food pantry will cease. Deacon McKenney stated that it is not what they are requesting; they want to continue their current operations; and stated they only serve the people who come in to get services. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked how this location was chosen for these services. Rev. Stampiglia stated that Caritas services were originally offered through an old 360 sq. ft. mobile home on the 2nd Street site and donors provided the funds to build the 400 sq. ft. garage to replace the unsafe old mobile home. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked again why the five churches chose this site for the Caritas. Rev. Stampiglia responded that they own this property. PB Member Svekis asked how many properties the Diocese of Venice owns. The applicants did not have the answer to this question. PB Member Gannon asked what happened to the old mobile home. Rev. Stampiglia said it was removed to be demolished, and stated currently Caritas services are provided in the coffee room of the Parish, space that the other ministries of St. Martha' s allow Caritas to use temporarily, for 2.5 hours daily. The other churches do not have any available space. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Mendez introduced herself for the record; stated that there is a Site Plan application that includes the new proposed structure, a Major Conditional Use application which consists of two parts, one for the relocation of the Caritas program and one for the Bethesda House, and a three part Adjustment application relating to the new building being located on the footprint for the garage, therefore requiring adjustments for the setbacks, a reduction in the required window area, and allowing materials consistent with the existing materials on site and in the neighborhood. Senior Planner Mendez stated that this was a difficult application to deliberate because the Rosemary District feels that they are overburdened with the provision of community services; noted that the staff's S decision to support the application was based on the limited day-time operation hours, the scale of the operation being limited to 400 sq. ft., and the fact that clients can access the facility from the church's s parking lot on the south, providing more than ample parking for the clients during those hours, as well as reducing the amount of additional foot traffic on 4th Street, which was a citizen concern. Senior Planner Mendezs spoke about the situation with Bethesda House; stated that the property was zoned RMF-4 before it was rezoned to Downtown Edge (DTE); staff was unable to find documentation permitting the Community Service activities at the Bethesda House; under the RMF-4 district, Community Services were not permitted in any fashion; added that in the DTE zone district Community Services are allowed to be considered as a Conditional Use; because this use was never legally permitted, it is not considered a non-conforming use, it is an illegal use, and subject to the current requirements, which prohibit overnight accommodations, soup kitchens and food Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 24 pantries; noted that in reviewing this application staff had to adhere to current requirements; added that staff has recommended approval with no conditions for the site plan; and noted that on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report, there are a number of conditions relating to the Conditional Use, which she briefly presented. PB Member Morriss asked how restrictions of food panties and soup kitchens are enforced. Senior Planner Mendez stated they are enforced through a code compliance action; violations are documented; and the City Manager has the ability to revoke the Conditional Use permit. PB Member Morriss asked how effective the Good Neighbor Plans are. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the recent Good Neighbor Plans are effective. PB Member Gannon and PB Member Svekis asked for statistics or a report from the Police Department documenting incidents and providing historical evidence of incidents in this location. Senior Planner Mendez stated that she does not have this information this evening but could follow up. Attorney Connolly called the names of the persons who applied for affected person status: 1. Mr. Alex Lancaster stated he and his wife own property on Fruitville, and US 41 and stated that they support the services of Caritas and Bethesda House, however he does not support what they are requesting this evening. 2. Ms. Klug stated she was a homeowner on 5th Street and she opposed the proposals. 3. Mr. Jost stated he opposed the proposals. Citizens Input 1. Sharon Miller - spoke in support of the application 2. Dale Orlando - spoke in opposition of the application 3. Raymond McNary-Willis - spoke in support of the application 4. Robert Foti - spoke in support of the application 5. Dan Brady - spoke in support of the application 6. Jack Cox - spoke in support of the application 7. Robert Cooke - spoke in support of the application 8. Julie Feeley - spoke in support of the application 9. Karen Trautman - spoke in support of the application 10. Itay Seith - spoke in support of the application 11. Roland Gibson - spoke in support of the application 12. Edward Bryce - spoke in support of the application 13. David Pierson - spoke in opposition of the application 14. Linda Holland - spoke in support of the application 15. Patricia Sikeritzky - spoke in support of the application 16. Minnie Colemann - spoke in support of the application 17. Hildebram Diaz - spoke in support of the application Applicant Rebuttal Rev. Stampiglia stated that their request is simple, they want to be allowed to move their 25-year old operation across the street from its current location; and added that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 24 this would not to increase crime or homelessness it will only continue to provide help to people who are less fortunate. Deacon McKenney stated that the people who sit along the sidewalks and drink are not Bethesda House or Caritas clients. Rebuttal by Affected. Persons Mr. Lancaster stated that they are not opposing the types of community services provided but the location of where they want to provide these services; stated if they are allowed in this area as a Conditional Use, then more such services will follow; and stated the services do not fit well in the neighborhood, are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and should be located somewhere else. Rebuttal by City Staff Senior Planner Mendez provided crime data for the area for the last six months, stating that none was clearly affiliated with Bethesda Hlouse or Caritas clients; noted there were car thefts and one burglary; and commented on Mr. Lancaster's rebuttal, stating that Community Services are a permitted use within this Future Land Use category, and therefore they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and further it is being implemented as a Conditional Use in the zoning district. PB. Member Gannon asked if community services are allowed as a Conditional Use without food pantries or food hand-outs. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the Comprehensive Plan addresses land uses in general, and it allows the use of community services in this land use district, while the Zoning Code, as an implementing tool, provides specific allowable and prohibited uses within its zoning districts, and prohibits soup kitchens and food distribution in this district; and added this is in effect unless it changes in the future through amendments to the Zoning Code. PB Member Gannon noted that, based on the testimony, food distribution was an important function of the Bethesda House, and asked if staff has discussed with the applicants the impact to the clients of discontinuing food services at Bethesda House. Senior Planner Mendez stated it was not discussed because according to the Code a prohibited primary use could not be permitted as an accessory use. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher noted that several people who testified this evening asked for this use to be moved to a zone district where it is allowed, and asked what those districts were. Senior Planner Mendez stated that Community Services are allowed as a Conditional Use in all of the zone districts where allowed. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher stated that some people who have submitted comments in writing refer to a rezoning, and asked Senior Planner Mendez to confirm for the record that this is not a rezoning application. Senior Planner Mendez confirmed that this is not a rezoning application, stating the property is already zoned DTE which is a mixed use district. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher stated that, by calling some uses "Conditional Uses" within a zone district, the City recognizes that these uses could have some issues, thus there is a process to follow and conditions are placed on the use prior to approval, and unlike past years, now there are ways to police and monitor the Conditional Uses; noted that the report Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 24 refers to "residential neighborhood" and he suggested this be corrected, because being in the DTE zone district, iti is a mixed use neighborhood. Senior Planner Mendez clarified that the area south of 4th Street is in the DTE zone district and therefore mixed uses are allowable, however north of 4th Street, the area transitions to Downtown Neighborhood which is primarily a residential area with limited exceptions for commercial uses. PB Member Gannon asked if at this seating the Planning Board has the authority to allow for the use of the soup kitchen and food pantry. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the Planning Board at this seating does not have the authority to permit a prohibited use; there is a process whereby the Planning Board could receive a formal interpretation of the Zoning Code, noting that decision could be appealed. PB Chair Lindsay noted that tonight's testimony included statements about the parking lot not conforming to today's regulations, and asked at which point would the requirement to bring it into conformity be triggered. Senior Planner Mendez stated that it would have to be a substantial improvement, but would not necessarily be tied to this property because it does not have any parking requirements; noting the availability of the parking is a bonus, above and beyond the requirements. PB Chair Lindsay closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss stated that there is a lot of gult-by-association; there are a lot of collateral problems that occur in that neighborhood; expressed concerns about limiting certain functions of the Bethesda House; and added there is no place in town that this could happen without a Major Conditional Use application. PB Chair Lindsay asked for a motion. PB Member Gannon asked they consider the items in separate motions. Attorney Connolly suggested that the Planning Board consider the Adjustment application first. Motion Regarding 16-ADP-03 PB Vice-Chair Gallagher made the following motion: Adopt a motion to find Adjustment 16-ADP-03 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the adjustment, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Adjustments under 16-ADP-03 are subject to final approval of Site Plan 16-SP-04 by the City Commission. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Vice-Chair Gallagher stated that it is an unusual adjustment but it is perfectly practical given the nature of the buildings, architecture and site plan that is already there, and meets the requirements for the adjustment. PB Member Morriss agreed. PB Member Svekis noted that everyone who provided testimony supported the services, while the affected persons unanimously opposed Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 24 the location of the services, and the services need to be provided. PB Chair Lindsay stated that there are problems downtown and one cannot identify their source; stated that he did not hear anything this evening that provides evidence that the problems are a result of the location of these facilities in this area, sO this is a land use issue and this is an appropriate use in the area and the adjustments are reasonable from the land use point of view; pointed out that these uses can also be considered as ordinary and typical activities of a church, and that the church has been there for a long time, much longer than any one of us have been around, and these ministries are helping people who are having difficulty, and that is what church life is all about; and added that he does not think these particular uses are the ones causing the problems in the neighborhood. PM Member Morriss stated that being the president of a neighborhood association, he can understand the dilemma of a neighborhood being split in their opinion about something; added that he understands that there are strong feelings about the issue, and the persons that spoke in opposition were the ones who lived closest to the facilities, but how much of that is guil-by-association; and added that the problems do not emanate from these facilities. PB Member Gannon stated that he supports the amendment. PB Chair Lindsay asked for a vote. The motion to approve Adjustment 16-ADP-03 passes with a vote of 4 to 1 with PB Member Svekis voting "No.". Motion Regarding Site Plan 16-SP-04 and Conditional Use 16-CU-01 PB Chair Lindsay asked for a motion on Site Plan 16-SP-04. Attorney Connolly clarified that this motion includes the Conditional Use, and this motion is a recommendation to the City Commission. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher made the following motion: Adopt a motion to find Site Plan 16-SP-04 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance, find Conditional Use 16-CU-01 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code, and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions, subject to the following proffer (#3) and conditions: 1. Use of Bethesda House be limited to use by program clients as may be independently verified by Catholic Charities, with specific allowed uses including: shower and laundry facilities; case management services such as housing assistance, job placement, literacy classes, financial assistance, medical assistance, and pastoral counseling; and a "clothes closet" for Bethesda House clients only. The following uses are specifically prohibited as provided by Table VI-1001: mass sheltering or any use that includes overnight accommodation is prohibited; soup kitchen or meal service (whether or not prepared onsite); and food pantry services. 2. Hours of operation of Bethesda House shall be limited to 8:30am to 4:00pm Monday through Thursday, and 8:30am to 1:00pm on Friday. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 24 3. Hours of operation of Caritas shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 - 11:00am, Monday through Friday. 4. Although not needed to satisfy parking requirements, the parking lot located immediately to the south of the subject property and under joint ownership by the Diocese of Venice shall be made available for employees, volunteers and clients of Caritas during its operating hours as long as the property is in common ownership. Pedestrian access shall also be maintained between the properties during operating hours of Caritas only. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the subject property, the City may require a statement for recording in the Public Records of Sarasota County for the parking parcel specifying the access and parking rights associated with this property. Such instrument shall be reviewed and approved for content by the Director of Neighborhood and Development and City Attorney prior to recording. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for onsite construction, the applicant shall complete and distribute their good neighbor plan," addressing crime prevention, litter control, loitering control, trespass enforcement, landscape maintenance, and neighborhood communication. This plan must include a contact (including name and phone number) that neighbors can reach to proactively address any concerns. A copy of the plan must be provided to the City, all adjacent neighbors, and the relevant neighborhood association(s). The plan shall first be reviewed and approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for content, then distributed to relevant stakeholders, and a signed statement regarding this distribution by the applicant shall be provided to the City. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for onsite construction, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan demonstrating compliance with Section VII-1402, including meeting the minimum security lighting standard for all courtyard and outdoor areas of 0.2 minimum footcandle, 1.0 average footcandle, and 10.0 footcandle maximum. All other applicable provisions of Section VII-1402, Lighting, shall also apply. 7. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB. Member Morriss seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Vice-Chair Gallagher stated that he lives in the neighborhood and was not aware of the operations of Bethesda House; added that when he heard the testimony about having compassion for the children in the nearby day care facility, he thought about having compassion for adult children who may need the services of Bethesda House; pointed out that the church obviously feels OK for the proximity of these two uses; noted that a Conditional Use is not automatically Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 24 permitted in a district, however it is an alllowed use after a community conversation; stated that the Planning Board has to weigh all of this; noted some strong conditions have been placed on this; and stated he supports it. PB Member Gannon stated that he continues to be concerned about the first condition, and he understands that the Planning Board does not have the authority to allow these uses to continue, but he does not know how the Bethesda House can continue to operate without providing meals and the food pantry, because according to the testimony, that is a key part of their functions, and iti is a valid and needed service. PB Vice-Chair Gallagher asked for a definition for the term "soup kitchen" stating that what Bethesda House does is not a soup kitchen, they eat while they are there just like any other office, and he questions whether these terms are correctly defined in the Zoning Code. PB Chair Lindsay stated that he also has a hard time with this condition because what is happening at Bethesda House does not fit the definition of a soup kitchen, they appear to be ordinary and customary uses of certain businesses and institutions; this is an ordinary and customary use for a church; churches have commercial kitchens on the premises and use them on certain occasions with the parishioners; they provide social services, for example AA meetings are held in churches but they do not need a special permit for that; he would consider it a social service but it is also an ordinary and customary use for a church; it would be a different thing if they were mass feeding a large number of persons on a daily basis; but these are incidental things to their mission. Attorney Connolly stated that Condition 1 repeats what is stated in the Zoning Code; and stated that, as Senior Planner Mendez mentioned in her testimony, there is a process by which a definition interpretation and determination can be made regarding the meals at Bethesda House meeting the definition of a soup kitchen. Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development, made the clarification that this is not a church, even though it is operated by a church; the House of Worship is in a different location and different building; added that if these operations took place at the House of Worship, there would be a different conversation; and stated that this is a free standing structure for the provision of social services, not a House of Worship, and that is why these limitations are in place. PB Member Morriss stated that the definition states that food is offered to the homeless and destitute, and according to the testimony, the majority of the clients are not homeless and destitute, and that may be interpreted differently there; and added that there is still the food pantry, which means that they are storing food and distributing it as families come in for help. PB Member Morriss stated that this Board at this seating cannot do anything, interpretation is done by someone else, and suggested to move forward with the meeting. PB Chair Lindsay asked for a vote. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Revised April 26, 2016 March 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 24 The motion for Site Plan 16-SP-04 and Conditional Use 16-CU-01 passes 4 to 1 with PB Member Svekis voting No." IV. CITIZEN's INPUT Ms. Mimi Cirbusove submitted a request to speak however had left the chambers prior to being called. Prior to leaving Ms. Cirbusove submitted a document "What are Sarasota's s Young Professionals saying about Attainable Housing" for the record which was distributed to the Planning Board members by General Manager Smith. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 10, 2016 PB: member Gannon stated on page six, 4th paragraph "west" should be "east". The PB members approved the minutes by consensus with the correction. 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. General Manager Smith recognized PB Member Svekis for his services and thanked him noting this is his last meeting. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action willl be placed on the next available. agenda for discussion. PB Member Gallagher suggested that PB Members schedule a workshop at the Urban Design Studio and get a tour of the contents of what they are working on. General Manager Smith stated staff will arrange for a workshop in accordance with Sunshine Law requirements. VILAD)OURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:02 P.M. - l 26 nu David Smith, General Manager - Integration Robert Lindsay, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]