CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Dan Clermont, Vice Chair Members Present: Members Damien Blumetti, Michael Halflants, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Alternate PB Member Christy Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Myra Schwarz, General Manager, Development Services Alison Christie, AICP, Chief Planner Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services 9:09:27 A.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Vice Chair Clermont called the meeting to order and stated PB Chair Salem has recused himself from this meeting. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Attorney Connolly stated since PB Member Salem will not be present and Alternate PB Member Christy is only available this morning, he strongly encouraged the PB to complete their deliberations on the first item on the agenda before Alternate PB Member Christy has to leave. PB Member Halflants stated he had to leave no later than 2:45 pm. PB Vice Chair Clermont pointed out the potential for there only being three PB members present later in the day. Attorney Connolly stated a discussion with the applicants would need to occur should that happen. General Manager Schwarz [acting as the Planning Board's S Secretary] called the roll. III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY PB Member Ohlrich suggested that the two public hearings related to the Bahia Vista Apartment project be combined, noting two separate motions will be required. Attorney Connolly stated the combined public hearing would have to be held as a quasi- judicial hearing, and the first motion would have to be on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 26 PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to combine the legislative and quasi-judicial public hearings for the Bahia Vista Apartments project into one quasi-judicial public hearing. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Member Ohirich stated her rationale for the request saying staff used the site plan and rezone documents as their rationale for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment analysis. Attorney Connolly confirmed that the applicant was agreeable to combing the public hearings. The PB members agreed by consensus to combine the public hearings. IV. LAND USE. ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO1 THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Schwarz read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for the presentations that will follow. PB Member Halflants suggested Affected Persons should testify as individuals rather than having one individual speak for many and questioned what the rules are. Attorney Connolly stated there is only one Affected Person for this project that is speaking for the Neighborhood Association and said that person would have the same five-minute time limit as the other Affected Persons. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those wishing to testify at the public hearings and explained the procedures for quasi-judicial public hearings. 9:20:36 A.M. (Note: The below public hearings regarding Bahia Vista Apartments were consolidated into a single Quasi-judicial public hearing under Changes to the Order of the Day) PB Vice Chair Clermont requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he was formerly the President of the Neighborhood Association and had heard varying views on thej project; and stated hel has visited the site and drives by it every day. Attorney Connolly called the following who had applied for Affected Person status: Joseph Peters (registered to participate via Zoom, has not joined the meeting yet); Rachel Wilson; Nathan Wilson; Lorrie Muldowney (represented by Florence Entler); Mary Boutieller; Laura Dessauer; Robert Grant (representing the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association); Charles and Gail Lilly; Mark LeFlamme; Nancy Rose- Hunter; and Fred Sassen. Attorney Connolly stated the following are present and he recommended they be granted Affected Person status: Joseph Peters (if he joins the meeting in time); Florence Entler (representing Lorrie Muldowney); Mary Boutieller; Laura Dessauer; Robert Grant (representing the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association); Charles and Gail Lilly; and Fred Sassen. The Planning Board (PB) agreed by consensus. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 26 C. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 2. Bahia Vista Apartments (2750 Bahia Vista Street): Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 21-PA-03 is a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to amend the Future Land Use Map from Multiple Family - Medium Density to Multiple Family - High density for an 6.09t acre property with a street address of 2750 Bahia Vista Street. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning) 2. Bahia Vista Apartments (2750 Bahia Vista Street): Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-03 and Rezone Application No. 22-RE-01 are a request for Site Plan approval to construct two four-story buildings with a total of 250 residential units on subject property with a street address of 2750 Bahia Vista Street. The existing parking garage consisting of approximately 400 spaces is to remain, and the existing medical office building and outparcel building in the southeast corner of the site are proposed to be demolished. Access is proposed from Briggs Avenue and Tuttle Avenue. Request for Rezone approval to rezone the subject parcels from Medical Charitable Institutional (MCI) zone district to Residential Multiple Family 7 (RMF-7) zone district. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, representing the applicants; Mr. Phillip Smith, Landscape Architect and Certified Arborist; Mr. Chris Gallagher, Architect for the project; and Mr. Mark Mueller, Engineer for the project; appeared. Mr. Freedman noted the location and size of the site; pointed out it is the former Doctor's Hospital site; stated the applicants propose to redevelop the site with a 250- unit apartment complex; said the existing parking garage will be incorporated into the project; stated the project will provide much needed housing; stated the Future Land Use classification is Multiple Family - Medium Density and they are proposing to change that to Multiple Family - High Density; stated an associated rezoning is requested to change the zoning from Medical Charitable Institution (MCI) to Residential Multi Family 7 (RMF-7);s said the RMF-7 zoning allows for twenty-five units per acre by right and an additional twenty-five units per acre if a minimum of 25% of the additional density is designated as affordable; noted combined up to fifty units per acre is allowed; said nine of the affordable units will be for households with incomes below 80% oft the average median income (AMI), eight units will be. for households with incomes between 80% and 100 % of the AMI; and eight units will be for households with incomes between 100% and 120% of the AMI; and stated the applicants are proffering an additional ten affordable units. Mr. Gallagher discussed the proposed Site Plan stating 250 units are proposed which equates to approximately forty-two units per acre; said a four story building is proposed; pointed out the setback from the adjacent residential is forty-two feet; stated parking will be provided in the existing garage with an additional 24 spaces on-site for a total of 463 parking spaces which equates to approximately 1.85 parking spaces per unit; noted forty-eight bicycle parking spaces are provided, one-half in the parking garage and one-half outside; noted the trash pickup area is located away from the residential units; stated there is a right-in, right-out only access point on Tuttle. Avenue; Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 26 said 8' sidewalks are proposed along Tuttle Avenue and Bahia Vista Street, noting the existing 5' to 6' sidewalks along Prospect Street and Briggs Avenue will remain; stated additional screening of the parking garage is being provided; stated the unit mix is 123 one-bedroom/ studio units; 115 two-bedroom units; and 12 three-bedroom units; and presented renderings pointing out the unit with balconies have been located away from the adjacent residential uses. Mr. Smith discussed the landscape plan stating the perimeter sidewalks will have canopy trees where possible and understory plants where there are overhead wires; stated the grand trees along Prospect Street are being saved; and presented a rendering of the proposed enhanced landscaping to further screen the parking garage on the three sides that face the adjacent residential. Mr. Mueller discussed the proposed access stating the driveway onto Briggs Avenue was shifted north towards Bahia Vista Street with a right-out angled to discourage a left turn onto Briggs Avenue, pointing out a left turn from Briggs Avenue is permitted at that access point. Mr. Freedman stated the site in on the perimeter of the Arlington Park neighborhood; said there are major streets on two sides of the site; discussed design elements of the site that lessens the impacts to the neighborhood that include an enhanced setback next to the residential, not building to the maximum height allowed, and enhanced landscaping; stated in response to the neighbor's concerns the access onto Briggs Avenue was redesigned; said the required Community Workshop was held and in addition the applicants presented to the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association; stated the additional housing is important to the community; pointed out 35% of the units would be affordable; noted the setbacks around the entire site have been increased; stated the utilities are existing and the stormwater management will be improved; noted the traffic analysis found the project to be di minimis; discussed the proposed rezoning noting the RMF-7 zone district was recently adopted by the City to encourage affordable housing; said impacts to the adjacent residential uses have been mitigated; stated the building design is compatible with the surrounding area; and said the project will provide much needed affordable and market rate housing. Mr. Gallagher stated the neighbors had expressed concerns that the proposed parking is inadequate; said the applicants feel it is sufficient for the mix of units proposed; and discussed the neighbor's concerns regarding through traffic pointing out the residents of the apartment building will be part of the neighborhood. Alternate PBI Member Christy requested a breakdown of the additional affordable units, and the unit types. Mr. Freedman sated those would be in the 100% to 120% AMI range and would be on-e-bedroom units. Alternate PB Member Christy questioned if it was correct that there would be additional screening on the parking structure as well as enhanced landscaping. Mr. Freedman confirmed that was correct. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants asked how many units were on the site previously; noted the proposed density of fifty units per acres is about one-quarter of what is permitted downtown; asked if the apartment complex residents would walk to Arlington Park; Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 26 suggested relocating the pedestrian access to Briggs Avenue north to align with the building; asked if the trash pickup area was screened; and suggested additional landscaping to screen ground floor units from the traffic along Tuttle Avenue and Bahia Vista Street. Mr. Freedman stated the previous use was office/medical; confirmed the requested density was about one-quarter of what is permitted downtown; pointed out Arlington Park is approximately three blocks from the site; and agreed to relocate the pedestrian access to Briggs Avenue. Mr. Gallagher stated the trash area is screened on all sides. Discussion ensued regarding ways to provide additional screening for the ground floor units. PB Member Ohlrich questioned how many residents attended the Community Workshop and the presentation to the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association; and asked what design standards are being used to mitigate the impacts to the adjacent residential uses. Mr. Freedman stated there were 36 attendees at the Community Workshop and approximately the same at the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association. Mr. Gallagher stated additional screening and enhanced landscaping around the parking garage will help mitigate the impacts to the neighborhood. PB Member Blumetti stated the applicants were asking for a lot and questioned what the community would get in return in terms of architectural significance or other significant factors that will connect and respond to the neighborhood. Mr. Gallagher stated a variety of textures and finishes are being used; noted the applicants are not attempting to build an iconic structure, but rather a building that will fit in and complement the area; and said the impetus is to provide additional affordable housing. Mr. Freedman pointed out the wider sidewalks will improve walkability. Mr. Gallagher discussed other overall improvements to the site. PB Member Blumetti stated this is an important. location in the city thatrequires more architectural flare than other areas such as North Trail; noted the majority of the units are market rate; and pointed out the affordable units are one-bedroom. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked why the investors were: not providing luxury apartments that would be: more profitable. Mr. Freedman stated they felt the marketrate/affordable units would be highly rentable; and reiterated the need for more workforce and lower income housing. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned what revisions were made to the Site Plan in response to the neighbor's concerns that were raised at the Community Workshop and Arlington Park Neighborhood Association meetings. Mr. Freedman stated the original proposal was for medical and office uses at the corner of Tuttle Avenue and Bahia Vista Street with apartments to the west and south; noted the major access point at that time was onto Briggs Avenue and is now off of Tuttle Avenue with directional access onto Briggs Avenue; noted the additional setback along the adjacent residential uses; pointed out the significant increase in landscaping; noted the additional screening and landscaping for the parking garage; and the number of units along the southern portion of the site has been reduced. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned the parking garage heights. Mr. Gallagher stated the top level is 34', the top of the stairs in 45; the roof is 51', and the architectural features and elevator and stair overruns are 60. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned how stormwater runoffwould be handled. Mr. Mueller stated the existing system to the west and south of the parking garage would be maintained; and stated a chamber system Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 26 will be installed underneath the pavement per Southwest Florida Water Management District requirements as well as the requirements of the City's Engineering Design and Criteria (EDCM) requirements. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked why the allowable density is not being maximized. Mr. Gallagher pointed out the elimination of units on the southern portion of the site to mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Freedman pointed out the applicants chose: not to construct up to five stories as allowed due to the additional costs. PB Member Ohlrich stated the request was a big ask and questioned what other uses were considered that would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning. Mr. Freedman stated a very large Assisted Living Facllity/Nursing Home complex with medical offices is the other consideration. PBMember Ohlrich questioned why the apartment complex was chosen over the Assisted Living Facility. Mr. Freedman stated the Assisted Living Facility would have greater impacts on the neighborhood. PB Member Halflants asked if any of the building that is 60' in height was across from the single-family zoning; questioned if the neighbor's view would be the same other than the additional landscaping; asked what the existing structures on the site are and if the structures in the area of the proposed dog park would remain; and asked if the dog park would be for the residents of the apartment complex only. Discussion ensued regarding the areas of the site that would be 60 in height. Mr. Freedman stated the existing structures other than the parking garage have been or will be demolished. Mr. Gallagher stated the dog park is not limited to the residents only at this time. PB Member Blumetti stated a medical facility would have significantly less traffic; said he is familiar with Hoyt Architect's work; and stated this project appears to be an effort to maximize the site/density. Mr. Gallagher pointed out the density is not being maximized. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned how the applicants would prevent residents and/or visitors from parking on the street. Mr. Freedman pointed out he lives in an apartment building that is the same size and has the same parking ratio and there are no issues; and noted the applicants are providing 466 parking spaces for 250 units. Alternate PB Member Christy asked if the parking provided exceeded the required parking. Mr. Freedman stated only 430 parking spaces are required. 10:12:35 A.M. Staff Presentation: Long Range Planning Manager Smith and Development Review Planner Pintus appeared. Manager Smith discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment noting the location of the site and the purpose of the request; stated the proposal is to change the Future Land Use classification of the site from Multiple Family - Medium Density to Multiple Family - High Density; presented graphics depicting an aerial view of the site, the zoning of the site and the existing Future Land Use classification; stated staff performed a public benefit review; discussed the Guidelines for Review for Comprehensive Plan Amendments stating a chapter by chapter review is performed to Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page! 7 of 26 determine if, on-balance, approval of the request would further the public benefit or interest; discussed the pros and cons of each chapter noting staff found that for the Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands, Utilities, Capital Improvement, Governmental Coordination, Historic Preservation, and Property Rights chapters there were no relevant components of the request that would not further the public benefit or interest; stated staff found components of the proposal related to the Neighborhood Plan that would further the public benefit by providing additional housing options for low-to-middle income residents; the potential for employment opportunities as well as medical, social and educational amenities; noted the required Community Workshop was held on August 9, 2021; said staff did not find any relevant components of the Neighborhood Plan that would not further the public benefit or interest; stated staff found components of the proposal related to the Housing Plan that would further the public benefit by providing a minimum of twenty-five units for attainable housing; would provide affordable housing for low-to-middle income residents that is integrated into a development with market rate units; and would provide needed rental units for the southeast area of the City by a private housing provider; said staff found the public benefit may not be furthered due to incompatibility with the single-family residential uses to the south, the southernmost area east of the site, and the southernmost area west of the site; said the Recreation and Open Space Plan would be furthered by having no negative impact on the adopted level of service; stated staff did not find any relevant components of the request that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Recreation and Open Space Plan; said the project would further the public benefit of the Transportation Plan as it would generate less traffic that the use that previously existed on the site; would not degrade the transit system level of service noting SCAT recommended some improvements; stated staff did not find any relevant components of the request that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Transportation Plan; said staff found components of the proposal related to the Future Land Use Plan that would further the public benefit due to the potential for 98 additional dwelling units over what is currently allowed; the proposal would have a lesser impact on the surrounding uses in regard to building height and scale; the development would not contribute to urban spraw!; stated staff stated staff found relevant components of the request that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Future Land Use Plan because it would allow for higher residential density development that may not be compatible with the existing single-family residential uses to the south and west unless mitigated; the proximity of the existing single-family residential uses to the parking garage and building structure noting the applicants are proposing mitigation techniques; said the proposal would further the public benefit of the Public Schools Facilities Plan noting no negative impacts to the school system were identified; said the proposal could be viewed as setting a precedent noting each Comprehensive Plan Amendment is analyzed independently sO a precedent may not be set; stated the City Attorney had recommended text be added to the Future Land Use Plan limiting the density to a maximum of 250 dwelling units; and stated on-balance staff recommends approval. Development Review Planner Pintus discussed the proposed Rezoning and Site Plan applications noting the size of and location of the site; pointed out it is the former site of Doctors Hospital; said the request is for rezoning and site plan approval to allow a 250-unit multifamily residential development with accessory uses; stated the requested Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at' 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 26 RMF-7 zoning has a base density of 25 units per acre with additional density allowed for dwelling units that provide for households with incomes at or below 120% of the Average Median Income (AMI) for at least thirty years; stated a revised recommended motion has been provided that includes a trigger for when the proffer is put into effect; stated 65 of the additional units are market rate with 35 meeting the AMI requirement; said the overall proposed density is approximately 41.67 units per acre; noted the required Community Workshop was held on August 9, 2021, thirty-six residents attended, and concerns expressed were related to the proposed density and traffic impacts; said the project received full DRC sign-off on October 11, 2022; stated the project meets the Standards of Review for both rezonings and site plans, and meets the requirements of the RMF-7 zone district; and stated staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the revised recommended motion. PB Member Blumetti questioned how traffic concurrency works noting every project before the Planning Board has been found di minimis; and asked what the breaking point is. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the methodology was updated recently and the: new standard is if a site is redeveloped the applicant will receive a 50% credit from the demolished buildings. PB Member Blumetti questioned what efforts have been made to mitigate the traffic through the adjacent neighborhood. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein pointed out the existing network was sized based on the previous hospital use; said this project would have less of an impact SO there are no required improvements; and said multimodal connections are required (bicycle and pedestrian access) with reasonable access for cars. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those that were not present at the beginning of the meeting. PB Member Blumetti questioned if a two-seat restaurant could trigger a massive overhaul of the transportation system. Attorney Connolly stated the State requires municipalities to require only a proportionate fair share agreement. Discussion ensued. PB: Member Blumetti questioned if there is a median on Tuttle Avenue; and if the access to the site off Tuttle Avenue is a right-in, right-out only. Development Review Planner Pintus confirmed that was correct. PB Member Blumetti noted if the right turn in is missed the neighborhood streets will be used for access. PB Member Ohlrich stated Long Range Manager Smith's analysis indicated the proposed Future Land Use classification would be compatible with the uses to the north and east and is not compatible with the uses to the south and west; and noted the project is part of the neighborhood to the south and east. Long Range Manager Smith pointed out the project is part of the entireneighborhood rather thanj just the portion to the south and west; and said the higher density is not as compatible with the single-family to the south and west. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the recommended bus shelter had been considered; asked if the Bert Harris Act referenced in the Property Rights Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan included protections for property owners who are negatively impacted by construction; noted there are twelve recommendations regarding waste and recycling; and asked if those recommendations have been considered. Development Review Planner Pintus stated there are two existing bus shelters that will be used as part of the new on-demand service SCAT is providing; and Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 26 stated the twelve recommendations related to waste and recycling are part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, pointing out those recommendations are addressed as part of the rezoning and site plan DRC process. Attorney Connolly opined that the Bert Harris Act does not provide protections for property owners impacted by construction. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out the General Manager for Parks and Recreation had stated no running totals are kept regarding maintaining the LOS for Open Space; and asked how staff verified the LOS is not exceeded. Long Range Manager Smith stated the City's population would need to reach 70,000 to 75,000 before the 10 acres for every 1000 residents standard was exceeded; pointed out the current population is approximately 56,000; and acknowledged the need to track the data. PB Member Halflants questioned if multifamily is the use that is most compatible use adjacent to single-family. Long Range Manager Smith stated except for single-family, multifamily is the most compatible; and noted neighborhood office is also a permitted use that would be compatible with the single-family. PB Member Halflants asked if the average rental rates in the City of Sarasota were higher than in the Metropolitan Statistical Area; and wondered if the higher cost is associated with the low density that is allowed. Long Range Manager Smith confirmed costs arehigher in the city;and stated land costs also contribute to the higher rates. Discussion ensued regarding allowable density in the downtown area and potentially changing the allowable density outside the downtown area. PB Member Halflants questioned how traffic issues in a parking garage for a multifamily development differed from the traffic load of a commercial or hospital use. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated there are different peak hour times; and pointed out residential uses are less intense. Alternate PB Member Christy asked that staff provide a table/index of the acronyms staff uses in their staff reports. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the City always recommends approval of projects; and questioned how often proposals don'tmove. forward. Long Range Manage Smith noted that when approached about a proposal staff informs the potential applicant if staff may or may not support the proposal and explains the process noting that the City Commission makes the final decision which requires a supermajority vote to approve. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein pointed out that staff reviews proposals against the relative Standards for Review and determines if the project meets Code requirements; and said if those are not met the DRC will not sign-off on the project. Development Review Planner Pintus stated the purpose of the DRC process is to have all projects comply with the requirements before going before the Planning Board and/or City Commission. Long Range Manage Smith noted that is not applicable to Comprehensive Plan Amendments as the Comprehensive Plan is policy driven. PB Member Blumetti asked how staff ensures a project meets Code after it is built. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated there are reviewers and inspectors on staff that confirm the project is built in substantial conformance with the approved Site Plan. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 26 PB Vice Chair Clermont asked what the most intense use is currently allowed by right. Development Review Planner Pintus reviewed the current permitted uses and stated group living and mixed-use are the most intense; noted mixed-use developments include office and residential; and pointed out there are no concessions for affordable housingin a mixed-use development. PB Vice ChairClermont questioned if a long-term care facility could have more units than the apartments. Development Review Planner Pintus stated the density is calculated differently noting the density would be higher in a long-term care facility. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the neighbors are concerned with the impacts of the development on the infrastructure; asked what the current population is and what the maximum population is that the infrastructure can handle. Long Range Manager Smith stated the current population is approximately 56,000; said the Utilities Director had informed him the usage of the utilities is less than what was anticipated when the current LOS was determined; and pointed out developers may be required to make improvements to the system. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the State has firm guidelines on how transportation concurrency is evaluated; and noted if a project has a significant trip impact significant improvements to the system could be required. PB Vice Chair Clermont noted the estimated overall impacts of this project are based on a use on the site that ceased twenty-seven years ago; pointed out there has been a significant increase in overall traffic in the area since then; and asked if the di minimis determination was based on current conditions. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated di minimis is a phrase used in the methodology; noted that does not mean there will be no additional trips; and pointed out that available credits for previous uses decrease over time. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if in Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein's professional opinion would this project make a significant difference in the area; and if there would be a benefit or detriment to the overall traffic across the city. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the impact to the area would bel less than if the site operated as a hospital; pointed out that if people that live in North Port and drive to work in Sarasota lived closer to their employment there would be less trips systemwide. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if data was available that indicates a standard for apartment quantity based on population for the city. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti noted Cityside is a pedestrian centric area while this project would be car centric; and said it is likely that people travelling north on Tuttle Avenue would make a left at the median cut onto Prospect Street. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein acknowledged that was likely; and pointed out the roads are public and are paid for by the taxpayers. PB Member Blumetti asked if traffic calming for the area has been considered. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated if traffic becomes an issue the residents can reach out to the City and the City will analyze the issue to determine if traffic calming is warranted. The Planning Board Took a Seven Minute Break 11:19:23 A.M. Affected. Persons: Attorney Connolly called Mr. Joseph Peters and Ms. Laura Dessauer who had registered to attend via Zoom. Mr. Peters was not available. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 26 Ms. Dessauer stated she is opposed to the project citing concerns with traffic; incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood; and the traffic concurrency review being based on the previous hospital use versus the existing offices on the site. Ms. Florence Entler (representing Lorrie Muldowney) appeared and stated Ms. Muldowney's opposition citing increased density; inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Neighborhood Chapter; traffic; and height. Mr. Robert Grant representing the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association) appeared and stated the Neighborhood Association's opposition citing concerns regarding the high density; incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood; availability of attainable housing incentives in other more appropriate areas of the city; setting precedent; and inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those who were not present earlier. Ms. Mary Boutieller appeared and stated her opposition citing concerns regarding incompatibility with the surrounding residential; high density; inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan; increased through traffic on the residential streets; negative impact on overall quality of life; and noise and light pollution. Mr. Charles and Ms. Gail Lilly appeared. Ms. Lilly stated their opposition citing concerns with the impacts on the infrastructure; incompatibility; noise; traffic; and density. Mr. Fred Sassen appeared and stated his opposition citing concerns regarding inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan; increased density; traffic; and the minimal number of units that will be designated for attainable housing. Mr. Joseph Peters appeared via Zoom and stated his opposition citing concerns with traffic; lack of sidewalks in the area; density; negative impacts on the quality of life; incompatibility; and said the project was not an earnest attempt to provide affordable housing. 11:55:01 A.M. Citizen Input: Mr. Rob Reynolds appeared and stated his opposition citing incompatibility; negative impact on property values; increased traffic in the residential neighborhood; impact to the overall traffic in the area; and stated the limited affordable housing being provided will not help families that need affordable housing. Mr. Ben Abbott appeared and stated his agreement with the concerns that have been identified by the previous speakers, particularly traffic. Ms. Barbara Justice appeared and stated she is a Board member of the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association; read a resolution of opposition the Arlington Park Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 26 Neighborhood Associated adopted; and questioned if there are any rules or regulation that restricts the number of people that can live in one unit. Ms. Linda Kitch appeared and stated her opposition citing impacts of the overall transportation infrastructure. Mr. Patrick Reilly appeared and stated his opposition citing traffic and the environmental impact of emissions from vehicles. Ms. Mary Price appeared and stated her opposition citing height; increased density; safety of the children attending nearby schools; incompatibility with the residential neighborhood; and increased cut through traffic in the neighborhood. Ms. Susan Morris appeared and stated her opposition citing safety issues related to the degradation of the existing parking garage, and increased traffic. Mr. Jon Thaxton, representing the Gulf Coast Community Foundation appeared in support of the project stating the site is clearly contemplated for a use other than single family; said traffic is a network issue as opposed to localized; and said the site is an ideal location for affordable housing. Ms. Florence Entler appeared and stated her opposition citing inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan; incompatibility with the residential neighborhood; traffic impacts; increased density; safety; noise and light pollution; and degradation of the existing parking garage. Mr. Robert Grant appeared and stated his opposition citing profits as the driving force behind the requested increase in density; height; and concerns the proffers will not be enforced. 11:27:40 A.M. Affected Person Rebuttal: There was no affected person rebuttal. The Planning Board Took a Six Minute Break 11:33:45 A.M. Staff Rebuttal: Long Range Manager Smith, Development Review Planner Pintus and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. Development Review Planner Pintus stated the definition of family in the Zoning Code limits the number of persons per unit to four; and discussed how height is measured. PB Member Ohlrich noted an email had been received from a citizen that requested it be read into the record; pointed out the Planning Board does not read citizen input into the record; and confirmed the PB members do read the emails and staff includes the document in the public record. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 26 PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the thirteen recommendations in the traffic study have been considered. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that was correct. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned what Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein felt the traffic impacts of going from the allowable 25 units per acre to 41 units per acre would be. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated there would be approximately forty trips per hour increase during peak hour. 11:40:17 A.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman and Mr. Gallagher appeared. Mr. Freedman pointed out the existing MCI zoning allows for an assisted living facility with up to 300 units; noted the assisted living use would generate more traffic than the proposed apartments; stated there is currently a 2% vacancy rate in this area;and said the traffic study indicates the existing office uses generate more than the apartments will. Mr. Gallagher stated density and/c or height do not equate to a lower quality of life; noted the traffic study indicates the peak hour increase will be approximately two cars a minute; stated improvements will be made to the existing parking garage; said the screening around the parking garage will prevent light pollution, noting that is a code requirement versus a proffer; stated drainage will be improved pointing out it will be controlled on-site; stated the project meets the Comprehensive Plan goal for diversified housing; said property values in the area will increase; stated the overall benefits are new construction, improved parking garage, improved landscaping, better sidewalks, and better lighting; more diverse housing types; and an overall reduction in traffic. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out that drainage is currently an issue off-site; and questioned if that would be improved. Mr. Gallaher stated the drainage must be contained on-site. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked what Plan B was for the investor if this project does not get approved. Mr. Freedman stated they feel this project is the best use for this site. PBI Member Blumetti noted this project cannot be compared to projects in the Rosemary Residential Overlay District area since the Rosemary District is in the downtown area while this project has no mixed-use to walk to. Discussion ensued. 11:48:45 A.M. PB Vice Chair Clermont closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated the first motion is for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and is a legislative recommendation to the City Commission. PB member Halflants stated his support for the project noting the provision of housing close to downtown on two collector streets; said this project would generate less traffic than what is currently permitted; stated single-family would not be appropriate for the site; said emissions would be reduced since the site is within walking distance to a park and the YMCA, and within bicycling distance to schools; pointed out the existing Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 26 parking garage is the structure closest to the adjacent residential and provides a larger setback than what is required; and suggested additional buffering between the ground floor units and Bahia Vista Street and Tuttle Avenue. PB Member Blumetti stated he agreed the proposed density would be appropriate; said other issues such as traffic are not being solved; stated he did not feel much thought was put into the site given the impacts on the surrounding residential; and said he will not support the project. PB Member Ohlrich stated higher density does not solve housing costs pointing to Manhattan, NY; and said the project is: not compatible with the Neighborhood, Housing and Transportation Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Alternate PB Member Christy questioned if the applications would be before the City Commission. Attorney Connolly stated the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is anticipated to be heard as a legislative item January 17, 2023, and the Rezone and Site Plan applications would be heard as a quasi-judicial item on February 6, 2023. Discussion ensued regarding state review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Alternate PB: member Christy stated he echoes PB Member Blumetti's and PB Member Ohlrich's concerns. PB Vice Chair Clermont acknowledged the neighbor's concerns; stated the site will be developed at some point; said he supports the project because the proposed use is more muted than what is currently permitted; noted the use could be a hospital use that generates helicopter and ambulance traffic twenty-four hours a day;and said a hospital use would negatively affect property values. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate density for the site and the impacts on the infrastructure. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find that Petition No. 21-PA-03 amending the Future Land Use Map from Multiple Family - Medium Density to Multiple Family - High Density and adding new Future Land Use Action Strategy 1.10, Site Specific Limitations (7) A is not consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is not in the public interest and recommend that the City Commission deny the petition. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated that the concerns expressed are rooted in the unknown; said the site will be developed at some point and could be a hospital; said the project would help, but not solve, housing deficiencies; stated this project would allow for police officers, teachers, firefighters, city staff, etc. to live close to downtown; pointed out there is a lack of availability of market rate apartments also; noted the City's initiative to alllow for housing in the commercial corridors; and pointed out the site is on the edge of the neighborhood. PB Member Halflants stated the project is more dense but less intense that current permitted uses. The motion passed 3-2 with PB Member Halflants and PB Vice Chair Clermont voting no. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 26 Attorney Connolly stated since the PB recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the recommendation for the Rezone and Site Plan should also be denial. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find that Rezone 22-RE-02 and Site Plan 22-SP- 04 do not meet the applicable criteria for approval found in the Zoning Code and recommend denial of these requests to the City Commission. Alternate PB Member Christy seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-2 with PB Member Halflants and PB Vice Chair Clermont voting no. The Planning Board Took a One-Hour Break 2:11:29 P.M. B. LKR at Lido Beach (930 & 1008 Benjamin Franklin Drive): Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-15 is a request for Site Plan approval to develop 65 residential units with accessory amenities including pools, a poolside pavilion, sports bar, bocce lawn, private theater, private restaurant, storage, pet park, and administrative space on two parcels totaling 3.89 acres with street addresses of 930 & 1008 Benjamin Franklin Drive. All facilities and amenities are for the private use of the residents except for the proffered public beach access. The parcels are: zoned Waterfront Resort (WFR) with a Future Land Use Classification of Resort Residential. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Benjamin Franklin Drive. (Alison Christie, AICP, Chief Planner) Applicant Presentation: Attorney Brenda Patten and Mr. James ODonnell, Project Manager appeared. Attorney Patten stated the request is for site plan approval for LKR@Lido Beach; pointed out the location, size of the site, Future Land Use classification, and zoning; provide a brief history of the site; stated the project is for an eleven-story residential condominium with sixty-five units; noted the maximum of sixty-five units will be guaranteed in the condominium documents; stated eight floors of residential condominiums and one floor for amenities are proposed over two levels of parking; noted the amenities will not be open to the public; said the condominiums will be managed as a resort by Rosewood Hotels & Resorts; stated a rezoning of the site was approved with conditions that required a maximum on seventy residences, no rentals for less than six months, and no commercial uses, a public pedestrian access to the public beach, and temporary storage of beach recreational equipment; stated a historical sign from the previous use will be displayed on the gulf side as required by an approved Certificate of Appropriateness; stated two Community Workshops were held, one required and one voluntary; said the neighbors requested no short term rentals be allowed, an increased setback from Benjamin Franklin Drive, and the provision of a public beach access; presented graphics depicting the proposed Site Plan;and stated the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning criteria, the approved Certificate of Appropriateness, the adopted rezone ordinance, and the Site Plan criteria. PB Member Halflants questioned the size of the ramp and how visitors will exit a unit if there is a fire, noting there is an elevator to each unit. Mr. O'Donnell stated access is directly to the garage noting can then ramp up from there; and said each unit owner will have key fobs they can provide their visitors with. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 26 PB Member Ohlrich stated the rezone ordinance contains a condition that a five foot pedestrian path be provided; noted there is a ten foot pathway depicted on the plans; and asked for clarification. Discussion ensued. Mr. O'Donnell pointed out the ten foot pathway is actually the sidewalk along Benjamin Franklin Drive. PB Member Blumetti asked if the condominium would have valet service. Mr. O'Donnell confirmed that was correct. PB Member Blumetti asked if the valet service would have to go back to Benjamin Franklin Drive after dropping off people at the porte-cochere to get back to the parking garage. Mr. O'Donnell stated they would not. PB Member Ohlrich stated the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan was unclear. Mr. O'Donnell stated it is an underground chamber system that filters stormwater. 2:27:16 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Chief Planner Christie appeared and stated the request is for Site Plan approval for an eleven-story residential multifamily condominium with associated amenities; said the amenities will not be open to the public; stated a rezoning of the site was approved in 2021 that has conditions including a maximum of seventy residential units and no commercial which have been met; stated a five foot public access easement is also required and is included on the site plan; noted the easement must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit; stated the site is currently vacant, tree mitigation requirements have been met, and height restrictions have been met; stated the DRC signed-off on the project on September 2, 2022; said the project meets the development standards for site plan approval as well as the conditions in the rezoning ordinance; and stated staff recommends approval with conditions. PB Member Ohlrich stated proposed condition number two has two components to it that could stand alone and questioned why those were combined. Development Review Chief Planner Christie noted those were taken from the rezone ordinance. Attorney Connolly stated the two were combined since the second part of the condition will be addressed as part of the first part. PB Member Ohlrich stated it appears that conditions number one and four conflict with each other. Attorney Connolly stated condition number one was taken from the rezone ordinance while condition number fouri is more restrictive and goes further than the rezone ordinance. Citizen Input: There was no citizen input. Applicant Rebuttal: There was no applicant rebuttal. Staff Rebuttal: There was no staff rebuttal. 2:31:55 P.M. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 26 PB Vice Chair Clermont closed the public hearing. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find that Site Plan 22-SP-15 is consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and meets the applicable criteria of Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and to approve the petition subject to conditions one through six. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. 2:33:21 P.M. D. Legislative Public Hearing 1. The Bay. Park - Centennial Park Site (1059 North Tamiami Trail): Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 22-PA-05 is a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to amend the Future Land Use Map from Open Space- Recreation-Conservation to Metropolitan Regional #5 for an 8.83t acre property with a street address of 1059 North Tamiami Trail; and to revise the Metropolitan Regional #5 Future Land Use Map Classification text, including addition of a new Action Strategy 2.13, to allow for implementation of The Bay Park Master Plan. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning) Staff Presentation: Manager of Long Range Planning Smith appeared and stated the request is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for The Bay Park-Centennial Park Site; noted the location, size of the site and the current Future Land Use classification; said the applicant is Phillip DiMaria representing The Bay Park Conservancy and the site is owned by the City of Sarasota; discussed the proposed amendment stating the request is to change the Future Land Use classification to Metropolitan Regional No. 5; pointed out the remainder of the Bay Park site is already classified as Metropolitan Regional No. 5; said there is an associated proposed text amendment to the Metropolitan Regional No. 5 classification that would add Action Strategy 2.13 to the Comprehensive Plan that would create a Bay Park Zone District (BPZ) in addition to other revisions to the text; presented a graphic depicting the site noting the current zoning is G Government); stated with the proposed amendment the site will be consistent with the rest of the Bay Park site; presented a Flood Zone map; and stated staff performed a chapter by chapter review with an on-balance finding. Manager Smith reviewed the findings for each chapter of the Comprehensive Plan stating the public benefit or interest of the Neighborhood Plan would be furthered as it allows for the implementation of the Bay Park Master Plan; provides for the continuation of the existing boat ramps and associated parking and restrooms; was discussed with the public at a Community Workshop that was held on March 23, 2022; said there were no finding that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Neighborhood Plan; stated there were no findings for the Housing Plan; said the public benefit or interest of the Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Plan would be furthered as is furthers numerous Action Strategies consistent with Objective Four; new construction would have to be in compliance with FEMA and Florida Building Code regulations; said there were no finding that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Plan; stated there are no impacts to the Recreation and Open Space Plan; said the public benefit or interest of the Utilities Plan would be furthered as the site is already served by the City of Sarasota and there will be no Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 26 impacts to the LOS for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste or stormwater drainage; said there were no findings that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Utilities Plan; stated the Capital Improvements Plan will be furthered as there is adequate capacity to meet the impacts; said there were no. findings that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Capital Improvements Plan; stated the public benefit or interest of the Transportation Plan would be furthered noting the proposal was found to be di minimis; said SCAT stated the proposal would not degrade the transitsystem; noted SCAT recommended transit and mobility improvements when specific development is proposed in the future; said there were no findings that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Transportation Plan; stated the Future Land Use Plan will be furthered noting approval would provide for the entire site to have the same Future Land Use classification; it will allow for the continuation of the existing boat ramps and parking; will allow for additional uses consistent with the Bay Park Master Plan; a Bay Park Zone District (BPZ) will be created that will specify uses and development standards fori the site; it is compatible with the surrounding land uses; and would not contribute to urban sprawl; said there were no findings that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Future Land Use Plan; said there were no findings that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Government Coordination Plan; stated the Historic Preservation Plan will be furthered as there are no historic structures on this site; noted there are some historic structures on the remainder of the site that would have to meet applicable regulations if any modifications are proposed; said there were no findings that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Historic Preservation Plan; said there were no findings that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Public School Facilities Plan; said there were no findings that would not further the public benefit or interest of the Property Rights Chapter; stated a precedent would not be set as the proposed amendments are unique to this site; pointed out every proposal is analyzed independently; discussed the proposed text amendments stating the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) will be reduced consistent with the Open Space Recreation Conservation requirements; said the existing and primary uses would be changed by eliminating recreation, entertainment, museum, cultural facilities and Civic Center Complex uses and replacing those with uses associated with The Bay Park Master Plan consistent with the proposed new Action Strategy 2.13 that provides for park and cultural facilities that permits uses such as parks and open space, government uses, restaurants, performing arts centers, museums and cultural facilities, galleries, retail, and mixed-uses that allow for up to ten live/work units; and provides for an Administrative Review process for the new BPZ zone district; and stated staff recommends approval. Manager Smith noted emails had been sent to the PB members from Ms. Lynch and Mr. Gannon; submitted those for the record; and said he had also shared those emails with the applicant. 2:46:42 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if Phase 1 of the Bay Park development will bei included in the Metropolitan Regional No. 5 Future Land Use classification. Manager Smith stated Phase 1 already has that Future Land Use classification noting Phase 1 will not Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 26 be included in the rezoning to the BPZ zone district. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out the City acquired the land the Bay Park is being constructed on through a grant by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida; and said she has documentation that states the land was conveyed to the City with a condition that the City shall never sell, convey or lease the land to any private person, firm or corporation for any private use or purpose and if it does the deed will be rendered null and void; and questioned if restaurants, museums, etc. being permitted on the site would render the deed null and void. Manager Smith stated he was not aware of that and said further research would need to be done. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated the deed says a tract of submerged land in Sarasota Bay; noted that could pertain to the boat docks; and pointed out the area covered by the deed is only 16 acres of the entire site. Manager Smith stated he could provide the deed he located while researching the issue. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the amendment to the Future Land Use classification could be separated from the amendment to the text. Attorney Connolly confirmed that it could. PB Member Blumetti questioned if construction on the southern portion of the site would be subject to public review. Manager Smith stated it would be due to being located in the G zone district. Discussion ensued regarding the process for developing in the G zone district and the zoning of other City owned sites. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if the PB would be making a final decision today regarding administrative review for this site. Attorney Connolly discussed the process stating the City Commission would have to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by a super majority vote; then a Zoning Text Amendment to implement that would be required to go through the public hearing process; and if approved the site would then have to go through the rezoning process; and pointed out the Zoning Text Amendment and rezoning would go before the PB. PB Member Blumetti asked what the likelihood of the southern portion being rezoned to BPZ was. Manager Smith stated the intent is to rezone everything exclusive of the Phase 1 site to the BPZ zone district. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if the administrative revie process would be locked in if the PB voted in favor of the request. Attorney Connolly review the multi-step process for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, and rezoning. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned what the parameters for each of the Metropolitan Regional Future Land Use classifications are. Manager Smith noted there are ten sites with that Future Land Use classification and noted each has a zone district specific to that site. PBI Member Blumetti questioned if it has always been anticipated that the site would be rezoned to BPZ. Manager Smith stated discussions have been held over the past year. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the BPZ zoning was necessary to implement the Bay Park Master Plan. Discussion ensued regarding the process to amend the Bay Park Master Plan. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the development of the Bay Park has been an extraordinary public process SO far; stated allowing administrative review could change Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 26 the public's perception of that; and asked if there was anything significant proposed that is driving the request for administrative review. Manager Smith stated not that he is aware of and recommended questioning the applicants regarding that. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the provision of ten live/work units was consistent with the approved Master Plan. Manager Smith stated he thought it was and recommended questioning the applicants regarding that. 3:09:17 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Mr. William Waddill, Chief Implementation Officer for The Bay Park; Land Use Attorney William Merrill; and Mr. Philip DiMaria, Agent appeared. Mr. Waddill stated the applicants are building a Central Park for Sarasota; discussed the history of the project; stated it is a public park for the community; noted the site was previously 2/3 parking lot and is now 2/3 park; discussed environmental restoration efforts; reviewed the community outreach efforts to-date; discussed the Guiding Principles; noted the need to build more sooner due to increasing costs; stated the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will allow the process to be simplified; pointed out that restaurants have always been contemplated; said the revenues from the restaurants will provide significant funding; stated The Bay Park is committed to providing a free public park; and stated the recently completed Phase 1 will remain as is. Mr. DiMaria pointed out that the rest of the park area is already designated as Metropolitan Regional No. 5; stated classifying the entire park as. Metropolitan Regional No.5 5 will allow for uniform regulations;noted there are two areas that are: not classified on the Future Land Use Map but are included in the survey of the site; discussed the proposed text amendments stating the completion of the park will be facilitated if approved; noted the park is not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan; said the permitted uses will be changed to uses associated with the Bay Park consistent with Action Strategy 2.13 recognizing the Bay Park Master Plan; stated Phase 1 is excluded from the proposed text changes; and said large buildings are excluded from the proposed administrative review process. Mr. Waddill stated the site is a unique parcel with unique needs; said the purpose is to implement the Bay Park Master Plan; noted the public benefits; and reviewed the next steps. Mr. DiMaria pointed out there are existing cumbrances on the site; and stated a View Corridor easement via a third-party agreement exists that limits the height of all structure to a maximum of forty-five feet with the exception of two Performing Arts Centers. PB Member Halflants stated as a longtime resident he appreciates seeing such a bold project come to fruition. PB Member Ohlrich stated many citizens are pleased with the project sO far; and asked for a description of the Bayfront 2020 initiative. Mr. Waddill stated the Bayfront 2020 initiative was before he joined the team; said some community leaders organized a Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 26 group of fifty to sixty community groups that created a mandate to turn a public parking lot into a public park; said the next step was adopting the Guiding Principles; then the Sarasota Bayfront Planning Organization was formed; and that resulted in the adopted Master Plan. PB Member Ohlrich asked if Mr. Waddill would say that Bayfront 2020 was an exemplary citizens advocacy initiative that developed the Guiding Principles on which the Bay Park operates. Mr. Waddill stated that group laid the foundation. PB Member Ohlrich stated the philosophy was founded on community involvement and asked what Mr. Waddill would say to those that say this proposal is antithesis of that. Mr. Waddill said they should look at why they are here; look at the process that has guided the way; look at how they have listened to public input; and look at how they respond to on-going public input. PB Member Ohlrich stated there is nothing in writing to guarantee exemplary public outreach; and said the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment eliminates public participation. Mr. Waddill said they are asking the community to trust them based on their past performance; stated they would continue to hold public workshops; and said the administrative review process allows for streamlining the execution of the Master Plan. PB Member Ohlrich asked if Mr. Waddill thought it took a long time to get from the adoption of the Master Plan to actually putting shovels in the ground. Mr. Waddill stated it took Ionger than anticipated; acknowledged there was a pandemic that contributed to delays; said they have a community mandate on a Master Plan; stated 20% of the project has been built and they are ready to proceed with Phase 2; and said the community expects the project to be built and operating faster. Attorney Merrill pointed out the plans would have to be consistent with the adopted Master Plan; and noted administrative approval can be appealed to the Planning Board. PB Member Blumetti stated he is an advocate of the project; said he has no issues with the proposed Future Land Use Plan Map amendment; stated details get flushed out in a public hearing; stated if they are building for the citizens, it is incumbent on them to bring the community into the process; noted the site is owned by the City; and said going in a different direction does not feel right. Mr. DiMaria presented a graphic depicting all lands owned by the City ofSarasota thatwas overlayed onto a zoning map; and noted there are quite a few of those that are zoned Downtown Core which allows for administrative review. Mr. Waddill stated the applicants were willing to proffer they will hold a public workshop prior to submitting an Administrative Site Plan. PB Member Blumetti asked why then not keep the process as: is. Mr. Waddill stated it takes months to get on and Planning Board and City Commission agenda just to affirm an adopted Master Plan. Attorney Merrill stated when you include the DRC process it takes about one year to go through the public hearing process. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the Bay Park initiative has been used as a model for public participation; said the applicants will need a lot of buy-in when they begin the process for the Performing Arts Center; and stated citizens will question the motivation behind allowing for administrative review. Mr. Waddill stated there is confusion between the Bay Park and Performing Arts initiatives; pointed out the Performing Arts Center is being coordinated between the City of Sarasota and the Van Wezel Foundation; and noted the Performing Arts Center project would have to go through the public! hearing process. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated people still view those as the same project; noted public pushback regarding administrative review; and said the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 26 public and the PB need more specifics of thej proposed development. Mr. DiMaria stated that people are asking why the Bay Park is not completed yet; noted any development would have to be consistent with the Master Plan; said the applicants have had extensive conversations with staff; and stated they did not object to administrative review being limited to development that is 10,000sq.ft. or less. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if the ten proposed residential units for artists will be rented out when no artists are using them. Mr. Waddill stated no other use: is proposed fori the ten units. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti questioned why the applicants were proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment versus presenting the Site Plan for Phase 2 if the funding is in place. Mr. Waddill stated Phase 2i is in process; noted that phase will be primarily funded with public funds; and discussed their efforts to obtain grants and having bonds issued. PB Member Blumetti stated the Site Plan for Phase 2 could be approved without the funding in place. Mr. Waddill stated all development on the site has to be consistent with the Master Plan or, if not, the Master Plan would have to be amended through the public hearing process. Discussion ensured regarding other park projects Mr. Waddill has developed. Mr. Waddill pointed out phasing of the development of the Bay Park is the major difference. PB Member Halflants asked what the process is for the applicants to proffer they will hold Community Workshops. Attorney Connolly stated a phrase that states the administrative review is subject to a Community Workshop. PB Member Halflants asked if the applicants were attempting to balance public input with public benefit. Mr. Waddil stated the six years of listening will continue. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the applicants had considered purchasing nearby units for the artists, Mr. Waddill stated that had been considered; pointed out the ten units are not a critical component oft the plan; and said it would be a small step towards providing affordable housing. PB Member Ohlrich stated the perception is that the applicants are attempting to eliminate the public from the process; and suggested adding a requirement for holding a Community Workshop would be helpful. Attorney Connolly questioned if the legal description provided needed to be revised due to the two areas that are: not classified on the Future Land Use Map but are included in the survey. Discussion ensued. Attorney Merrill will provide a survey and legal description. PB Member Blumetti asked if the Future Land Use map is changed without the proposed text amendment would the process be the same as it is now. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the majority of objections to Administrative Review are related to structures; said the standard limit is 10,000 sq. ft; and asked why the applicants were proposing 20,000 sq. ft. Discussion ensued regarding the square footage of nearby venues. Mr. Waddill stated 3-5 restaurants with approximately 4,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. each has always been anticipated; said the restaurants would not be constructed at the same time; and stated a limit of 10,000 is acceptable as long as it is Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 26 not a cumulative square footage. Discussion ensued. Mr. Waddill pointed out the area defined as the Canal District where the restaurants would be located is approximately 180,000 sq. ft while the cumulative total of the restaurants would total approximately 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. DiMaria pointed out the Zoning Code defines a venue that is larger than 20,000 sq. ft. as Major Event Entertainment use versus a Civic Auditorium use and would require Major Conditional Use approval; said that is why they proposed 20,000 sq. ft. as the limit; and stated reducing that to 10,000 sq. ft. is acceptable. 4:04:48 P.M. Citizen Input: Mr. Jon Thaxton, representing the Gulf Coast Community Foundation, appeared and stated he was part of the original planning for the Bay Park which began in October 2013, said he was present when the Guiding Principles were developed; stated there has been zero deviation since then; said the administrative approval process is a tool to implement the Master Plan; expressed agreement with the 10,000 sq. ft. limitation; pointed out restaurants have always been proposed; and encouraged the PB to recommend approval. Attorney Dan Lobeck appeared and requested he be given additional time for his comments. Discussion ensued. The PB agreed to keep the time limit at three minutes. Attorney Lobeck stated the proposal would cut the public out oft the process; said there is nothing that states Phase 1 is not included in the amendment; said no limits on building heights are in the Master Plan; stated the Bay Park Conservancy wants to implement the Master Plan without any public input or PB input; discussed the potential cumulative square footage of the proposed restaurants; suggested the development interests would be allowed to do whatever they want; stated citizen input at a Community Workshop would not make a difference; stated the change to the Future Land Use classification is a big deal noting the current Future Land Use classification does not allow restaurants; said the Master Plan is a broad brush and implementing it through administrative review would be contrary to the public interest and will lead to the commercialization of the Bay Park and will open the door to residential uses on the site; and noted the requirement for a super-majority vote of the City Commissioners to change the Master Plan would be taken away. 4:13:47 P.M. Attorney Connolly suggested language to be added to the last sentence to Section 2.13 where the full sentence would read 1 An Administrative Review process which occurs subsequent to a Community Workshop for structures with less than 10,000 sq. ft. shall be incorporated within." PB Member Ohlrich requested verification that structures that are greater than 10,000 sq. ft. would not be eligible for administrative approval. Attorney Connolly verified that was correct. PB Member Blumetti asked if the request to change the Future Land Use map could be separated from the requested text amendment. Attorney Connolly stated it could noting three votes are required for whatever passes; pointed out a 2-2 vote is problematic stating in that case the item would have to come back to the PB at their 12/14/22 Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 26 meeting; Chair Salem would have to review the video of today's public hearing prior to the 12/14/221 PB meeting; then the motion would be redone until it gets three votes. Manager Smith appeared and stated he could provide the deed he located if sO desired. PB Member Ohlrich stated she is concerned with moving forward if the project violates the land agreement. 4:17:02 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Waddill and Mr. DiMaria appeared. Mr. Waddill pointed out that the exhibit Attorney Lobeck presented was conceptual from a study group; and said that was what could fit, not what is proposed. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out three points Attorney Lobeck made in his written communication that state the Bay Park Conservancy will no longer have to present an annual update of its financial plan to the City; the requirement that the Bay Park Conservancy submit a Public Art strategy for review by the Public Art Committee and approved by the CC will be eliminated; and that the paragraph that states the Bay Park Conservancy will activate each phase of the Bay Park in the way that most benefits the community and provides access for all people in Sarasota will be deleted. Mr. Waddill stated the Partnership Agreement requires an annual update of the financial plan be submitted to the City; stated the applicants are working with the City's Public Art Coordinator regarding beginning the process; and stated the Bay Park is being built and activated the way the community wishes. The Planning Board Took an Eight Minute Break Manager Smith stated the deed he included in the backup materials was downloaded from the Clerk's Office website; said the deed is for property known as the Steam Plant Property and was deeded to the City by FPL; and stated that site is now the Bay Park Centennial Park site. PB Member Ohlrich stated it is clear there are two different documents. 4:30:09 P.M. PB Vice Chair Clermont closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti asked how to divide the motion. Attorney Connolly read into the record that the first motion would be to "Adopt a motion to find that Petition No. 22- PA-05 amending the Future Land Use Map from Open pa-RavastimComematin to Metropolitan Regional No. 5, and amending the text of the Metropolitan Regional No. 5 classification is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is in the public interest and recommend that the City Commission approve the petition." PB Member Blumetti made that motion. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The motion passed 4-0. Attorney Connolly stated the second motion would be to make the text changes that are on page 37 the has the new Action Strategy 2.13; page 38 that changes the minimum Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 26 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 1.0 to 0.5; and page 39 that changes the title. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants made a motion to approve the proposed text amendments with the changes. Attorney Connolly confirmed PB Halflants was referring to all of the changes on page 37 including the newl language; all of the changes on page 38: regarding the FAR; and the change of page 39 that changes the title. PB Vice Chair Clermont seconded the motion. PB Member Ohlrich requested clarification that the change on page 39 only changes the title; and the assurances they are providing that guarantee the only administrative approval is only if it is consistent with the adopted Master Plan. Attorney Connolly pointed out if any changes were made to the Master Plan those would require public hearings; stated if the changes are consistent with the Master Plan and the structure is 10,000 sq. ft. or less, the change could be approved administratively. PB Member Blumetti stated the current allowance for administrative review for 10,000 sq. ft. or less applies to private property;said this would create administrativea approval for public property; notes there have been conversations regarding trust; stated he does not know what the intentions are; stated he could not support the motion; and stated he felt it is in the public interest to have public hearings. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he supports the motion; pointed out the renderings are based on public input; said years of public outreach have created a level of trust; suggested adding a limit to the number of buildings under 10,000 sq. ft. that could be eligible for administrative approval; noted there was not an influx of citizens present; said the Master Plan has already been vetted; noted building size and height are two of the public's major concerns; said if those could be eliminated as a possibility the project will move forward working towards the public good and would get the process moving; and noted there has already been extensive public exposure. PB Member Halflants asked if PB Member Blumetti would be interested in changing the square footage that could be approved administratively. PBI Member Blumetti stated he doesn't know what the implications would be. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich stated it breaks her heart because she knows the public will think they are being eliminated from the process; said the public outreach is what made the Park; noted there is nothing binding about Community Workshops; and said this is not what the process is supposed to be. Attorney Connolly stated the motion is to make the text changes on pages 37, 38 and 39 of the materials, with the change to page 37 regarding the Community Workshops and 10,000 sq. ft. limitation; and stated a yes vote is to recommend those changes be made and a no vote would be to not recommend the changes. The motion tied with a 2-2 vote with PB Member Blumetti and PB Member Ohlrich voting no. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting November 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 26 Attorney Connolly stated three affirmative votes are needed for a motion; said options are to continue to negotiate or put the item on the December 14, 2022 PB meeting agenda, have PB Chair Salem review the materials; then put the motion back on the table; said PB Chair Salem may have questions or need more information; then the question would be called to see if it gets three affirmative votes. Discussion ensued. After no further negotiations were discussed, Attorney Connolly stated the item would be the first item on the December 14, 2022, PB meeting agenda; and confirmed the December 14, 2022, PBi meeting would begin at 1:30 PM. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:49:09 P.M. - 1 See aullonont Myra Schwarz Dan Clermont, Chair General Manager and Secretary to the Board Planning Board/Local Planning Agency