CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Dan Clermont, Chair Members Present: Michael Halflants, Vice Chair (arrived at 10:19:11 am) Members Damien Blumetti, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Terrill Salem Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Myra Schwarz, General Manger, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner Briana Dobbs, Senior Planner Rebecca Webster, Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services 10:14:41 A.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Clermont callled the meeting to order. General Manager Schwarz [acting as the Planning Board's Secretary] called the roll. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY PB Chair Clermont noted the agenda reflects an approximately 15-minute break between the two items on the agenda and suggested the PB take a one hour lunch break at that time instead. PB: members agreed by consensus. IV. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) 10:16:28 A.M. A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Schwarz read the Pledge of Conduct. PB Chair Clermont requested all that are present turn their cell phones off; noted the importance of adhering to the Pledge of Conduct; and requested Attorney Connolly review the time limits for the following agenda items. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 20 Attorney Connolly stated both of today's agenda items are legislative public hearings; noted the PB's Rules of Procedure allow for 15 minutes presentations by staff and the applicant, and 3: minutes per person for citizen input; stated the applicant and staff for the first item have not requested additional time; and said the suggested time limits for the second item are: 30 minutes for staff, 30 minutes for the applicant, and 3 minutes for citizen input. The PB agreed by consensus. Attorney Connolly explained legislative versus quasi-judicial public hearings; and administered the oath to those wishing to testify at today's hearings. 10:20:56 A.M. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Marlin Drive Right-of-Way Vacation: Application 23-SV-02 is a request for approval oft the vacation of an unimproved approximate 110.44'x6 60.89 portion of a platted right- of-way known as Marlin Drive, originally platted as Sarasota Avenue, west of Eastchester Drive in Sapphire Heights. The right-of-way is currently unimproved and there are no future plans for improvement by the City. (Rebecca Webster, Planner) Staff Presentation: Rebecca Webster, Planner; Briana Dobbs, Senior Planner; and Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer appeared. Planner Webster discussed the proposed right-of- way vacation stating the co-applicants wish to vacate an unimproved right-of-way at the western terminus of Marlin Drive; said no development applications are associated with the request; stated there is no public benefit to the public street grid; noted the zoning and Future Land Use classifications for the two parcels; pointed out there is an existing utility easement for the Florida Power and Light (FPL) that runs through the site; stated the co-applicants wished to vacate the right-of-way in order to establish long term care and maintenance under their control; noted the site is overgrown with invasive overgrowth; stated the co-applicants have maintained the site at their own expense since 2011; said there are security issues on the site; stated the right-of-way was originally platted as a segment of right-of-way for what was Sarasota Avenue and was dedicated to the city for thoroughfare purposes; pointed out the right-of-way is unimproved and dead ends and itis not feasible for use as a thoroughfare; discussed a grant the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Association (IBSSA) received from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in 2000 to remove exotic species and plant native species as a groundwater demonstration area; presented photos and newsletters related to those efforts; stated the City Attorney has opined that the property owners to the north and south would each own one-half of the right-of- way ifitis vacated; said staff proposed a condition if the request is approved that prior to second reading of the ordinance a utility easement be granted to FPL for the existing electrical facilities; said there are no other facilities or easements on the site; stated a Community Workshop was held on November 29, 2022 and approximately 21 residents attended; said the concerns expressed were related to keeping the right-of-way as unimproved that serves as green space and maintaining the permeable surface that captures stormwater; stated the Development Review Committee (DRC) signed-off on Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 20 the project on January 18, 2023; said the proposal meets the Standards for Review; and stated staff recommends approval with the one condition. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discussed stormwater management in the area stating the site is not permitted as a stormwater management facility; said he did a field investigation that did not show any stormwater management benefits; stated he met with County officials who had no comments; noted the soil on the site is not conducive for a recharge project; and pointed out upon redevelopment of the site a curb will be required along Eastchester Drive and that will improve stormwater runoff in the area. PB Member Salem asked if there are any development restrictions. Attorney Connolly stated only those in the zoning code and noted the southern lot could conceivably become two lots. PB Member Salem stated the City should vacate the site and sell it on the open market. Attorney Connolly pointed out the City cannot legally do sO noting the plat dedicated the site for thoroughfare purposes only and requires the right-of-way go to the property owners if ever vaçated. PB. Member Ohlrich asked if there are any other public uses for the rightof-way:noted a: resident had suggested the site be made a pocket park; and asked if that was possible. Attorney Connolly stated the right-of-way was dedicated for thoroughfare purposes only; said a throughfare can be for pedestrian, vehicular or utility purposes; and stated the site could not be legally made into a pocket park. PB Member Ohlrich stated she had visited the site and it is clear the elevation is higher than Brywill Circle; noted there has been a lot of conversation regarding flooding on Brywill Circle; and requested that issue be addressed noting this site should not be responsible for handling the flow. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discussed the flow of water in the area and stated the best solution is to have a curb installed at the time of development. PB Member Ohlrich asked if a curb is required as part of this application. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated it will be required if developed. PB Member Blumetti asked if there is a threshold for the size of property that can be vacated in the City. Discussion ensued. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the City has vacated May Lane. PB Member Blumetti asked when Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein had done his field investigation. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein responded in late February. PB Member Blumetti noted that is outside of the rainy season; and asked if there are any code violations or police reports. Discussion ensued. Senior Planner Dobbs stated staff had not investigated thatnoting the co-applicants had stated there were issues. PB Member Blumetti noted the grant the IBSSA had received from SWFWMD and asked if there was no purpose any Ionger. Discussion ensued regarding the purpose of the grant. PB Member Blumetti asked if there are any other purposes the right-of-way could serve. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the right-of-way has no potential as a road. PB Vice Chair Halflants asked if the public could legally access the site. Attorney Connolly stated any member of the public can legally access the site. PB Vice Chair Halflants asked why the site could not be made into a pocket park. Attorney Connolly pointed out a pocket park is not a thoroughfare purpose. PB Vice Chair Halflants asked Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 20 if the city could maintain the site. Attorney Connolly said yes if it is used for thoroughfare purposes. PB Vice Chair Halflants asked if the IBSSA could maintain the site. Attorney Connolly stated not legally; and noted he has no knowledge of the grant the IBSSA received. PB Chair Clermont asked who is liable if someone is injured on the site. Attorney Connolly stated the property owners and the City are both liable noting the issue is similar to if someone is injured on the sidewalk in front of your house. PB Member Blumetti asked if that was true for any right-of-way in the city. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Clermont stated stormwater is an issue in the area and asked if the site in its current state helps or hinders runoff. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the site does not help with flooding issues. Discussion ensued regarding potential improvements to the site for stormwater management purposes. PB Chair Clermont asked if the site was a safety issue in its current state. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the site is not currently maintained. PB Chair Clermont stated the PB's S role is to determine what is best for the city; and asked what the benefit to the City is if the request is approved. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated vacating the right-of-way would reduce the city's maintenance and liability obligations. PB Vice Chair Halflants asked if the city could vacate the right-of-way to anyone. Attorney Connolly stated the City could not noting the adjacent property owners have fee simple title to the site. PB Member Ohlrich requested clarification as to who authored the information on pages 25 through 27 of the staff report. Planner Webster stated the co-applicants had. PB Member Ohlrich stated she noticed a swale on the site and asked if that was provided as part of the SWFWMD grant. Planner Webster confirmed that was correct. PB Member Ohlrich discussed the Standards for Review and asked if the purpose was to provide a uniform process for determining if the proposal meets the Standards for Review. Planner Webster stated staff reviews the Standards for Review then provides a recommendation. PB Member Blumetti questioned why the city does not have a right to maintain the right-of-way. Attorney Connolly stated the city has an obligation to maintain the right- of-way. PB Member Blumetti asked if the city just didn't want to maintain the right-of- way. Attorney Connolly noted Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein had stated no longer being obligated to maintain or have any liability for the site was the public benefit of vacating the right-of-way. PB Chair Clermont asked if the IBSSA has the right to maintain the right-of-way. Attorney Connolly stated not legally. PB Chair Clermont asked if IBSSA could maintain the right-of-way ift the co-applicants granted them access. Attorney Connolly stated that could be done through an easement. PB Member Ohlrich asked how the IBSSA was able to receive a grant. Attorney Connolly stated staff has investigated and can find no record of City involvement in the grant process. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 20 10:49:46 A.M. Applicant Presentation: Co-Applicants Carla Culbertson, Keleigh Swan, Barbara Culbertson, and Ron Blunt appeared. Ms. Carla Culbertson discussed the application stating the request is to vacate an existing right-of-way for Marlin Drive; presented a graphic depicting the location of the site; stated the right-of-way is not developable as a thoroughfare; stated there is a security risk; noted the City does not maintain the right-of-way and has no interest in doing sO; said the co-applicants have maintained the site at their own expense and the goal is beauty and security; presented photos depicting the current state of the site; stated the intent is to share the maintenance and expense of cleaning up and maintaining the site; stated a fence will be installled due to security issues; pointed out the site is currently a liability for the City; noted the co-applicants have fee simple title to the property; said the City cannot turn the site into a park or other public use since they can only legally use it for thoroughfare purposes; discussed stormwater issues stating the co-applicants are unsure as to how the site was deemed a stormwater demonstration garden and the IBSSA was able to receive a grant; stated the site is too small to provide stormwater mitigation for the entire neighborhood and that was not the intent of the grant; said the intent of the grant was to educate residents on groundwater infiltration; discussed maintenance of the site stating the site has not been maintained for years; noted the use of volunteers to maintain the site is unreliable; stated the IBSSA stated in 2018 they would no longer be involved; and summarized efforts the co-applicants have made to improve the site. PB Member Salem asked if the applicants had ever complained to the city. Ms. Carla Culbertson stated they had not. PB Member Salem said overgrowth is a code compliance issue and the City should abide by that as well. PB Chair Clermont asked if there was any intention to develop the southern parcel. Ms. Carla Culbertson stated not at this time; and said the co-applicants were not willing to proffer that no development would occur. PB Chair Clermont asked about the location of the fencing; and pointed out the co-applicants have the right to maintain the site already. Discussion ensued. Ms. Swan discussed her efforts to clean up the site; reiterated that the IBSSA had stated they were no longer interested in participating in maintaining the site; and discussed the process to date. PB Vice Chair Halflants stated the southern lot would become a double lot if the right- of-way were vacated; said the neighbors submitted letters requesting the site be kept as is; and asked if the neighborhood residents used the site for recreational purposes. Ms. Swan and Ms. Carla Culbertson stated they have not observed anyone using the site, noting it is overgrown and not usable. PB Chair Clermont questioned if the PB could proffer that the lot never be split into two lots. Attorney Connolly stated the PB could request the applicants to proffer that. Discussion ensued. Ms. Carla Culbertson stated there are no plans to do sO at this time. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 20 PBI Member Salem questioned if the co-applicants had seen no-one on the site. Ms. Swan stated there had been some activity after the Community Workshop notice was sent. Discussion ensued. 11:18:21 A.M. Citizen Input: The following citizens appeared in opposition to the request citing the fact that a grant was received that allowed the site to be used for a groundwater demonstration site; efforts the IBSSA has made to maintain the site; the request does not meet the Standards for Review in the Zoning Code; the site is an important aspect of the stormwater management for the entire neighborhood; there is minimal greenspace in the neighborhood; stormwater runoff polluting Sarasota Bay; the potential for additional development; the need for improvements to the stormwater management for the entire neighborhood; approximately 174 residents have signed a petition in opposition to the request; and lack of a public benefit of vacating the right-of-way: Mr. Jesse White, Ms. Joanne Gonet, Ms. Kate Bloomquist, Mr. Kevin Spence, Ms. Shelley Watson, Ms. Katherine Reardon, Ms. Debbie Keeton, Mr. John Barnett; Ms. Denise Scheineson, Mr. David Morriss. The Planning Board Took a 10-Minute Break Mr. Jono Miller, Ms. Jacqueline Crouse, Mr. Bruce Freeman, Mr. Tim Thurman, and Ms. Alysa McDaniel. Mr. Miller also suggested the City should create a taking or approve the right-of-way vacation with a condition that the stormwater functions of the site be retained. 12:13:13 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Co-Applicants Carla Culbertson, Keleigh Swan, Barbara Culbertson, and Ron Blunt appeared. Ms. Carla Culbertson stated the petition the residents referred to stated the site is public land, which it is not; pointed out the City has recommended diverting stormwater in the area rather than capturing it on this site; said the site is not large enough to allow for adequate stormwater infiltration; noted the purpose of the grant was to educate residents as to how to capture stormwater on their property rather than mitigating stormwater for the entire neighborhood; said the contention that IBSSA has continually maintained the site is incorrect; and noted IBSSA notified Ms. Swan in writing in 2018 that they were not interested in maintaining the site. Discussion ensued regarding the applicant's s efforts to maintain the site. Ms. Carla Culbertson noted IBSSA did not previously express any concerns regarding stormwater. PB Vice Chair Halflants asked if the Applicants were willing to add a covenant that the site will remain a conservation area. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Halflants clarified that the Applicants would agree via the covenant that the site would not be paved, and the native trees would be protected. The Applicants stated they would agree that no impervious materials would be placed on the site. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 20 PB Member Blumetti asked Attorney Connolly what the process to remove the covenant would be. Attorney Connolly stated a new street vacation application would have to be processed to remove the covenant. 12:25:19 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Rebecca Webster, Planner; Briana Dobbs, Senior Planner; Camden Mills, Capital Projects Manager, and Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer appeared. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated a demonstration area is different than a permitted stormwater facility; stated there is no entity that is responsible for the maintenance of the site since it is not a permitted stormwater facility; said the swale was not part of the original scope for the grant SO it was not intended to be a stormwater catch basin; noted there are many unmaintained rights-of-way in the City SO this is not a unique issue; presented photos noting there are: no curbs in that area; pointed out sandbags have been placed on the site which indicates water flows through the site; and stated the best solution to the stormwater runoff onto Brywill Circle is to reduce the amount going to this site. Planner Webster stated staff has provided all materials they received to the PB members; stated no installation of impervious surface materials is included in the application; noted the limestone base was removed as part of the grant; said the presence of invasive species on the site indicates a lack of maintenance;and noted there is no guarantee that IBSSA will maintain the site in the future. Capital Projects Manager Mills stated in 2012 the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program contracted with consulting engineers who performed an analysis that identified areas in the neighborhood that could be used for low impact design (LID) stormwater improvement projects and this site was not identified as one of those. PB: Member Salem asked if the city should install a curb at the site suggesting that could prevent stormwater from flowing through the site onto Brywill Circle. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated staff could investigate that, noting it is not in the current work program; stated the curb could possibly assist; and said staff could evaluate the possibility. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what it means that the area was not identified as a potential area for a stormwater improvement project in the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program analysis. Discussion ensued. Manager Mills stated it meant the site was not suitable for a catch basin. PB Member Ohlrich noted area residents are concerned with stormwater drainage in the area; pointed out the site is a right-of-way for thoroughfare purposes only; stated the citizens testified that the right-of-way vacation was improper if there is any use by the public; and asked Attorney Connolly for his opinion. Attorney Connolly reiterated the right-of-way was dedicated for thoroughfare purposes only SO the city has to use it for that purpose only. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 20 PB Chair Clermont asked if that could be changed. Attorney Connolly stated it was dedicated as part of the plat that was recorded in 1925 and the owner that dedicated it would have to agree to the change. PB Member Blumetti stated drainage is part of a thoroughfare; and pointed out the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program report was not provided to the PB members. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Halflants stated the benefits to the City in vacating the right-of-way is there would no longer be a liability or maintenance issue; and stated it was a small ask to install a curb to alleviate some of the flooding on Brywill Circle in exchange for vacating the right-of-way. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the city could evaluate the possibility. PB Chair Clermont asked why the site is not a good location for a catch basin. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein presented a topographical map of the area; pointed out how the stormwater flows in the area;] pointed outno formal study has been done; and stated it would be much better to divert the stormwater. PB Member Salem stated a curb would stop the water from entering the site. Discussion ensued regarding regulating the flow of stormwater in the area and the benefits of using the site as a catch basin. Manager Mills stated using the site as a catch basin would have nominal impacts due to the size of the site, soil types of the site; and the groundwater levels. PB Member Salem stated using the site as a catch basin would still allow stormwater to flow through the site onto adjacent homes and create issues with the foundations. PB Vice Chair Halflants stated the solution is to keep the site as a pervious area and preserve the native trees; said the city should install a curb to direct stormwater runoff; and noted the site is not conducive to being used as a public park. PB Member Blumetti stated the property has a long history of belonging to the neighborhood; said if the vacation is approved the properties will be split and sold; said it should be left as a right-of-way, noted the liability issues for all city owned sites; and said he opposes the vacation. PB Member Ohlrich stated keeping the site pervious and protecting the native trees will not solve the flooding problems. PB Member Salem stated the right-of-way vacation should be granted; noted opponents have cited it assists with the flow of water which is not a proper use of the site; said stormwater should not cross properties to get to Sarasota Bay noting that will cause problems with moisture in the homes on the lots it passes through; suggested the applicants could install a curb; said the public is not using the site, the City is not maintaining it and the request should be approved. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 20 PB Chair Clermont said the site is not in a condition to be used as a catch basin; noted that was not the purpose of the right-of-way; noted it is not being maintained by the City and the City does not wish to maintain it in the future; stated there is no appropriate City use for the site; and stated while he understands the residents' concerns he supports the request. PB Member Blumetti stated it was a major issue that the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program report was not provided to the PB members; and said he didn't know what would be worse, leaving the site vacant if a 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. home being built on the site. Discussion ensued regarding what could potentially be built on the site. PB Member Salem made a motion to find Street Vacation 23-SV-02 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions subject to the condition as listed. PB Chair Clermont seconded the motion. The motion failed 2/3 with PB Members Ohlrich and Blumetti and PB Vice Chair Halflants voting no. PB Vice Chair Halflants asked if the Applicants were willing to add a covenant. Discussion ensued regarding what that would be. Attorney Connolly stated a potential motion would be to recommend approval with the first condition as is and add a second condition that reads something like "The Applicant would covenant that the street vacation area would never be paved with impervious materials; the applicant will protect the native trees in the street vacation area; and the Applicant will install a curb along the Eastchester frontage" Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti recommended the application be continued SO the Applicants can come back with a proposed covenant. PB Member Ohlrich stated the city rather than the Applicants should install the curb. PB Vice Chair Halflants stated the PB should strongly recommend to the city that they install a curb. PB Member Ohlrich stated she would support the motion if the reference to the curb in the second condition was deleted. Attorney Connolly asked Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein if the city was willing to covenant that they will install a curb. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein said the city is not willing to covenant that. PB. Member Blumetti made a motion to find that [23-SV-02] does not meet the applicable criteria for approval found in the Zoning Code and to deny the request. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Chair Clermont and PB Vice Chair Halflants voting no. The Planning Board Took a 52-Minute Break 1:48:11 P.M. 2. Quay Development Agreement Amendment (301, 401, 468, 555 & 601 Quay Commons): Development Agreement Application No. 23-DA-01 is an application seeking approval to amend the Quay Sarasota Development Agreement to allow for submission of a Block Site Plan application reflecting vertical development over Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 20 Quay Commons between Blocks 1 and 9. The entire Quay Sarasota site is approximately 14.69 acres and is located within the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) zone district and a Future Land Use (FLU) classification of Downtown Bayfront. (Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner) Responding to a request from PB Chair Clermont Secretary Schwarz restated the Pledge of Conduct. PB Member Ohlrich requested Attorney Connolly explain the pending litigation he referenced in his memo that is included in the materials for today's public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated there are two things that the PB will hear about that are not pertinent to today's discussion, litigation that deals with air rights and a pending site plan for Quay Sarasota Blocks 1 & 9;s stated the General Development Plan (GDP) or the Development Agreement (DA) for the entire Quay site must be amended before the associated site plan can be heard; discussed the history of the GDP and DA and the process for amendments to those documents; stated the Applicants had chosen to request an amendment to the DA and itis the PB'sjob to recommend to the CCa approval or denial of the requested DA amendment; pointed out the Applicants may wish to revisit the word "between" in their proposed language; and pointed out the issue of air rights will be decided by the courts. PB Member Ohlrich suggested the public hearing be continued until such time the litigation is resolved. Attorney Connolly stated continuance is not supported by the Applicants; noted concerns with the shot clock deadline for approving or denying the site plan; and pointed out there is no way to determine when the litigation will be resolved. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out a difference in the proposed language between the Applicants and Attorney Connolly and asked Attorney Connolly to explain. Attorney Connolly discussed the potential liability the City could face if the project is approved prior to the resolution of the litigation and stated his proposed wording "Nothing in the Development Agreement or this Amendment shall be construed to confer the right to obtain a Building Permit for construction without first obtaining Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board, and, in the event of an appeal, from the City Commission of City" would address any conflicts. PB Member Ohlrich noted when the PB considers an application that does not include a site plan they consider the most intense use that could be allowed if approved and asked if that is the case today. Attorney Connolly stated that is usually associated with a rezoning; and said the PB can consider what would be in the box that would be up to 18 stories tall. PB Chair Clermont asked for the time limits. Attorney Connolly stated no change from this morning noting the staff, applicants and Mr. Lincoln will have 30 minutes to present their cases, citizens will get 3 minutes for their input, and the applicants and staff will have 15: minutes each to respond. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 20 Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those who were not present earlier. PB Chair Clermont pointed out the PB's decision is advisory to the CC. Attorney Connolly stated Florida Statutes require that he state the date, time, and location of the second required public hearing; and stated the City Commission public hearing is scheduled for 4/3/23 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Commission Chambers, 1565 1st Street. PB Chair Clermont asked that speakers ensure they are speaking into the microphones and discussed the process for speaking. 2:03:56 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski appeared; stated the discussion today is regarding a proposed amendment to the Quay Sarasota Development Agreement; noted the location, size, zoning, and Future Land Use classification of the entire Quay Sarasota site; noted Blocks 1 & 9. are part of the GDP for the entire Quay Sarasota site and a portion of the site: is located along a primary street; said the Development Review Committee (DRC) signed-off on the proposed DA amendment on 12/7/22; presented a graphic of the GDP and discussed the history of revisions to the GDP; stated there are ten blocks in addition to the Belle Haven; said the request is to amend the DA to allow for vertical construction in the air space that connects Blocks 1 & 9; discussed the implications of approving the proposed amendment including possible construction approximately 17' over Quay Commons, blocking of public views, and creation of a barrier between Quay Sarasota and The Bay Park to the north; presented graphics depicting the site plan the developer presented to the Planning Board and City Commission when the GDP was approved in 2016; stated development to-date has remained consistent with the approved GDP; said Appendix D of the City's Zoning Code was applicable and discussed the standards; presented past marketing materials for the Bayso project that depicts Blocks 1 & 9 as vacant; presented images of the potential massing over Quay Commons noting it would create a tunnel effect; said there are ways to mitigate the implications; discussed the pedestrian guidelines in Appendix A; presented a graphic depicting the public realm as presented to the Planning Board and City Commission by the developers in 2016 noting it creates a reasonable expectation that the Quay Commons corridor would remain open and clear; pointed out the proposed amendment would interrupt the public realm; presented graphics depicting massing over Quay Commons that is currently allowed and what it could look like if the DA amendment was approved; stated staff has major concerns regarding the proposed Development Agreement Amendment; and said staff recommends denial of the petition. 2:39:07 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Attorney William Merrill, Attorney G. Matthew Brockway, Architect George Scarfe, and Architect Tim Baker appeared. Attorney Merrill stated the request before the PB is a single policy issue regarding a proposed amendment to the Quay Sarasota DA to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 20 allow for development between Blocks 1 & 9; stated he agrees with Attorney Connolly that the word "between" in their proposed amended language should read "between and/or adjacent to"; presented a graphic depicting the proposed development above Quay Commons; said the proposed language clarifies that the proposed development above Quay Commons can occur; and stated the Applicant's intend to answer three questions regarding their reasonable expectation that the proposed development would be a minor amendment to the GDP, the true impacts of one building versus two buildings, and what the public benefit to having one building versus two building is. Attorney Brockway stated the Applicants thought the combining of Blocks 1 & 9 and the development over Quay Commons was contemplated in the original DA based on past approvals; presented a graphic depicting a right-of-way easement noting the easement only covers 14' above the street; discussed previously approved minor amendments to the GDP noting Blocks 4 & 5 were allowed to be combined and built in the air rights; discussed a Zoning Code Confirmation letter the City issued that confirmed Blocks 4 & 5 could be built in the air rights area without amending the DA or the GDP; stated the GDP was amended administratively and Bayso was constructed over Quay Commons; stated the applicants do not object to the previous minor amendment they just want to be treated equally; presented a graphic depicting the original presentation to the City Commission compared to the Applicant's request stating their request is consistent with the original intent; presented graphics depicting heights of nearby properties noting their proposed height is consistent with those; and discussed the potential impacts on the view corridors and shadow impacts. Attorney Merrill discussed the public benefit of the request stating the design would result in better architecture, building recesses would allow for more light and air, pedestrian activation of the retail area, shade and shelter for pedestrians, and will be an iconic gateway between Quay Sarasota and The Bay Park; discussed consistency with the Design Principles in the Comprehensive Plan relating to human scale, variety and diversity, creation of a central place, encourages walking and bicycling, and acknowledges different scales of space; said the space under the air rights would be equivalent to an outdoor living room; said sidewalks will be twelve feet wide and shaded and provide retail uses; said the proposal is also consistent with the Neighborhood Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in terms ofcompatibilityand stated the Neighborhood Chapter provides for the use of the Advisory Guidelines in the Zoning Code and use of arcades. Architect Tim Baker stated he was the architect for the original development plans in 2015-2016; discussed previous proposals for the site; said the goal was to create a vibrant, high-density, live-work-play district; presented a graphic depicting the 2016 GDP and discussed the various components of the plan; discussed human scale; noted the historic Belle Haven was preserved; said flexibility is important; stated the proposed development implements the vision, creates an iconic gateway while maintaining pedestrian activity and providing retail; and asked the PB to support the project. PB Member Ohlrich noted the applicants had made many references to the building which is not part of today's discussion and have complicated matters by doing sO; and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 20 asked what options had been considered that would not require an amendment to the DA. Attorney Merrill stated the proposed is the only option considered noting the applicants thought it would be a minor amendment to the GDP. PB Member Ohlrich said the applicants had reached out to her requesting a one-on-one meeting; stated she had declined to do so; and asked what the purpose was. Mr. Scarfe stated they wished to introduce the project to her in advance of the PB meeting. Attorney Merrill stated since this is a legislative versus quasi-judicial public hearing it was appropriate; and pointed out if the public hearing was quasi-judicial the PB members would have had to disclose those. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the city's process provided an opportunity to convey the intent; said in her six years on the PB it has been rare for an applicant to request to meet in advance of the public hearing; and said if there is an issue with the city process that should be fixed, and if not, she does not understand why the applicants wished to meet with the PB members in advance. Attorney Merrill stated there is no issue with that part of the process; and said his concerns are with the long, arduous, expensive process. PB Member Ohlrich asked how the applicants would respond to comments that the proposed One Park would create a wall versus a gateway and block the Quay from The Bay Park. Attorney Merrill said two buildings would be bulkier and would not contain the recesses the applicants are volunteering. Mr. Baker stated the structure would be a gateway through the development that is public oriented and connects the north to the south. Mr. Scarfe said the City Engineering Department often requires that when a street dead ends as Quay Commons does at Boulevard of the Arts a terminating vista is required. PB Member Salem asked what use would occupy the space over Quay Commons. Mr. Scarfe said residential, mechanical, and parking will occupy that space, PB Member Salem asked if there are any public uses proposed. Mr. Scarfe said parking will be directly above Quay Commons and noted 50 of those spaces would be public parking for the overall Quay development; and said it is not a public benefit noting it benefits the neighborhood by taking cars off of the street. PB Member Salem asked if the parking would be open to the general public and if there would be any fees charged. Mr. Scarfe stated that is unknown at this time. PB Member Salem said he needs to see a benefit to the public before he can support the request; said parking that is open to the general public with no fees or rooftop activity would be a public benefit. Mr. Scarfe said the proposed retail will activate the mixed-use which is a goal of the city SO while it is not a public benefit it does accomplish a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Merrill noted Quay Commons is a private street; and stated the public parking requirements, etc. are a site plan issue. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti asked where in the DA it states Blocks 3 & 5 can be combined; and noted similar to Blocks 1 & 9 that is not specified. Discussion ensued. Attorney Brockway pointed out language in the DA that states adjacent blocks can be combined. PB: Member Blumetti asked how far along the applicants were: in the process before they were told they would have to do a major amendment to the GDP. Attorney Connolly said that determination was made on July 26, 2022. Mr. Scarfe said the applicants were in discussions with the city since the time of application and was working with staff on some requests which is why it took sO long. Attorney Merrill stated all issues staff said would be major amendments were worked out with the exception of combining Blocks Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 20 1 & 9 over Quay Commons. PB Member Blumetti asked if the site plan had already been submitted and the applicants were under the assumption the changes would be minor. Mr. Scarfe said a Zoning Code Confirmation letter the City issued for Blocks 4 & 5 was in response to a very similar proposal. PB Member Blumetti asked if the applicants had ever explored constructing two buildings. Mr. Scarfe said they had but determined one building would be much more efficient. PBMember Blumetti pointed out the applicants had referenced a 22' space while the information in the packets states 17. Mr. Scarfe said the original proposal was 17' and has been increased to 22. PB member Blumetti asked if the applicants feel they have a legal right to build over Quay Commons. Attorney Merrill stated that was correct. PB Member Blumetti asked why the applicants were there with their request. Attorney Merrill stated for the: reasons Attorney Connolly had stated earlier; said the City did not wish to get into the issue of ownership and asked the applicants to pursue litigation to answer that question; and said if the applicants win that litigation they feel they have the: right to build over Quay Commons. PB Member Halflants noted there is nothing improper with applicants meeting with PB members in advance of a public hearing; questioned why the proposed site plan was not submitted with the DA amendment application; pointed out the renderings of the building that have been presented and discussed; and asked why both were not being heard at the same time. Attorney Merrill stated the applicants thought it would be a minor amendment as in other cases; said it was after several iterations of the site plan that it was deemed a major amendment; stated the DA amendment and site plan are two separate issues; said the applicants had three options, a minor amendment, major amendment or amendment to the DA and they chose the latter because the DA amendment is a legislative matter; said submitting the DA amendment with the site plan would confuse the issues noting the site plan already has some complicated issues; said one building versus two buildings would not have any negative impacts; said amending the DA is simpler than processing a major amendment to the GDP; and said the site plan could still move forward without the DA amendment or: major amendment to the GDP. Mr. Scarfe noted the DA amendment would remove any ambiguity by specifying Blocks 1 & 9can build over Quay Commons. PB Member Halflants stated he was a PB member in 2016 when the original approvals occurred; suggested the applicants should have looked at the Master Plan before designing their building; said the problem with blocks is each one has their own parking garage; pointed out the applicants in 2016 were adamant that the blocks were necessary for quality due to the smalller buildings; and asked what changed. Mr. Baker said nothing substantial had changed; said a critical component of the Master Plan was to create a vibrant district through the Quay and livable streets; said the space above the livable streets doesn't matter; and said the purpose of the conceptual renderings was to show very large buildings; and stated the density is needed to activate the streets. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants questioned if the livable streets would be undermined by covering them; noted a parking garageis proposed above the pedestrians; and said staff is looking at if there is more height if it would serve as a gateway. Mr. Baker stated the aspect ratio makes for a nice space; said an outdoor room that is too tall would be uncomfortable; noted the proposed treatment on the ceiling; and stated the need for more retail in the Quay development. PB Member Halflants noted the PB is only considering the ceiling since the site plan is not on the table; and pointed out the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 20 applicants were asking the PB to recommend approval of a main point of contention before seeing the project. Mr. Scarfe stated the project will be coming before the PB in the future. Attorney Merrill stated the DA amendment would allow the site plan to proceed; noted approval of the DA amendment does not approve the site plan; said the site plan will have to go through a full review by the PB on a quasi-judicial public hearing; and noted nothing in the DA prohibits construction over Quay Commons between Blocks 1 & 9. PB Member Halflants stated that is why the applications should have been processed concurrently; and noted processing those separately puts the PB in a difficult position. Attorney Merrill stated the applicants were in a difficult position because the issue came up later in the process; said it would not have worked out well to bring the DA amendment and site plan together; and said the DA amendment will accomplish what a minor amendment should have. PB Member Ohlrich stated it does make it more difficult for the PB; pointed out the applicants had made a lot of references to the building; noted the large diagram the applicants posted in the back of the chambers; and asked if the statements the applicants made today regarding the site plan were proffers. Attorney Merrill stated those were not proffers; and noted the applicant' S objection to staff S first three proposed conditions stating those should be part of the site plan review. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out that meant the applicants would not be held to anything they said about the building. Attorney Merrill stated the applicants are only to be held to what the DA requires. PB Member Ohlrich stated there was a lot of discussion regarding the similarities between this property and the Bayso building; and asked if the tunnel under the Bayso building was a through street. Mr. Scarfe stated that area is a pedestrian and vehicular plaza; noted that developer was allowed to build over the street; and said they were only asking to be treated the same. PB Member Ohlrich asked again if the area under Bayso was a through street that goes to where people can make a left or right turn onto another street. Mr. Scarfe stated the area connects to the Scenic MURT which is a public asset. Discussion ensued regarding vehicular access. PB Chair Clermont asked what the difference in the lot coverage of one building versus two buildings is. Mr. Scarfe stated the lot coverage would be about the same due to the proposed recesses in the one building; and said one building would provide better stormwater management. PB Chair Clermont stated there has been great concern regarding the massing and asked if there are any trade offs in terms of bulk; and asked if one building would result in less building coverage on the grass/green space. Attorney Merrill stated that is a site plan issue. Discussion ensued. Mr. Scarfe stated the Floor Area Ration (FAR) would be slightly less due to the recesses. PB Chair Clermont asked if the purchase agreement for the site has been finalized. Attorney Merrill stated it is still under contract. PB Chair Clermont asked if the purchase was contingent on the approval of the DA amendment; and asked if the DA amendment is denied what will be built. Attorney Merrill stated he would have to consult the clients. PB Chair Clermont asked why the retail can't be in two buildings. Attorney Merrill stated it could; noted providing retail is voluntary; said staff has pressed for the retail; and said the outdoor living room provides the requested retail. Mr. Scarfe said if two buildings were built the ramps to the parking would interrupt the retail space. Mr. Baker noted there would Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 20 be two trash areas, transformers, generators etc. required if two buildings are constructed; and noted those are required to be located on the ground floor. The Planning Board Took a 14 Minute Break 4:06:11 P.M. Citizen Input: Attorney Robert Lincoln, representing Quay Sarasota Block 6 Condominium Association, Inc., appeared; stated the definition of adjacent in the Zoning Code is not applicable to the entire Quay site noting the intent of the DA and GDP was to control massing; discussed the history of approvals in 2016; pointed out the benefits for the developer was approval of some street vacations, they received concurrency for the entire site, were given the ability to use a GDP rather than a site plan for the entire site, and got the right to build over Driveway "C" or "D" in return for constructing a lower building with less massing; said the City benefits included easements for the MURT, Scenic MURT, additional right-of-way along Boulevard of the Arts and US 41, and a twelve-foot wide non-vehicular connection between Blocks 4 & 5 to connect Quay Commons to the Scenic MURT; stated a Master Association Declaration was recorded as required by the DA; said air rights in the Quay are encumbered by the DA; said that was recognized in the purchase and sale agreement for Blocks 1 & 9; stated Director Panica had determined in July 2022 and October 2022 that the proposed construction over Quay Commons was inconsistent with the GDP and DA; said the site plan and amendment to the DA could have been processed concurrently however the applicants did not want that to occur; said the proposed amendment to the DA is a rewrite versus clarifying; discussed the sales that have occurred to date noting those buyers relied on the GDP and DA; stated Quay Commons was promised to be a pedestrian friendly, tree lined boulevard open to the sky, connecting the Quay and Bay Park sites; pointed out the GDP shows Blocks 4 & 5 are adjacent; said Quay Commons is 78 feet wide as a trade- off for vacating El Verona and a 20' wide alley that split Block 1; presented various videos from presentations the developers made to the City Commission in 2016 noting the developers said a spine road (Quay Commons) connecting to Boulevard of the Arts would be one of the first site improvements made; stated that improvement was required by the DA and street vacations and had to be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy (COs); stated a 12' connector under Bayso was also required for the purpose of connecting Quay Commons to the Scenic MURT; pointed out the developers also stated in 2016 that Quay Commons was an open space amenity with wide to sky boulevards, and that Blocks 2& 3 were the only blocks proposed for combination across a street and included limits on height and required increased setbacks; discussed the recorded Master Association Declaration stating that document promises Quay Commons (also know as Quay Central) would be open space; stated the Zoning Code definition of open space means open to the sky; stated the Master Association Declaration requires Quay Commons be conveyed to the Master Association when developed; stated that issue is being litigated SO it is not part of today's deliberations however the PB should be made aware of that; said in 2016 the developers had stated the GDP would provide for individual blocks, there would not be 18-story towers on everyl block, and the only instance where blocks might be combine is over Driveway "C" (Blocks 2 & 3); said it is clear the intent of adjacent is touching; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 20 said the proposed DA amendment destroys the integrity of the Block Site Plan; stated the proposed structure on Blocks 1 & 9 is out of scale with the community; presented graphics depicting the size of building that could be constructed over Quay Commons noting it is the equivalent of an additional block; discussed concerns staff had raised regarding elevated safety hazards at the garages and drop-off areas, unprecedented massing, and creation of a barrier wall the interrupts views; stated the 12 connector between Blocks 4 &5 5 from Quay Commons to the Scenic MURT was requested by staff; pointed out the applicants are claiming that connector was why they have a reasonable expectation they can do the same over the 78' wide area of Quay Commons between Blocks 1 & 9; said the combination of Blocks 2 & 3 was specifically provided for in the DA; said if "adjacent" included across the street a specific provision would not be needed in the DA; said a comparison was made to The Mark in downtown and pointed out that was part of the original DA for that project and the benefited by getting the State Street Parking Garage; noted the applicants are not required to provide the retail they are proposing for Blocks 1 & 9; reiterated the number of units that have been sold based on the 2016 promises; said the proposed amendment to the DA guts the benefits the City received; said the promised amenities can be provided without amending the DA; said there are: may: reasons to deny the requestnoting: iti is unnecessary, violates the recorded agreements and promises made that people relied on, is not in the public interest, it will destroy the Block Site Plan, and will allow for massing far in excess of what was promised; and asked the PB to recommend the City Commission deny the request. PB Member Salem asked it Quay Commons was created when the Bayso site was assembled. Attorney Lincoln stated the original DA included one site plan that covered the entire site; said the current GDP shows Bayso as a combination of Blocks 4 & 5 which are touching (adjacent); said the city negotiated a 12' wide connection going through the Bayso site; and stated that connection was never intended to be part of Quay Commons and there was never an expectation that it would not be built over. (B Member Salem asked if that set a precedent. Attorney Lincoln stated Quay Commons was promised to be a pedestrian friendly, tree-lined boulevard open to the sky with wide sidewalks; and stated the connection between Quay Commons and the Scenic MURT was requested by staff in response to requests from citizens that access between the Scenic MURT and Quay Commons be established. PB Member Ohlrich asked if Attorney Lincoln had asked to meet with her; asked if the meeting occurred; and asked why he wanted to meet. Attorney Lincoln responded he did ask to meet; they did not meet; and he wanted to meet because he was aware that the applicants were meeting with the City Commissioners and Planning Board members. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the content Attorney Lincoln wished to discuss was included in the materials he presented today. Attorney Lincoln said it was; stated that ever since the applicants convinced the City Commission to go against the City Attorney's recommendation and allow the DA amendment to move forward without the Site Plan he was concerned about problems occurring like they are today; said that puts the citizens at a severe disadvantage; said the PB will have difficulty ignoring what has been represented regarding the project; pointed out public claims the applicants have made regarding the provision of retail and other benefits; and noted the applicants Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 20 are not under oath and can't be held to any representations they make today. PB Member Ohlrich asked if Attorney Lincoln considered the sworn promises made to the original DA to be proffers. Attorney Lincoln stated that those statements would not be proffers but have to be taken as statements demonstrating what the intent and purpose of the DA was; reiterated 'adjacent" does not and cannot mean the same as it does in the Zoning Code; and said statements made by the developers under oath are absolutely relevant. PB Member Blumetti asked if the definition of : 'adjacent" is not taken from the Zoning Code then where should it be taken from; and noted it is not defined in the definitions section of the DA. Attorney Lincoln said the context of the DA language should be considered. Discussion ensued. Attorney Lincoln stated the blocks are meaningless if the Zoning Code definition is used. PB Member Blumetti stated the original DA document was sloppy;said whathe thinks about the proposed buildingi is different than what is allowed; said the only reasonable source for the definition of adjacent is the Zoning Code; and noted the DA is a binding document. Attorney Lincoln stated Director Panica is responsible for interpretating the DA; stated she had determined as early as February 2022 that the Zoning Code definition of adjacent does not apply; pointed out the Applicants had not appealed that determination when the official interpretation was rendered in July 2022; and said the Applicants submittal of the amendment to the DA affirmed their agreement with that interpretation. Discussion ensued regarding the appeal process, on-going litigation; and the authority to interpret the DA language. PB Member Halflants had no questions. PB Chair Clermont noted language in Section 3.1.b states "Itis specifically contemplated that the areas of common responsibility may change from time to time in connection with changes in development plans and other factors not now known" ; and asked how that language is germane to this discussion. Attorney Lincoln stated the language is not applicable because Quay Commons is already developed which was required prior to the issuance of the first CO; and said once Quay Commons was developed the obligation to convey the common area to the Master Association was vested. Attorney Connolly pointed out there are approximately 84 citizens that have signed up to speak today which equates to approximately four hours of testimony; and noted it was already 4:45 PM. Discussion ensued. The PB decided by consensus they would hear public testimony until 6:00 PM then continue the discussion to a date/time to be determined. The following former Planning Board members appeared and stated their opposition to the proposed amendment to the DA citing discussions regarding the project that should be considered in a quasi-judicial versus legislative public hearing; the lack of a public benefit to the proposed DA amendment; the sales that have occurred at the Quay based on the approved DA and GDP; verbal, written and graphic assurances that were made when the Quay Sarasota project was approved in 2016; lack of sound reasoning for the proposed DA amendment; the emphasis that was put on connecting to the Bay Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 20 Park when approved in 2016; inability to cross-examine the Applicants; inconsistency with the City Plan: Eileen Normile, Mort Siegel, David Morriss, and Patrick Gannon. The following citizens appeared and stated their opposition to the proposed amendment to the DA citing previous promises and commitments made; design of the common area in the GDP; walkability; approved DA and GDP protected investments; obstruction of view corridor; massing of the proposed building; corruption of the original vision and plans; setting a precedent; height of proposed building; shadow affect of proposed building; security and privacy concerns; traffic; ceiling of outdoor living room blocking the sun on a nice day; vehicle fumes in tunnel; tunnel affect; wind speeds in tunnel during inclement weather; wall of concrete and glass over Quay Commons; creation of a virtual fence between Quay Sarasota and the Bay Park; will create an additional block; lack of public benefit; contradicts sworn testimony from the developer in 2016; recorded Master Association Declaration has requirement that the common areas be conveyed to the Master Association; Master Association is already maintaining Quay Commons; obstruction of connectivity to the Bay Park during construction and afterwards; negative impacts on the overall community; additional density; no guarantees retail will be built; Master Association Declaration requirement that the common areas be conveyed to the Master Association in fee simple ownership; construction over Quay Commons violates fee simple ownership; process for major site plan changes being circumvented; and air rights issues: Ms. Donna Ristow, Mr. Ken Oravecz, Mr. Victor McTeer, Mr. Peter Blanton, Mr. Howard Kilman, Mr. David Ying, Ms. Kelly Verrochi, Mr. Larry Grizzle, Mr. John Boc, Mr. Bruce. Finley, Ms. Cathy Bruzik, Mr. David Lough, Mr. Michael Graham, Mr. Daniel Rizzo, Mr. Alan Rifkin, and Mr. Scott Ashby. The following citizens stated their support to the proposed amendment to the DA citing added value and beauty to the area; creation of a gateway to the Quay and the Bay Park via al breezeway; the need for retail in the area; precedent setl by the. Mark Condominium project; overall benefits of change; ability to seek shelter under the breezeway from the sun and storms; increased tax revenues; increased revenues for restaurants and retail in the area; and other access points to the Bay Park.: Mr. Dan Scales, Mr. Cameron Gupta, Ms. Andrea O'Brien, and Mr. Tom Taylor. PB Chair Clermont stated that concluded the public testimony for today. 6:15:14 P.M. Attorney Connolly stated the need to discuss a date to continue the discussion to. Discussion ensued regarding the potential of holding a special meeting; continuing this discussion to the regular PB meeting scheduled for 4/12/23; and scheduling of applications that were anticipated to be on the 4/12/23 agenda. Attorney Merrill asked that the item be continued to a date earlier than 4/12/23 noting the City Commission public hearing for this item is scheduled for 4/3/23. Discussion ensued. The PB agreed by consensus to continue this hearing to the regular PB meeting scheduled for 4/12/23, with a start time of 9:00 am. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 20 V. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICE TO THE. PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A: maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no Citizen's Input. 6:27:54 P.M. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 8, 2023 PB. Member Ohlrich stated she had submitted some: non-substantive changes via email; and made a motion to approve the minutes with those changes. The PB agreed by consensus. VII. 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. There were no topics by staff. VIII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on thei next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by PB members. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:29 P.M. cleye Shuny alanuonk Myra Schwarz Dan Clermont, Chair General Manager and Secretary to the Board Planning Board/Local Planning Agency