CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Terrill Salem, Chair Members Present: Dan Clermont, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Member Michael Halflants arrived at 2:31 PM Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven Cover, Planning Director [acting secretaryl Lucia Panica, Director of Development Services Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services 1:44:10P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Salem called the meeting to order. Attorney Connolly noted PB. Member Halflants was required to recuse himself from the first public hearing due to a conflict of interest and said it is anticipated PB Member Halflants will be participating in the balance of the meeting. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Acting Secretary Cover stated Item No. 4 under Quasi-udicial Public Hearings has been withdrawn. 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.) A. Reading oft the Pledge ofConduct Acting Secretary Cover read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly stated the suggested time limits and administered the oath to those wishing to speak at today's public hearings. The PB members approved the time limits by consensus. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 14 1:47:51 P.M. B. Quasil-judicia Public. Hearings 1. Whitaker Lofts (1400 North Tamiami Trail): Site Plan Application No. 21-SP-14 and Adjustment to Downtown Code Application No. 22-ADP-04 are a request for Site Plan approval to construct a four-story structure with 19 residential units and 8,795 square feet of ground floor retail space and for two adjustments to the minimum front yard setbacks on subject property with a street address of 1400 North Tamiami Trail. Access to the site is proposed from 14th and 15th Streets to 37 parking spaces. The approximately 0.62 acre site is zoned North Trail (NT) and within the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD). (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) PB Chair Salem opened the public hearing. Attorney Connolly called Mr. Steven Rostkamp who had applied for Affected Person status. Mr. Rostkamp was present, and the Planning Board members granted him Affected Person status by consensus. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Gabe Nisula and Ms. Ana Meneses, Project Managers, appeared. Mr. Nisula noted the location of the project is on a major thoroughfare; said the design is meant to react to the thoroughfare; stated the project consisted of retail on the ground floor with nineteen residential units above; said the applicants were preserving a large grand oak tree on the site; discussed the architectural aspects of the project noting the provision of pedestrian spaces via the wide sidewalks; pointed out the configuration of the site resulted in two front yards; stated the parking is located behind the façade and in the back of the house; discussed the challenges of developing the site due to the grand oak tree; discussed the landscape plan noting they are providing two times the required mitigation; and compared the project with two previously approved projects. Ms. Meneses stated the site is located in the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD); said the NTOD intent is the provision of pedestrian friendly projects; discussed the surrounding land uses; said the proposed retail would help activate the park across the street; and discussed the requested adjustment to the front yard setbacks noting the preservation of the grand oak tree as the reason for the request. Mr. Nisula provided a summary of the request. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if there was enough demand for the proposed retail noting he was concerned about the storefronts remaining vacant for a long period of time; asked if the grand oak tree would be substantially trimmed; and discussed the potential of setting aj precedent by allowing for the balconies to project over the property line into the public space. Mr. Nisula stated the applicants were confident they could fill the retail spaces; stated the grand oak tree would only be undercut; and pointed out the proposed balconies meet the Florida Building Code and City Zoning Code requirements. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 14 PB Member Blumetti complimented the architecture; questioned if the balconies met code requirements; and asked if the requested adjustment was for the setbacks only. Mr. Nisula stated the Florida Building Code allows for the balconies to project over the public space above a certain height; and confirmed the requested adjustment related to the setbacks only. PB Member Ohlrich stated she too appreciated the architecture and renderings; questioned how the applicants would ensure window treatments in the retail spaces would not block the connection between the building and pedestrians; pointed out each project stands on its own rather than setting precedent; questioned how the applicants would activate the park noting the park is not underutilized; stated the applicants had responded to a question at the Community Workshop regarding parking by stating there was available parking in the park; questioned the width of the sidewalks once outdoor seating is provided; and questioned the width of the sidewalks along 14th and 15th Streets. Mr. Nisula stated the condominium documents would restrict the amount of coverage on the retail windows; clarified that the project will further activate the park; stated the parking requirements have been met on-site and exceed the ITE standards; pointed out the sidewalks are 18 ft of hardscape and only 9 ft of that could be used for outdoor seating; and said the sidewalks along 14th and 15th Streets are 9 ft up to where they transition into the neighborhood and then are reduced to 5 ft.. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem asked what the clear space between the outdoor seating and the building would be. Mr. Nisula stated 9: ft. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the curb cut locations were due to the location of the grand oak tree. Mr. Nisula confirmed that was correct. Attorney Connolly pointed out the PB Members needed to disclose any ex-parte communications and site visits. PB Member Ohlrich stated she had a conversation with Ms. Pintus and visited the site on her own. PB Chair Salem, PB Vice Chair Clermont and PB Member Blumetti stated they had visited the site on their own as well. 2:12:27 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Planner Pintus appeared and noted the size, zoning and Future Land Use classification of the parcel; said there are two applications, one for site plan approval and one for approval of adjustments to the setbacks; stated a draft of a proposed off-site parking agreement has been provided in the materials; stated the alternative parking ratio complies with the NTOD requirements; pointed out all other NTOD requirements have been met; said the tree mitigation is over two times the required amount; stated a Community Workshop was held on October 9, 2019 and the neighbors had expressed concerns regarding parking in the neighborhood; noted the proposed parking exceeds the required amount by one space; stated the project received DRC sign-off on June 9, 2022; and stated the project meets the Standards for Review for site plans and the criteria for PB adjustment. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 14 PB Member Ohlrich questioned what would happen if the other party to the parking agreement sold their land. Attorney Connolly stated the agreement is recorded in the Official Records of Sarasota County and runs with the land. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if there were any other projects that have been approved that have balconies that project over the right-of-way. Development Review Planner Pintus noted two recent projects and pointed out the Building Official confirmed the balconies meet the Florida Building Code requirements. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly confirmed the balconies are authorized under the Florida Building Code. Affected Persons: Mr. Steven Rostkamp appeared; stated he is a partner in the Sarasota Bay Club across the street; said he supports the project noting it is compatible with the surrounding residential; and pointed out the site has been vacant for many years. Citizen Input: Mr. Jeffrey Oldenburg appeared; stated he owns commercial and multi-family properties in the area; said the project is compatible with the area, the architecture is impeccable, and the area is in need of revitalization; and said he supports the project. Ms. Jessica Simmons appeared; said she owns The Reserve across the street; and stated she supports the project noting the grand oak tree that is being saved and the beautiful building. Mr. Victor Calderon appeared via Zoom; stated he owns property on the North Trail; and said he supports the project noting the high quality of the proposed building. 2:28:09 P.M. Rebuttal: There was no rebuttal. 2:28:18 P.M. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly pointed out there are two motions that need to be made: the first relating to the adjustment application and then the site plan application. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find Adjustment Application 22-ADP-04 consistent with the applicable criteria of Section VI-910(/3))0, through (vi) of the Zoning Code and to approve the Adjustment Application subject to the listed conditions. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he supports the motion noting the project is beautiful. PB Chair Salem agreed with PB Vice Chair Clermont S comments. The motion passed 4-0. PB. Member Ohlrich made a motion to. find that Site Plan 21-SP-14 and is consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and meets the applicable criteria of Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and to approve the Site Plan subject to the listed conditions. PB Vice Chair Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 14 Clermont seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti commended staff and the applicant for working together to preserve the grand oak tree. PB Member Ohlrich commended the applicants for working with the neighborhood. The motion passed 4- 0. The Planning Board Took a Six Minute Recess 2:37:31 P.M. 2. Quay Sarasota Block 10 (601 Quay Commons): Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-01 is a request for Site Plan approval to construct a 10,000 square foot restaurant in a two-story building, 5,000 square feet of retail space, and a valet drop-off area on Block 10 of the Quay Sarasota site with a street address of 601 Quay Commons. Access is taken from Quay Commons. The entire Quay Sarasota site is approximately 14.69 acres and is zoned Downtown Bayfront (DTB). (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) Attorney Connolly called Mr. Philip Dasher, Mr. Steven Landry, Ms. Michela M. Tao, Mr. Ralph Nicosia, and Ms. Janet Oliver who had applied for Affected Person status. Attorney Connolly recommended Mr. Dasher, who was present, be granted Affected Person status; and recommended Mr. Steven Landry, Ms. Michela M. Tao, Mr. Ralph Nicosia, and Ms. Janet Oliver not be granted Affected Person status since they were not present. The PB agreed by consensus. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Charlie Bailey, Attorney representing Quay Ventures LLC; Mr. Grady Miars, Vice President of Quay Ventures, LLC; Mr. Chris Gallagher, Project Architect, Hoyt Architects; and Mr. Travis Fledderman, Engineer with Stantec appeared. Attorney Bailey stated the project is proposed on Quay Sarasota Block 10; discussed the history of the overall Quay development to-date; presented an aerial depicting the blocks within the Quay development; discussed the proposal for Block 10 stating two buildings, a 5,000 sq. ft. single story retail building and a 10,000 sq. ft. two-story restaurant building are proposed; noted a two-lane drop-off area off of Quay Commons; and presented graphics depicting the existing conditions of the site. Mr. Fledderman discussed the proposed traffic circulation pattern; stated thirty required parking spaces are provided along Quay Commons; pointed out the location of the backflow preventor and solid waste dumpster holding area for the proposed restaurant; noted the retail building will use roll-out containers for their refuse and pointed out the staging location for those containers; and discussed pedestrian circulation noting the use of ramps and stairs to provide access to the lower Quay. Mr. Gallagher further discussed pedestrian circulation noting the wide sidewalks and crosswalks; pointed out the two-lane drop-off location that is central to the entire Quay development site; stated four structures are proposed, the retail and restaurant buildings along with two canopies; noted the location of the retail and restaurant buildings; stated the restaurant will have covered outdoor areas on both levels overlooking the water; and presented a graphic of the proposed buildings. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 14 Attorney Bailey stated staff has recommended approval with two conditions; said the applicants were in agreement with the conditions; and requested the Planning Board's approval of the project. PB Vice Chair Clermont noted the project boundaries partially encroach onto the Belle Haven site. Attorney Bailey stated that area would be enclosed and used to house the backflow preventors, mechanical equipment and solid waste container for the restaurant use; and stated that was allowable since both sites are owned by Quay Ventures. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if that would negatively impact the parking for the Belle Haven use. Mr. Fledderman stated the parking for the Belle Haven site is on the north side of that structure. PB Member Blumetti questioned how many seats the restaurant would have; asked if the thirty parking spaces would be adequate; and asked about valet parking. Mr. Gallagher stated the restaurant would be 200+ seats. Attorney Bailey stated the thirty parking spaces are required by code; noted an addition 185 spaces are available as part of the development of Blocks 2 and 3; said self-parking is allowed if one can find an open spot within the thirty spaces on Quay Commons; and pointed out the two valet stations that serve the overall Quay development. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti asked if there were any CPTED issues behind the retail space. Attorney Bailey stated the area will be fenced, gated, and landscaped. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the footprint for the building was based on the park. Discussion ensued regarding the buildable area of Block 10 and access to the retail and restaurant uses. PBI Member Halflants asked if the common area was open to the public. Attorney Bailey stated the area was privately owned; and pointed out there is a MURT agreement with the city that includes an easement that provides for public access. PB Member Ohlrich questioned how many occupied buildings there are currently on the overall Quay development site; stated a resident of the Ritz Carlton Residences had questioned the need for two valet stations across the street from each other; said two additional emails were received regarding concerns with access to their residences being blocked by construction vehicles, moving trucks, etc.; and asked how the applicants were addressing that. Attorney Bailey stated there are two buildings that are currently occupied, the Ritz Carlton Residences and the Belle Haven. Mr. Fledderman stated the two valet stations across the street from each other would serve Block 10 on one side and Blocks 2 and 3 on the other. Mr. Miar stated the Master Management Company for the Quay development coordinates on a weekly basis with the Ritz Carlton Residences manager and the construction managers for the two sites that are under construction regarding deliveries, crane movements, etc. PB Member Ohlrich asked about the MURT noting the requirement that it be open at all times. Attorney Bailey noted the MURTi is inj place and open at all times. PB. Member Ohlrich questioned if 83 trees were being removed. Mr. Fledderman noted that was for the overall Quay site and pointed out there are no trees being removed for this project. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the thirty parking spaces on Quay Commons could be used for valet parking. Mr. Fledderman stated they could not. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 14 PB Vice Chair Clermont asked about outdoor dining and if there would be live music in the outdoor areas. Mr. Gallagher pointed out the outdoor areas on a graphic and stated only live music that is allowed by code would be provided. 3:12:15 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Planner Pintus appeared and stated the Applicant's S presentation was accurate; said the thirty parking spaces provide along Quay Commons meet the code requirements; stated the refuse and recycling for both the retail and restaurant meet code; said the traffic circulation was found to be safe and adequate for both vehicles and pedestrians; noted the valet operations she discussed in the Transportation Appendix of her staff report apply to Blocks 2and 3; stated the landscaping is consistent with the Scenic MURT as required by the Development Agreement and meets code requirements; stated the Site Plan received DRC sign-off on 6/8/22 and the project is consistent with the Development Standards in the General Development Plan; and stated staff recommends approval with two conditions. PB Member Ohlrich noted the traffic circulation analysis was completed in October of 2021 and asked if there had been any changes since then that could change that. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared and stated the analysis was: re-released in February of 2022 in response to staff's comments. Mr. Bill Oliver, Traffic Consultant for the City, appeared and stated the updated analysis that was released in February 2022 contained additional information requested by staff. PB Member Ohlrich requested Mr. Oliver provide a summary of the trip budget for the overall Quay development. Mr. Oliver presented a table titled "Quay Site Land Uses and Trip Generation Summary" that depicts the trip generation from approved development and trip generation assumptions for future development. PB Member Ohlrich questioned how the cumulative totals were tracked. Mr. Oliver noted the data in the white lines depicted development that has been approved while the data in the yellow lines are based on assumptions of what could be developed. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned the impact of the encroachment onto the Belle Haven site, noting the structure is historic; and questioned if the Historic Preservation Board had reviewed the project. Development Review Planner Pintus stated Historic Preservation staff had reviewed the project and had no concerns. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem questioned accessibility of parking spaces for the restaurant patrons. Mr. Oliver stated the spaces in Blocks 2 and 3 were not available for restaurant patrons. PB Chair Salem asked if thirty parking spaces was adequate for a 200+ seat restaurant. Development Review Planner Pintus stated the thirty spaces meet code requirements. 3:24:26 P.M. Affected Persons: Attorney Connolly called upon Mr. Philip Dasher. Mr. Dasher was not present. Citizen Input: There was no citizen input. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 14 3:24:59 P.M. Rebuttal: There was no rebuttal. Attorney Bailey submitted the graphics he used in his presentation for the record. 3:25:25 P.M. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find that Site Plan 22-SP-01 meet the applicable criteria of Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the conditions as listed. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti stated there would only be refuse container staging in the area of the Belle Haven that is encroached upon rather than a structure; and said he hopes the thirty public spaces do not become valet use only. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the encroachment was not in keeping with the original Quay development plan; and said he has concerns particularly due to the historic nature of the Belle Haven. PB Member Halflants pointed out there is still adequate space between the two structures. The motion passed 4-1 with PB Vice Chair Clermont voting no. 3:28:25 P.M. 3. North Allendale Rezone (N. Allendale Avenue): Rezone Application No. 22-REN-04 is a request for Rezone Without Site Plan approval to rezone two lots totaling 0.85 acres located at North Allendale Avenue to Residential Multiple Family 2 (RMF-2) and develop five single-family residential lots. The site is located on the west side of Allendale Avenue, north of Aspinwall Street and south of 6th Street. The parcels are currently vacant, zoned Residential Multiple Family 1 (RMF-1), and have a Future Land Use designation of Multiple Family (Moderate Density). Access is proposed from Allendale Avenue. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those who were not present earlier. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joseph Medred, Genesis Planning, appeared and stated the site is .84 acres; the request is for a rezoning from the Residential Multiple Family-1 (RMF-1) zone district to the Residential Multiple Family-2 (RMF-2) zone district in order to construct five detached residences on existing platted lots of record; presented an aerial of the site depicting the subject parcels; presented a graphic depicting the existing Future Land Use classification and zoning; presented a graphic depicting the original plat from 1924 that shows the original five parcels; stated the purpose of the rezoning is to return to the original platted order and construct a single family residence on each lot; stated the proposal meets the Standards of Review for RMF-2; noted the request is consistent with the Future Land Use classification and Comprehensive Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding area; and requested the PB recommend approval with the conditions recommended by staff. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 14 PB Chair Salem questioned how many units could currently be constructed on the lots and how many units were proposed; and asked if detached accessory dwelling units were being considered. Mr. Medred stated currently a total of five units could be constructed in a triplex on the larger lot and a duplex on the smaller lot; and said the proposal is for five attached units with the garages in front. Discussion ensued. PBC Chair Salem asked if the units would be high-end. Mr. Medred stated the units would be market rate. PB Member Halflants pointed out the combine parcels were slightly less than required to meet minimum lot size. Mr. Medred noted there is a minimum width requirement as well. 3:36:55 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Planner Pintus appeared and stated the current Future Land Use classification is Multiple Family-Medium Density and the current zoning is RMF-1; stated the request is for a Rezone Without Site Plan to rezone the parcels to RMF-2; noted the request is consistent with the implementing zone districts for the Future Land Use; said the proposal meets the Standards for Review; pointed out the lots would be reconfigured through the Boundary Adjustment process; said a Community Workshop was held on February 23, 2022 and two people attended that were in support; and stated the project received DRC sign-off on June 7, 2022. PB Chair Salem noted the current zoning of RMF-1 and questioned if the Future Land Use classification called for RMF-2 zoning. Development Review Planner Pintus state RMF-1 and RMF-2arei the implementing zone districts for the Multiple Family-Medium Density Future Land Use classification; and pointed out the single-family units across the street have a different Future Land Use classification. PB Member Blumetti questioned why the current zoning is RMF-1. Development Review Planner Pintus stated speculated it is due to the proximity to a high-density corridor. Discussion ensued regarding developing the lots as single-family and minimum lot widths; and the lots across the street being 50' wide. PB Member Ohlrich stated since there is no height increase proposed she finds the proposal compatible with the surrounding area; and noted the two citizens that attended the Community Workshop were a sitting City Commissioner and an individual that lives in Port Charlotte. Citizen Input: Ms. Elizabeth Woolson appeared; stated she is a resident that owns and lives directly behind the subject parcels; said she supports the proposed single-family units; stated her concerns regarding flooding on her property; and questioned the timing of the development. PB Chair Salem stated the drainage plan must show runoff flowing to the drainage system in front of the parcels; and noted that is reviewed as part of the building permit Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 14 process. Discussion ensued. Ms. Woolson stated she supports single-family development versus multi-family development on the parcels. 3:45:23 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Medred appeared and stated he would contact Ms. Woolson and keep her up to date on the plans and timeline for development. 3:46:06 P.M. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. PB Member Halflants made a motion to find Rezone 22-REN-04 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the Rezone to the City Commission, subject to the condition proposed by staff. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Member Halflants stated the proposal duplicates what is across the street; noted the site already allows for five units; and stated he would develop the site as townhouses. PB Member Blumetti agreed with PB Member Halflants and stated he appreciated the applicants reaching out to the neighbor. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the request was to go back to the original; and noted the proposal is the same as what is across the street. PB Chair Salem, noting the current housing crisis, stated he would like to see accessory dwelling units included in the proposal. The motion passed 5-0. 4. Heart Media (1680 Fruitville Road): Adjustment to Downtown Code Application No. 22-ADP-03 is a request for Adjustment to Downtown Code approval to install an additional wall sign for iHeart Media above the second story on the subject property. (Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner) WITHDRAWN) 3:48:24 P.M. 5. 1732 6th Street: Adjustment to Downtown Code Application No. 22-ADP-05 is a request for Adjustment to Downtown Code approval to allow for a reduction to the minimum rear yard and a reduction to the minimum combined side yard for an existing detached carriage house permitted on the subject property. (Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Attorney Steven Rees appeared; stated the request is for two Adjustments to the Downtown Code reducing the minimum rear yard setback and combined side yard setbacks; presented a map depicting the site; stated the main house is historic while the carriage house was constructed in 2016; stated the 2016 boundary survey for the site was inaccurate resulting in the foundation of the carriage house being too close to the rear and side yards; said a new 2022 survey related to the sale of the property disclosed the setback violations; noted the existing AC pad is outside of the property line and the owners have agreed to relocate that if the adjustments are approved; discussed the Standards of Review for Adjustments to the Downtown Code; and said there is no impact to the historic structure on the site. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 14 PB Chair Salem questioned if there is any recourse with the surveyor. Attorney Rees stated possibly; noted the sale of the property was in jeopardy sO the new owners purchased the property knowing about the issue; stated the new owners are aware of the fact if the adjustments are denied the structure will have to be relocated at great expense; said the impacts are minor; and stated he hoped the Planning Board would approve the requested adjustments. PB Member Blumetti asked if an on-site survey had been performed; questioned how the property to the south was: impacted; and if the residents of the property to the south had been notified of this hearing. Attorney Rees stated an on-site survey was not performed, noting that was common in real estate transactions; said he is not aware of any impacts on the property to the south; and said the property to the south should have been notified of this hearing. PB Member Halflants noted the building was permitted; iti is a non-conforming use; and asked who suggested it be torn down. Attorney Rees stated he was unsure of the status noting a zoning confirmation letter to confirm the use is a permitted non-conforming use has not been requested; stated the preference was to correct the issue through the adjustment process; and said he feels the impacts to the neighbors is nominal. PB Member Halflants pointed out if the adjustments are approved future construction could be built on the property line; and said he thought the combined side yard setbacks were only applicable to the main structure. Attorney Rees suggested a stipulation could be included stating the approval of the adjustments were applicable to this structure only. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the structure was built consistent with the approved permit. Attorney Rees stated he could not confirm that and noted the city approved the construction. PB Member Ohlrich stated she agrees that if approved the adjustments should only apply to the existing structure. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated it would be rather onerous to have to tear the building down; said he did a site visit and noticed the structure abuts the fence; pointed out that should have been obvious to the inspectors; noted the structure is two-stories and looms over the adjacent property; and asked if opaque windows could be required. Attorney Rees pointed out the setbacks in the downtown area are close to the property lines. PB Vice Chair Clermont noted no-one had complained. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski appeared and stated the applicant had provided the background for the requested adjustments; confirmed the site is .13 acres, is zoned Downtown Neighborhood (DTN), and has a Future Land Use classification of Urban Neighborhood; said the request is for two adjustments to the dimensional standards to reduce the rear yard setback from 3' to 0' and reduce the combined side yard setback from 10' to 7.9; and stated staff has found the request complies with the required Standards for Review and recommends approval. PB Chair Salem stated the purpose of submitting a survey with a building permit is to ensure setbacks are not encroached upon; said approving the adjustment request could Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 14 set aj precedent; and asked how the surveyor was being held accountable. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski pointed out staff relies on the information provided on the submitted signed and sealed survey; said the liability is with the surveyor that signed and sealed the survey; and stated he does not know what steps can be taken to hold the surveyor responsible. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned how the city inspector did not notice the encroachment into the setback; stated the city could be held liable; and said it was sloppy on the City's part. PB Chair Salem pointed out the City is not a fault since they do not produce the survey, noting staff relies on the professional survey that was submitted. PB Member Blumetti stated he was surprised no one contacted the surveyor; said an on-site survey should have been done; and questioned how it could be confirmed that the new survey is accurate. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski deferred to the applicants; reiterated that staff relies on the signed and sealed survey. PB Member Blumetti agreed it was appropriate for staff to rely on the professional survey; stated he agrees that if the adjustments are approved the approval should apply to the existing structure only; said tearing the building down would be extreme; noted zero lot line development is permitted in the downtown; and asked if staff could confirm that the neighbor to the south has been notified. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated all property owners with 500' were notified; and said he heard from a couple of residents that received a notice and were concerned about the potential that the historic structure would be torn down. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated the combined side setback calculations are only applicable to the main structure on the site, the setback for the accessory structure is different. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated it is his understanding the calculations apply to the entire site. PB Member Blumetti stated the setback for the accessory structure is different. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich asked if staff could confirm that the garage/carriage house was built consistent with the approved permit. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski confirmed that was correct. PB Chair Salem asked what the notification process is. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated property owners within 500' of the site are notified; and noted that is handled by the City Auditor and Clerk's office. PB Chair Salem asked if the notices were sent regular mail or certified. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated notices are sent via regular mail. Citizen Input: There was no citizen input. 4:15:31 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Rees appeared and stated attempts had been made to reach the prior surveyor and he could not be located; stated the applicants were hopeful that this process would Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 14 solve the issues; and stated the applicants are in agreement with limiting the approval to the existing structure. 4:16:58 P.M. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find that adjustment 22-ADP-05 is consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the request for adjustment subject to the listed conditions. Discussion ensued regarding limiting the approval to the existing structure. Attorney Connolly suggested language stating the adjustments are limited to only the currently existing structure and any future structures on the property must comply with all applicable setbacks. Additional discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair amended his motion to include the additional language. PB Member Ohlrich agreed with the language as seconder of the motion. PB Member Blumetti pointed out an on-site survey would have eliminated the issue. Upon review of the Zoning Code Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski confirmed the combined side yard setback calculation are applicable to the accessory use. Attorney Connolly restated the motion that includes the two existing proposed conditions as well as the additional verbiage. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated the situation is unfortunate; said the City should have caught the error; said it was a far reach to require the structure be torn down; stated these types of issues are what the adjustment process is for; and said the request is not unreasonable. PB Chair Salem stated as a builder he always hires a surveyor; pointed out the new owners purchased the property knowing the issues; and said he could not support the motion stating approval would reward bad behavior. The motion passed 4-1 with PB Chair Salem voting no. V. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TOTHEL PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which havel been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no citizen input. 4:23:27 P.M. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 8, 2022 PB Member Ohlrich stated she had submitted some minor changes relating to duplication of verbiage. The minutes were approved by consensus except for PB Vice Chair Clermont who pointed out he did not attend the June 8, 2022, meeting. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 14 4:24:08 P.M. 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. Acting Secretary Cover reviewed the schedule of upcoming meetings; noted there is no meeting scheduled for August; stated staff is looking at holding a second meeting in September; and reviewed the list of anticipated agenda items. Attorney Connolly suggested the public hearing for the Bahia Vista Apartments should be on a separate agenda. Discussion ensued. The PB members confirmed their availability for Thursday, September 29, 2022. PBI Member Halflants requested staff ask the City Commission to appoint a second alternate PB member. Discussion ensued. Acting Secretary Cover stated he would look into doing SO. 4:30:55 P.M. 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 the: next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Ohlrich stated the need to require renderings be included in the PB meeting materials. PB Member Blumetti agreed that was a good idea. Development Services Director Panica stated staff requests that as an advisory comment during the DRC review process; stated since it is not a code requirement staff cannot require the renderings; and stated she would look into making that a requirement. Discussion ensued regarding the types of projects that would have that requirement. PB Chair Salem stated he has concerns regarding the notification process and asked if notices could be sent via certified mail. Attorney Connolly noted that would increase the cost tenfold; pointed out the City Auditor and Clerk's office sends the notices to the property owners listed in the Property Appraiser database, noting they are not always local; and stated as a result a notice is also posted on a sign on thej property. Development Services Director Panica stated staff has started notifying the President of the applicable Neighborhood Association as well. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M. Steven Cover Terrill Salem, Chair Planning Director Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Acting Secretary to the Board]