CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY January 28, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Chair Members Present: Terrill Salem, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department David L. Smith, AICP, Manager, Planning Department Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner, Planning Department Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services Department 2:00:30 P.M. I. CALL MEETINGTO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Ohlrich called the meeting to order and noted Mr. David Smith was Acting Secretary tonight. Acting Secretary Smith read the roll call. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY III. 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 ofthe Pledge ofConduct Acting Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct. B. Quasi-judicia Public Hearing 1. The Bay Park Project Phase 1: Site Plan Application No. 20-SP-04, Major Conditional Use Application No. 20-CU-03, Governmental (G) Zone Waiver Application No. 20-GZW-02, and Adjustment Application No. 20-ADP-02 are a request for Site Plan approval for the proposed implementation of Phase 1 of the Bay Park project, a 10-acre waterfront public park located at 996 and 1001 Boulevard of the Arts and 803 North Tamiami Trail. Phase 1 includes Boulevard of the Arts improvements, parking and drop off area, food & beverage structure, restroom structure, resilient ecological shoreline, boardwalk, and observation deck; request for Major Conditional Use approval for ai municipal boardwalk and overlook pier within or contiguous to the G-Zone district; request for G Zone Waiver approval for the heights of the structures to be located within the waterfront setbacks and for the lighting fixtures; and request for Adjustment to Downtown Code approval for the elevation of the upland walkway within the waterfront setbacks on the project property located within the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone District. (Lucia Panica, Director of Development Services) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 13 2:02:18 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing. Attorney Connolly explained the Quasi-judicial procedures; recommended time limits and administered the oath to those wishing to testify. The PB Members approved the recommended time limits by consensus. Attorney Connolly called the following who had requested Affected Person status to determine eligibility: Russell Aquino Ralph Nicosia - Paige Atkins Rhonda Brown Bill Diehl = Emanuel Lauria Paul Licursi - Robert Lincoln - Suzanne Lynch Ysidore Perez Marcia Walsh Attorney Connolly noted Russell Aquino, Ralph Nicosia and Marcia Walsh were not present and there he recommended they not be granted Affected Person status. Discussion ensued. The Planning Board agreed by consensus that the names would be called again at such time the public input portion of the meeting is opened. PB Members revealed their ex-parte communications as follows: PB Vice Chair Salem had none PB Member Blumetti had none PB Member Gannon stated he visits the site regularly as. he resides across the street and has answered questions regarding the process for his neighbors PB Member Morriss stated he had read the emails that had been submitted PB Chair Ohlrich stated she had read the emails and met with staff 2:09:05 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bill Waddill, Attorney Bill Merrill, Planner Philip DeMaria, and Mr. A.G. Lafley appeared. Mr. Waddill noted Ms. Penny Cutt, Ms. Haley Darst, and Ms. Robin Goldstein were present virtually. Mr. Waddill provided an overview of the project noting the process began in late 2017; discussed the three steps outlined in the Partnership Agreement; discussed the public engagement process; noted the City Commission has final approval; reviewed the existing conditions and the Phase I proposal; discussed refinements that have been made to plans; noted the extensive community outreach the applicants had engaged in; reviewed the definitions of passive versus active parks; discussed the separation between the proposed Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page3 of 13 boardwalk and adjacent docks; discussed the impacts on views and Boulevard of the Arts; reviewed site circulation and access, site lighting, and security; and discussed environmental practices noting the relocation of some live oak trees. Planner DeMaria reviewed the various applications being requested, noting the Major Conditional Use request was the most controversial. Attorney Merrill discussed details of the four applications noting three of those, the Site Plan, Major Conditional Use, and G-Zone Waivers require City Commission approval; reviewed provisions of the City Zoning Code and City Code noting the proposed uses are permitted uses with the exception of the proposed boardwalk which requires Major Conditional Use approval; stated there is competent and substantial evidence to support approval of the requests; pointed out staff has found the requests consistent with the applicable codes and recommends approval; reviewed the primary objections noting the provision of special events was particularly controversial; discussed the City's Special Event review process and approval criteria; and concluded by noting the details of how the Park will operate will be spelled out in the Implementation Agreement the City Commission requires be processed after the approval of the site plan and related applications. Mr. Lafley discussed the development of the Implementation Agreement stating the process has been open and inclusive; stated once the details of the site development are known the Implementation Agreement will be presented to the City Commission for approval; said the applicants anticipate the Implementation Agreement will be presented to the City Commission in the Fall of 2021 which is before the Park will open; stated an additional round of public engagement will occur in advance of that; pointed out the proposed Park will be for the entire community; noted the residents of Condo on the Bay represent fewer than 1% of the community; said results from a survey indicate broad community support; and discussed the need for coordination of the calendar of events with the other institutions and City partners from 2022 and beyond. PB Chair Ohlrich requested Attorney Merrill identify three documents he submitted to the PB Members during his presentation. Attorney Merrill stated those documents are the City's ordinance that regulates special event permitting, the City's Special Events handbook and the City's Special Event application form. 2:47:25 P.M. PB Member Blumetti stated the statistics the Applicants provided were a compelling argument for approval; said the proposed site plan was well thought out; noted a park at this scale is needed in the City; pointed out the use ofl local Architects as a plus; questioned if the food and beverage area would be accessed via Boulevard of the Arts; asked if those details would be spelled out in the Implementation Agreement; noted the site plan narrative indicates a drop-off/ pick-up area would be located at the end of Boulevard of the Arts. Mr. Waddill stated the food and beverage area would be access from a small parking lot; food will primarily prepared off-site; and discussed drop-oft/pick-up areas noting none would be on Boulevard of the Arts. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 13 PB Vice Chair Salem questioned if the proposed height of the lighting fixtures was due to the tree heights; and stated his concern with the timing of the approval of the Implementation Agreement. Mr. Waddill confirmed the height of the lighting poles was due to the tree heights noting the taller fixtures will allow for fewer being installed. Mr. Lafley reiterated the Implementation Agreement was anticipated to go before the City Commission in Fall of 2021 for approval. Discussion ensued regarding the process; and the City's established hours of operation for parks; financing of The Bay Park project. PB Member Gannon questioned if lighting would be installed adjacent to the residential area; where the plaques and bricks preserved from the old GWIZ building would be installed; requested confirmation that there would be no drop-off/pick-up area on Boulevard of the Arts; stated there should be a proffer or condition that there will be no amplified sound on the boardwalk; and stated due to safety concerns no swimming, kayaking, or snorkeling should be permitted outside of the park area under the boardwalk. Mr. Waddill confirmed there would be no lighting installed adjacent to the residential area; stated the details of where the plaques and bricks from the former GWIZ structure would be placed was still being worked out; confirmed there would be no designated drop- off/pick-up area on Boulevard of the Arts; and noted swimmers, kayakers and snorkelers would be encouraged to stay within the park boundaries. Mr. Lafley stated there were no plans to allow amplified sound on the boardwalk. Discussion ensued regarding the different types of amplified sound. PB Member Morriss discussed the logistics of approving an Implementation Agreement without the site plan details versus approving the site plan without the Implementation Agreement details; and asked if the light fixtures would have outlets installed in them. Attorney Merrill stated the Implementation Agreement is step three of the process; and noted it will be detailed and enforceable. Discussion ensued regarding the advantages of finalizing the Implementation Agreement after site plan approval. Mr. Waddill discussed concerns with having outlets installed on the lighting fixtures noting for security reasons those would likely only be installed on the lighting fixtures in heavy traffic areas. PB Chair Ohlrich noted questions and answers had been submitted prior to the meeting and requested those be made a part oft the record by attaching the document to the minutes; stated her concerns with the Implementation Agreement not being first; questioned where emergency vehicle access would be; questioned if special events would be regulated; and noted her concerns regarding lighting and navigation had been addressed already. Mr. Waddill stated provisions were being made for emergency vehicle access off of Boulevard of the Arts. Discussion ensued regarding the City's special event process, regulations and procedures. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned limiting special events. Discussion ensued regarding the logistics and cost of hosting large scale events; how that issue will be addressed in the Implementation Agreement; and the appropriate location for large scale events. PB Member Gannon questioned the "sidewalk by others" notation on the site plan and if approval of the site plan would grant the applicants the right to install said sidewalk; and if the boardwalk would have electricity. Mr. Waddill stated any sidewalk installed at the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of1 13 location would be done by other sources such as the City; and stated the boardwalk would have low level lighting for security reasons. Discussion ensued. Attorney Merrill entered an email from David A. Barth and a submerged lands survey into the record. 3:27:00 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Services Director Panica and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. Director Panica noted Chief Transportation Planner McGue and Debbie Perez, Manager of Auditoriums who oversees all special events; were available via Zoom. Director Panica discussed the size, location and zoning of the site; noted G-Zone Waivers are reviewed based upon the standards for the most restrictive adjacent zoning; reviewed the existing conditions of the site; discussed previous approvals the City Commission granted related to the project; noted the Planning Board had considered and recommended approval of related Zoning Text Amendments and the City Commission approved those amendments; discussed the applications before the Planning Board and their purpose; noted the required Community Workshop had been held along with many other public input sessions sponsored by the applicants; and discussed tree removal, relocation and on-site mitigation. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discussed the traffic analysis stating the review was based upon conservative assumptions; discussed the site access/circulation concerns noting those had been addressed by the applicants; noted a Technical Deviation had been granted to eliminate a requirement for a cul de sac at the end of Boulevard of the Arts; pointed out sidewalk access across from a residential use is a common practice; discussed the ten year history of accidents in the area noting there have only been five; noted the permitting process for special events includes Engineering sign-off on traffic related issues; and said parking for special events would be routed to the large parking area adjacent to the Van Wezel and signage would be provided. Chief Transportation Planner McGue discussed the City's Complete Street program as it relates to Boulevard of the Arts; pointed out that is included in the Sarasota in Motion document; noted funding has been included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and stated any improvements to Boulevard of the Arts other than those approved as part of the the Bay Park. Phaselapplications will be fully vetted prior to presentation to the City Commission for approval. Director Panica stated the project has received DRC sign-off; said staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the staff report; clarified the Major Conditional Use application had also been found consistent with Section VI-804 of the Zoning Code; and noted the recently revised G-Zone Waiver criteria had been emailed to the Planning Board members prior to the meeting however those revisions did not impact staff' S review or recommendation. PB Member Blumetti questioned if it was correct that the Implementation Agreement was between Bay Park and the City Commission and the Planning Board would have no input. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 13 PB Vice Chair Salem questioned why the Implementation Agreement was included in Phase 3of the project. Director Panica noted the difficulties associated with generating the Agreement without the details in the site plan and noted an outline was included in the packets for today's meeting. PB Member Gannon discussed imposing conditions on projects and questioned if proposed Condition #2 contained any information that is not included in the Partnership Agreement. Director Panica stated the condition memorializes the requirements. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon stated the location of the boardwalk would generate increased foot traffic on Boulevard of the Arts in front of Condo on the Bay. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted that proposed sidewalk connection was not part of the applications being considered. Discussion ensued regarding the City's Complete Street project on Boulevard of the Arts and the need to direct pedestrians away from Condo on the Bay. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the public has a right to be on public sidewalks and pointed out signage could be places warning pedestrians of the traffic coming out of Condo on the Bay, noting the gate to that development is non-conforming. Discussion ensued regarding signage and the volume of traffic coming in/o out of Condo on the Bay during peak hours. Chief Transportation Planner McGue noted the proposed sidewalk connections encourage pedestrians to cross before reaching that point. PB Member Morriss stated he had no questions. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she had no further questions noting questions had been asked/answered prior to the meeting and would be made part of the record. The Planning Board Took a Ten-Minute Break 3:50:30 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich requested a sound check prior to reconvening the meeting; noted Acting Secretary Smith would be calling citizens; and asked any citizens that were providing testimony in-person to utilize the podium in the back of the room to do sO. Affected Persons: Attorney Robert Lincoln appeared; stated he represented the Condo on the Bay Management Association; discussed his credentials; stated the Partnership Agreement does not address Standards of Review for the applications that are being considered; noted compatibility issues related to noise from the boardwalk; discussed concerns related to conditions on special event permits, alcohol consumed on-site, pedestrian circulation/satety, navigation hazards, sidewalk connectivity, Comprehensive Plan consistency, climate change challenges, environmental impacts, additional compatibility issues, the definition of the type of park being proposed, management of special events, and various issues not addressed by regulations. Attorney Lincoln noted the ability for the applicants to process minor amendments to the approved site plan, stated the issues are land use: related rather than issues to be included in the Implementation Agreement, stated the proposed event facilities are designed to support large crowds on the boardwalk; stated there are no regulations for special events that address compatibility issues, discussed the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 13 process for adopting the Implementation Agreement; and requested the Planning Board recommend denial of the boardwalk and site plan and recommend the City Commission include his proposed conditions on any approvals. 4:12:38 P.M. PB Member Blumetti questioned if Mr. Lincoln was suggesting the site plan and proposed boardwalk be denied; and pointed out the issues are more appropriately addressed in the Implementation Agreement, noting the Planning Board had no jurisdiction over that document. Discussion ensued regarding the overall process; the lack of specific commitments; and previous City Commission actions regarding the overall project. PB: Member Gannon stated his concerns regarding the review criteria not being met; stated the proposed conditions submitted by Mr. Lincoln addressed those concerns; and asked if Mr. Lincoln was asking the Planning Board to recommend those conditions to the City Commission. Mr. Lincoln confirmed that was. his request, noting the Planning Board could alternatively find the applications do not meet the review criteria and recommend denial. PB Chair Ohlrich, PB Vice Chair Salem, and PB Member Morriss had no questions. 4:21:54 P.M. Attorney Connolly called upon Ms. Paige Atkins. Ms. Atkins appeared, stated she had been sworn, and said she supported the overall Bay Park project however is opposed to the Site Plan citing concerns with navigational hazards and the proximity of the boardwalk to the submerged land the COTB leases from the State. Attorney Connolly called upon Ms. Rhonda Brown. Ms. Brown appeared and stated she had not been sworn. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those that had not been previously sworn. Ms. Brown stated she was opposed to the project citing concerns with traffic, noise, enforcement, adequate emergency access. Attorney Connolly called upon Mr. Bill Diehl. Mr. Diehl appeared, stated he had been sworn, and discussed his concerns regarding the size and location of the boardwalk, environmental concerns, and the cost to the taxpayers; and noted there are several other parks in proximity to this proposed park that regular citizens can access. Attorney Connolly called upon Mr. Emanual Lauria. Mr. Lauria appeared and stated he is the President of the Renaissance, noted the Renaissance has a view corridor easement to preserve water views and requested compliance with that easement be demonstrated. Attorney Connolly called upon Mr. Paul Licursi. Mr. Licursi was not present. Attorney Connolly called upon Ms. Suzanne Lynch. Ms. Lynch appeared, stated she had been sworn, and said she supported the overall Bay Park project however had concerns regarding the size and location of the boardwalk, security, hours of operation, litter, traffic, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 13 event management; and requested the proposed sidewalk access across from COTB be eliminated. Attorney Connolly called upon Mr. Ysidore Perez. Mr. Perez appeared, stated he had been sworn, discussed his concerns regarding event management, stated sufficient information was lacking to find the project met the Standards of Review; and recommended the Planning Board deny the Site Plan. Attorney Connolly called upon Ms. Marcia Walsh. Ms. Walsh was not present. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 15 MINUTE BREAK 5:15:59 P.M. Citizen Input: Mr. Kevin Cooper, Representing Mote Marine Laboratory, appeared and discussed his credentials, noted the Bay Park Conservancy (BPC) has partnered with Mote Marine Laboratory on the project; stated The BPC has gone above and beyond in their efforts to enhance and restore Sarasota Bay; and stated his support for the project. Mr. Dirk Plessner appeared and stated he is a resident of the Beau Ceil Condominium; commended the improvements that have been made to date regarding the proposed site plan; discussed the public participation process noting the process was comprehensive; and recommended people trust the process. Mr. Carlos de Quesada appeared and stated he serves on the BPC Board however is speaking as a citizen; stated the process has been transparent; pointed out the amenities will be free to all citizens; and requested the Planning Board recommend approval. Ms. Cathy Layton appeared and stated she was the Chair of the BPC; stated the need for citizens to trust the process; discussed the public outreach process noting the proposal is based on collective input from citizens; and requested the Planning Board recommend approval. Ms. Tamara Logan appeared however stated she had no comments. Mr. Michael Klauber appeared and stated he is a City resident and a BPC Board member; discussed the overall vision and process to date; noted Phase Iis the first of several phases; noted the need for citizens to trust the process; and requested the Planning Board recommend approval of the applications. Mr. Steven Roskamp appeared and stated he represented the Sarasota Bay Club; discussed the process to date; noted citizen input has been critical in developing the plan; and requested the Planning Board recommend approval. Mr. Josh Weiner appeared and stated he is a Principal with the Longboat Group which developed the Cityside Apartments; stated the project will benefit the residents of Cityside as well as the overall community; and stated he supports the project. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 13 Ms. Jennifer Compton appeared and stated she is a Board member and Secretary for BPC; discussed the process used in developing the Partnership Agreement and Phase! I proposed site plan, etc.; and requested the Planning Board recommend approval. Mr. Henry Vonspeegle appeared and stated he is a resident of COTB and stated the City needs to consider the hours of operation and frequency of grass cutting and trash pickup; stated his concerns regarding traffic and parking for special events; and noted his opposition to the size and location of the proposed boardwalk citing navigationalhazards. Mr. John Proctor appeared and stated he is a resident of COTB; stated his opposition to the proposed amphitheater due to noise and the size and location of the boardwalk; and stated the need for a simpler design. Mr. Jon Thaxton appeared and stated he represented the Gulf Coast Community Foundation; discussed his credentials; discussed the process to date; noted the project benefits all citizens as well as the environment; discussed the fundraising efforts; and pointed out the property belongs to the public and should be developed as a public use. Mr. Stephen Kaszynski appeared and stated he is a resident of COTB; noted his concerns regarding navigational hazards; and requested the project be modified by moving the boardwalk and limiting swimming and kayaking areas. Ms. Teri Hansen was called upon however was not available. Mr. Rob Lane appeared and stated he is the Treasurer for the BPC; discussed the financial aspects of BPC; discussed the process; pointed out the public benefits; and requested the Planning Board recommend approval. Ms. Deborah Hamm was called upon however was not available. Mr. Donald Goodman appeared and stated he is a resident of The BLVD across from the subject property; stated he supported the project, including the boardwalk; noted the public benefits; and stated the specifics would be addressed in the Implementation Agreement. Attorney Keith DuBose appeared and stated hei is a BPC Board member as well as a citizen; stated his support for the project noting the environmental and community benefits; pointed out the process has been open and the proposal was developed based on extensive community input; and requested the Planning Board recommend approval. Ms. Renee Bondaroff was called upon however was not available. Mr. Alex Nichols was called upon however was not available. Acting Secretary Smith read a letter of opposition from Ms. Kaye Newman into the record. Ms. Teri Hansen was called upon again. Ms. Hansen appeared and stated she is the CEO of the Charles & Margery Barancik Foundation; noted the Foundation has provided grant Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 13 funds for the project; stated the project would be a public benefit for all; and requested the Planning Board recommend approval. The following citizens were called upon a second time however were not available: Moriah Taliaferro Allen Kraft Deborah Hamm THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 45 MINUTE BREAK 6:48:13 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich reconvened the meeting and requested roll call. All members were present. Affected Person Rebuttal: Ms. Paige Atkins pointed out a new submerged land lease the State issued in 2019 that decreased the area leased to COTB. Ms. Rhonda Brown stated the residents of COTB support the overall project. Mr. Bill Diehl stated the lack of communication and transparency is troublesome. Ms. Suzanne Lynch stated the review criteria had not been met. Mr. Ysidore Perez stated there has been a lack of transparency and the criteria has not been met. Mr. Robert Lincoln stated there is a lack of competent and substantial evidence for approval; stated the BPC had cut off communication with COTB; said the issue is the implementation has to respect the neighbors; said the compatibility standard has not been met; suggested the BPC needs to negotiate further with COTB; discussed his proposed conditions noting the site plan process needs to be revised to allow for the PB members to recommend additional conditions; and requested the Planning Board recommend denial requesting alternatively the PB: recommend approval with the inclusion of his proposed conditions. Staff Rebuttal: Director Panica, Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein, and Chief Transportation Planner McGue appeared. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discussed the special event approval process noting he signs off on the traffic related issues; stated the City reviews impacts on the right-of-way; discussed the traffic circulation in the area including parking enforcement; and stated the emergency vehicle access is adequate. Director Panica pointed out the Solid Waste Plan that is part of the materials includes trash pick-up details. PB Member Gannon questioned how the handling of special events by the BPC would differ from how the City handles special events. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated there would be no difference. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 13 PB Member Blumetti questioned if the DRC had signed off on the same plans the Planning Board was considering at this public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding the process. PB Member Blumetti asked Attorney Connolly if the Implementation Agreement would be reviewed by the Planning Board or if it was between the BPC and the City Commission. Attorney Connolly confirmed the Planning Board had no jurisdiction over the Implementation Agreement. PB Member Morriss, PB Vice Chair Salem and PB Chair Ohlrich had no. further questions. Attorney Lincoln cross-examined staff questioning the timing of trash pick-up. Director Panica stated the trash pick-up could be done daily. Discussion ensued. Attorney Lincoln questioned if Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein was familiar with the thresholds for special events. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated he was not. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Merrill, Consultant Penny Cutt, Mr. Waddill and Mr. Lafley appeared. Attorney Merrill stated there was competent and substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Board to recommend approval; discussed the Standards for Review; noted the Planning Board recommendations are based upon "on balance"; stated the Planning Board has discretion and can recommend additional conditions; pointed out staff had found the applications consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval; discussed special events and temporary uses; and stated the process has been transparent to date and will continue to be. Ms. Cutt noted her credentials; discussed the permitting requirements noting federal, state and local agencies were involved in the review; discussed the avoidance, minimization and compensation theory and how environmental impacts would be mitigated; review the environmental benefits that would be realized; and discusses submerged land leases, navigation channels and public access. Mr. Waddill discussed the trash pick-up plan; review the public outreach process noting BPC met with COTB twenty-three times; stated there were three issues that could not be resolved; pointed out the BPC was aware of the view corridor for the Renaissance and said the project will not encroach on that view corridor; discussed the fundraising and budget components of the project; and discussed sea level rise noting their environmental expert had concluded the deck elevation would not be exceeded during extreme high tides. Mr. Lafley discussed the communications the BPC had with the surrounding condominium residents; pointed out those communications were primarily virtual since Spring of 2020 due to the pandemic; pointed out the lack of communication from COTB to BPC; discussed the proposed conditions related to security, hours of operation, and special events that Attorney Lincoln had submitted; stated the details will be spelled out in the Implementation Agreement; pointed out the BPC would be administering the special events using the City's process; discussed fundraising; and stated the BPC was committed to excellence. Attorney Lincoln cross-examined the applicants noting Mr. Lafley had stated COTB was attempting to stop the process. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Ohlrich reminded Attorney Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 13 Lincoln of the Code of Conduct. Attorney Lincoln questioned Ms. Cutt regarding impacts to the sea grasses. Ms. Cutt stated the sea grasses will improve due to mitigation and discussed the specifics. Attorney Lincoln questioned Mr. Waddill regarding criteria for the deck height noting the criteria is not in the report. Discussion ensued regarding the analysis relating to sea level rise over the next 50 years, storm surge, required engineering sign-offs on the design, and the environmental permitting process at the federal, state and local levels. PB Member Morriss, PB Vice Chair Salem and PB Member Blumetti had no further questions. PB Member Gannon expressed concerns regarding the potential for the deck height to change during the permitting process and requested the applicants proffer that if the height of the deck changes they will come back before the Planning Board. Discussion ensued. Attorney Merrill declined noting Code regulations will address any issues. PB Chair Ohlrich had no further questions. 8:16:14 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss discussed the timeline for developing the Implementation Agreement stating the applications being considered at this hearing should not be held up during that process. PB: Member Morriss made a motion to find Conditional Use 20-CU-03 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code and to find Site Plan 20-SP-04 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Conditional Use and Site Plan, subject to the four conditions. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss stated the issues were better addressed in the Implementation Agreement and suggested the conditions proposed by Attorney Lincoln should be considered by the City Commission. PB Vice Chair Salem stated his concerns regarding the timeline for the development of the Implementation Agreement and stated he supported the motion because the City Commission had already set out the process. PB Member Blumetti stated he supported the motion noting the project meets the goal in the Comprehensive Plan regarding public access to the water; commended the applicant team's efforts; and agreed the City Commission should take Attorney Lincoln's] proposed conditions into consideration when developing the Implementation Agreement. PB Member Gannon questioned Attorney Connolly regarding the Planning Board's ability to place additional conditions on an application. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated the Planning Board could request the applicants proffer additional conditions. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Ohlrich noted the many uncertainties stating those would be negotiated as part of the Implementation Agreement. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Member Gannon voting no. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she would entertain a motion to find Application 20-GZW-02 consistent with Section IV-1706 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission of the petition with the one condition. PB Member Morriss SO moved. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 13 PB Chair Ohlrich stated she would entertain a motion to find Adjustment 20-ADP-02 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to the one condition. PB Member Blumetti sO moved. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. PB Member Gannon made a motion that the Planning Board recommend to the City Commission that they give strong consideration to incorporating the conditions submitted by Mr. Lincoln into the Implementation Agreement. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti stated he did not receive the document. The Planning Board took a three minute break sO that PB Member Blumetti could review the document. PB Member Gannon spoke to his motion stating Attorney Lincoln's proposed conditions address the many issues and should be strongly considered by the City Commission. PB Member Morriss agreed. PB Member Blumetti stated he did not support the motion as the Implementation. Agreement is outside the Planning Board's purview. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Salem had no comments. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she agreed the City Commission should strongly consider including Attorney Lincoln's proposed conditions in the Implementation Agreement. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Vice Chair Salem and PB Member Blumetti voting no. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:48 P.M. eth Lly DADo Steyen R. Cover,Planning Director Kathy Klelley Ohlricn, Chair Planning Départment Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board] Planning Board Special Meeting January 28, 2021 1. Staff - The four applications have been consolidated into 1 hearing. Despite that there is rationale to move the items separately as they are standalone items. Why do you suggest only one motion? There are three proposed motions. One for the CU-SP applications with four conditions, the second for the GZW application with one condition and the third for the ADP application with one condition. 2. Applicant = There are multiple references to many voluntary community meetings. Exactly how many have there been? 40 public meetings/workshops have been held since December 2017 in preparation of the Master Plan and Phase 1 Site Plan, with approximately 4,500 attendees. Additionally, approximately 10,000 surveys have been recorded both in person and online as a part of this process. 3. Staff - Blue Page, condition 1, line 2 - "cannot" should be "shall not" and regarding condition 2 - thought the Partnership Agreement required the Implementation Plan be approved by CC prior to applicant's submittal of applications. Please clarify. The change to condition one can be made at the hearing. That is the correct that the Partnership Agreement requires the mplementation Plan to be approved prior to the submittals of the application. That has occurred. The condition refers to the mplementation Agreement which is ditterent than the mplementation Plan. The Implementation Plan (Step 1) was approved unanimously by the City Commission Sept. 2019. The Implementation Agreement is the 3rd step -it follows approval of the Site Plan (2nd step), but before Park phase construction completion, and requires a 3rd meeting and approval by the City Commission. 4. Applicant = There's great concern about traffic and traffic circulation primarily from COTB residents. Please address how traffic/parking will directed away from BOTA; address the technical deviation that has been approved. Also address why the technical deviation is needed only temporarily. The existing condition of the former 30,000 SF GWiz Museum, and the originally approved Master Plan in 2018, retained 110+ parking spaces in the Phase 1 site area, with multiple access points off of BOTA. The updated Site plan reduces on site parking by approximately 100 spaces, and provides for access only off of Van Wezel Way. The Site Plan also reflects multiple directional signs directing drivers to turn North on Van Wezel Way and park in the VW lot, or Historic District lot, and walk in. Additionally, parking and drop off is prohibited at the end of BOTA. The technical deviation is required as the EDCM Manual for 20+/- years has shown a 2 lane undivided roadway (without a median) with on street parking for BOTA, which would require reconstruction of the road. The TD allows it to stay as it is (as requested by COTB). The Site Plan actually removes parking off of the West end of BOTA, and prohibits drop off. Staff response: a. "Event Parking" signs will be placed at Boulevard of the Arts and Van Wezel Way to direct traffic to park over near the Van Wezel. There may also be main entrance signage over on 10th Street, which the applicant may further clarify. b. The technical deviation was to permit the turnaround in its current form rather than requiring a 100-foot diameter cul-du-sac. C. The technical deviation is temporary in case the Boulevard of the Arts Streetscape makes modifications. 5. Applicant = the lighting plan = there is concern about lighting having a negative impact on residents, especially those at 988 BOTA. Please address the photometric lighting plan and how it will mitigate adverse effects of lighting. The lighting plan has been carefully designed (by HLB Lighting Design) to meet the requirements of City Code, and is being designed to allow for "0-10" dimming by zone very much a state of the art design for a park. This means that lights can be dimmed or brightened by zone as needed = much like lights in your house on a dimmer. This also allows the lights to come on to a certain safe level after dark until park closing, then turn off/dim overnight, but allow for zones to be turned back up if a security issue necessitates it. The lighting will also be "cut off" and minimize glare, and minimize light spillage past the property line per City code. 6. Applicant and Staff = Section IV-1701 says the intent of the G-Zone waiver process is to allow the CC to grant "waivers from the literal terms of these regulations where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. What are the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in this case? Have other designs that would not require a G-Zone been considered? Applicant response: Other designs have absolutely been considered and evaluated. Most of the G Zone waivers are to allow safe lighting that meets City Code within the 30' waterfront set back along the Mangrove Bayou. This Bayou is a completely City owned upland cut, and the 30' waterfront setback was intended for Sarasota Bay applications, not private upland cuts. Additionally, the 40' cut off light fixtures along the South and East edge of the Bayou are nestled in amongst drifts of hundreds of mature 40'+ Cabbage Palms, or existing large, mature 40'+ Live Oaks and Black Olives. Additionally, the over water structures require waivers and Conditional Use requests as required by Code. Staff response: That is the purpose of G-Zone Waivers. The approval criteria is found in section IV-1706(1) and page 16 of the staff report. The applicant has expanded on the last two questions. 7. P. 8 = Applicant and staff - re first G-Zone waiver = how do light poles that are 40 feet or 22 feet in height impact security and safety better than light poles 15 feet in height? During what hours will the lights be on/off? Please see reponse to questions 5&6 regarding light pole height and design. Light hours of operation and on site levels are to be determined based on Park hours, which will be approved as a part of the Implementation Agreement (IA). That said, the BPC is committed to meeting existing City requirements for parks, and park hours will be within the window of hours that exist in the City, and as approved by City Commission in the IA. 8. P. 8 Applicant and staff - There is concern that the view of the bay and the bridge will be negatively impacted when looking from the Van Wezel outdoor area. Please address that and show renderings if you have them. Renderings will be shown that illustrate the view is improved from the Van Wezel due to Mangrove windowing, and the view from BOTA and the Phase 1 site is dramatically improved compared to the view allowed when the GWiz building existed from 1976 until removed by the City in 2019. 9. P. 8 = Applicant and staff - last paragraph - adjustment is being requested for the upland walkway for the boardwalk in the 30 foot waterfront setback. A max of 4.91 feet above natural grade is proposed. Is it correct, that the maximum height will be 34.91 feet if the adjustment is granted? Applicant response: The Boardwalk is designed to be at 8.0' above MHWL consistently. Staff response: The 30 foot setback in a horizontal measurement taken from mean high water. Within the 30 foot setback items can only be 30 inches in height. The upland walkway will be a max of 4.91 feet above natural grade. 10. Staff -Transportation concurrency - is it for phase 1 only? Are there any requirements for or is there any consideration for conducting additional traffic analyses for the project as built out? This is for phase 1 only. Additional phases will require additional traffic reviews. 11.Mr. Lincoln writes that staff requested a draft of the Implementation Agreement on 2/15/2019. Is that true? Why has the Implementation Agreement not been provided? This is a correct. An outline of the Implementation Agreement was submitted at this phase. Staff accepted the outline and proposed condition two because it is a challenge to plan the details of the park without having a final design. 12.Pps. 11- 12 AND P 57 Section IV-904 contains standards of review for Conditional Uses. D on p. 12 - There is concern about noise, glare from lights, late night operations, and truck and delivery trips, litter. Staff response refers to the implementation Agreement, which we do not have. P 57 in the Partnership Agreement, at the top of the page, reads "No application for development approvals in a particular phase shall be filed by BPC or accepted for filing by the City. " How can the applications we are considering today be consistent with this clause of the Partnership Agreement? P. 61, #6 also addresses that the Implementation Plan shall be approved by the CC prior to site plan submittal. P. 63, #10 also addresses the Implementation Plan, stating the BPC entering into contracts with third party contractors in accordance with an approved mplementation Plan. Please address. Applicant response: There may be confusion between the Implementation Plan (Step 1) and the Implementation Agreement (Step 3). The mplementation Plan (IP) was approved unanimously by the City Commission on Sept. 16, 2019, therefore enabling the 2nd Step in the process, the Phase 1 Site Plan Application, currently under consideration. The Implementation Agreement (IA) will follow as Step 3 in the process after approval of the Phase 1 Site Plan. Staff response: The answer provided for #3 should address this. The Implementation Plan and mplementation Agreement are different documents. 13. Applicant -In the email communication from Mr. Lincoln, dated 1/20/21, he writes on p. 2 of 13, "If COTB and the community are going to have to rely on the Implementation Agreement to guarantee the compatibility of the Park, there must be clear direction to the BPC on how it will be developed and what it will address. " Also in that communication, attachment 2 contains proposed conditions to be imposed on the site plan and conditional use. Please review the proposed conditions, identifying any you can live with and any that are deal breakers. The May 28, 2020 IA Outline identifies what will be proposed in the implementation Agreement. Any conditions related to operation or activation of the park will be addressed in the Implementation Agreement following approval of the Phase 1 Site Plan per the BPC Partnership Agreement. 14.Mr. Lincoln asks if the mplementation Agreement will be negotiated 'privately." 1 Is that true? The mplementation Agreement has to be approved by the City Commission. Staff will be able to review it and request changed/additions to it before the City Commission receives it. 15. Applicant = Regarding the Partnership Agreement - P. 55 addresses the financial Plan. Also, P. 74 of our packet addresses the funding sources. Has the financial plan changed, have the sources of funding changed or the percentage of projected funding from the various sources changed since the Partnership Agreement was signed? Are taxpayer funds being used to a greater degree than originally proposed? No. Phase 1 will be built with cash, and approximately 2/3 with private funding as previously committed, and approved in the Phase 1 Implementation Plan. Upon completion of all phases, the Bay Park capital funding will balance out to approximately 50% public and private sources. 16.Applicant - Pps. 81 -85 contain a memo dated March 20, 2020 from Mr. Laffley and Mr. Waddill to Ms. Panica. On P 82, 4th paragraph, it says BPC is working closely with all current site incumbents. As well as with Hyatt to develop a baseline calendar. Last sentence - This was written PRE pandemic. Please explain how that effort is progressing. The calendar was put on hold as most site programming has been cancelled during the pandemic. This effort will resume as we emerge from the current pandemic. 17. Applicant = P. 61, (8) - reads "City shall transfer responsibility for the permitting and conduct of special events within The Bay Park at the completion of each phase in accordance with section 8 of the Agreement. Then on Pps 87 = 88 in a letter from Mr Pankonin to Ms. Panica, there are details about the differences between passive and active parks. In paragraph 4 active parks are described (read.) In paragraph 5, passive parks are described (read.) Mr. Pankonin concludes by writing, "lt is my professional opinion that the Bay Park Phase 1 be considered a passive park for all intents and purposes. P. 93, (5) describes drop-off locations and service access to food and beverage pavilion. It refers to a 10' wide vehicular-grade walkway which will also serve as an occasional service route for event and programming access and set-up. If, as Mr. Pankonin writes, "passive parks host activities that typically require no organization, special facilities," with all the provisions I've iterated above for events, how can phase 1 be considered a passive park? As previously shared with City staff and elected officials, and as expressed by the City's Master Plan consultant, passive VS. active is not an effective way to evaluate or describe appropriateness of parks in a district or neighborhood. That said, many parks considered typically passive have occasional permitted events. 5 Points Park is an example of a typically passive park, that hosts occasional permitted events. The 10' shared path in the Phase 1 Park is designed for walkers, joggers, and bicyclists day to day, and also accommodates occasional access by rubber tire vehicles (including EMS vehicles if needed) for permitted events. 18. Applicant and Staff - there are multiple references in applicant and staff reports that The Bay Park will have a large net benefit to the nearshore benthic communities. Yet, in a number of emails PB members received as well as in the communication from Mr. Lincoln, there are references to not protecting seagrass and doing damage to benthic communities. It can't be both. What is it? BPC's environmental working group and advisors, that include the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, the Science and Advisory Council, START, Gulf Shellfish Institute, Mote Marine, and others, are providing advice that has been incorporated into the Phase 1 and future implementation of the Master Plan. These recommendations, when executed, will have a dramatic positive impact on the near shore benthic communities. BPC is spending several million dollars in Phase 1 to improve both onsite and off site water quality challenges, and will continue to do SO in future phases. 19. Staff - P. 155 - (The lettering of the comments is not sequential.) Have the 11 comments from Mr. Ohrenstein been taken into consideration and are they included in the applications we are discussing today? Yes a. The driveways were reduced in size compared to the original submittal. b. The lane width of Van Wezel Way was reduced. C. Parallel parking geometry was corrected. d. The pertinent MURT path was widened. e. This sidewalk will be completed with the Boulevard of the Arts Streetscape project. f. This crosswalk was removed. g. The roofs were made opaque. h. Shade trees were included in the final layout along Van Wezel Way. i. Bike racks are shown. j. Dumpsters were sited appropriately per discussions with Solid Waste. k. The small wireless facility will stay in place. 20.Applicant and staff -Email = Concern expressed about boardwalk interfering with navigation for COTB docks, not enough space for marine service barges especially during adverse weather conditions. Please address this. The proposed pedestrian boardwalk provides approximately 4x the City Code and State Statutory required setback of 25'. In addition, COTB's marine contractor (interviewed last year while installing large boat lifts at COTB's motorized boat docks) confirmed that their largest barge and crane can navigate within the 25' setback requirement, SO the provided 100' setback provides a substantial buffer. 21.Applicant - Email = will amplified sound be allowed on the boardwalk? BPC continues to state that activation will be consistent with existing City policies and permit requirements, and will be outlined in additional detail in the future mplementation Agreement. 22. Applicant - Email = will Swimming, kayaking, snorkeling be allowed S of the boardwalk? Yes - the proposed Boardwalk is for pedestrians. A floating platform South of the structure will allow for a few non motorized vessels canoes/kayaks/paddleboards) to pull up alongside, as well as occasional use by small groups of waders/snorkelers, possibly as a part of future environmental education programming. 23. Applicant and staff - When permitting of events at The Bay Park transters from City to BPC, will Park not have to follow city ordinances or processes other parks follow? Will the sunset pier be unregulated? BPC has committed to follow City policies for Parks. The discussion has been been to possibly delegate the permitting of these policies and permit applications on site to the BPC in the future. 24.Applicant and staff - Email = suggests the BPC site plan "grossly misstates the total (submerged) land lease square footage for the COTB docks. 1 Can you clarify? The State of Florida provided the signed and sealed survey dated 7/13/18, by Amberger Land Surveying, to BPC that clearly identifies the land lease area of the 2 COTB docks as 95,022.94 SF. This SF matches that shown on sheet C-13 of the Phase 1 Site Plan application. A copy of this survey from the public records can be provided to the City if desired 25. Applicant = Email = there's been no public input on pier after the redesign. Please comment. Multiple public workshops and surveys, as well as meetings of BPC's Neighbor and Community Outreach Working Groups, were racilitated in Spring and Summer of 2019 to solicit input on the proposed refined design. This input resulted in the refined Phase 1 Plan that was approved unanimously on Sept. 16, 2019 by City Commission. 26.Site Plan, P C-10 shows kayak storage. For how many kayaks? If it will be moved every day, it's not for long term storage. What is it for? The detail of the kayak storage structure is on pages 110-112. The structure can hold 6 kayaks. The structure will be used for short term storage and cleaning the kayaks as is found in Bird Key Park. 27.Site Plan, P. C-15 shows the outdoor plaza with outdoor seating. Seating for how many? The shaded plaza area for seating is approximately 40'x50' = and intended to be a flexible area for a relatively small number of movable tables and chairs. 28.Email - urging PB members to "Please do your homework. " Done! Reading the correspondence concerning the Bay Park project, a common thread is a concern about events/ operations within the park; citing potential 'compatibility' problems. In previous meetings we asked about the full process for event permits and the threshold crowd size for triggering the need for permit. In addition, there is a concern about who will issue those permits and when that changes from the norm. 1: Please provide the proper information/ staff to fully answer that question. It's clear that parks will attract people. The better the draw the more people - but some see an active park as incompatible. Clearly attracting people is intrinsic and that question was answered by both the Planning Board and the City Commission months ago. So, the real question is how to avoid or minimize potential noxious uses. Correspondence from Robert Lincoln calls for standards/ proffers to be applied to ensure compatibility. 2: Please discuss standards and proffers in detail. - Phase 1 has been designed as a primarily passive Park. In addition, the Phase 1 Park has been designed to accommodate occasional appropriately sized events. Our Partnership Agreement negotiated with the City (and adopted unanimously in 2019) separated the City's Site Plan Application process into 3 steps, for each Park Phase, all of which go to City Commission for review and approval: 1. Implementation Plan - A preliminary site plan document, with preliminary costs and design. 2. Site Plan - containing refined physical design elements of the Park 3. Implementation Agreement (IA) - containing details regarding activation, operations, and maintenance. This IA is to be negotiated (and approved by City Commission) after approval of the Site Plan, but before the opening of any phase. So, the answer to the above question is activation and operations will be approved by the City Commission prior to opening each Park phase. BPC has also stated that we are committed to meeting the City's current requirements for park operations, and events permitting - which is very thorough. A general question is about concessions: There is a concession pavilion shown but in many of the great parks around the world, more diffuse and small-scale concessions (i.e. Pushcarts) are accommodated to easily expand/ contract amenities as the need arises. Many of those pushcarts are self-contained but sometimes providing a water tap and electrical plug can expand the offering. It's relatively simple and inexpensive to do in initial construction and staggeringly expensive after. 3:Are provisions being made I didn't see? The Concession is designed to be flexible, and test different kinds of offerings; however, no cooking will be done at this site. So any food will be prepared off site, with appropriate beverage offerings on site. It is conceivable that push carts could be utilized, and even occasional food trucks, could be available on the East parking lot accessed from Van Wezel Way. Finally, the placement of the boardwalk has been described as a safety concern. 4: Please provide recognized common standards for proximities and clearances The Sunset Boardwalk for pedestrians has been designed to be compatible in scale for this phase of the Park, and of a similar size and scale to the existing motorized boat docks to the South. The setback from the South property line meets the City's and State Statutory requirement of 25' at it's closest point, but quickly curves away to the North to provide a 100' separation from the closest motor boat dock to the South - again, 4 times the statutory requirement. Additionally, no pedestrian drop off will be allowed on BOTA, with drop off areas provided off of Van Wezel Way, and at the North side near Van Wezel Hall. Lastly, multiple 10- 12' fully accessible shared paths are being provided to connect users to the parking lots north of Van Wezel Hall, and East at the Historic District. Questions for PB Meeting 2021-01-28 (v1) 20-SP-04 - Lucia Panica Questions for Staff: 1. P.8-3rd para. What is height of current light poles at west end of Blvd of the Arts? Approximately 40 feet. 2. P.9 - Site Plan Analysis Why is the City staff not requesting a Mitigation Plan to minimize the environmental impacts from constructing and operating the Municipal Boardwalk over the sensitive submerged lands, as stated by environmental expert, Penny Cutt? The following input if from environmental expert Penny Cutt: Mitigation is sequential and includes avoidance, minimization, and compensation. We are developing a comprehensive mitigation plan that includes all three and will be included with our application packages. We have been incorporating avoidance into the design by creating a circular spiral pier that goes out beyond the seagrass to minimize shading. We are also siting the pier piles SO as to avoid impacts to mangrove trunks to the extent practicable. Additionally the pier is narrowed where it passes over the nearshore band of seagrass further avoiding impacts. We are minimizing impacts by elevating the pier more than 6 feet above mean high water to allow sunlight penetration as the sun passes from east to west. We have also included light transmitting materials (grated decking or similar) over the portions of the structure that traverses seagrass. Additionally we will be relocating corals in the footprint of pier pilings, as well as other corals, if recommended by FWC and NMFS, under the pier structure. As compensation we will be incorporating oyster bags and clam seeding into the Phase I design, improving water quality, removing exotic vegetation from the shoreline, incorporating substrate conducive to coral growth and fishery habitat into the structural design and removing silty sediment from the bayou. Additional compensatory mitigation will be provided as determined by a functional assessment. Once we have quantified the direct impacts from the final design of the structure's impacts will be assessed with a functional assessment - 62-345 FAC uniform mitigation assessment methodology (UMAM) to determine ecological debits from project impacts and score the proposed mitigation for ecological credits and ensure our credits exceed our debits. This will ensure no net loss of aquatic functions and values. The proposed mitigation plan will be submitted with the application packages to SWFWMD and USACE for evaluation and discussion. 3. P.11, Conditional Use Analysis - (2)a Questions for PB Meeting 2021-01-28 (v1) What conditions could the City propose to mitigate the potential for 'significant lessening of the residential function" due to 'increased proportion of non- residential uses" due to the Municipal Boardwalk I'memorable gateway to the Bay"] adjacent to and directly impacting the 600 person residential property at COTB? City Staff have imposed hours of use and amplified music limitations on other site plans and conditional use applications as mitigation. While detailed hours of operation will be defined in the future Implementation Agreement, why can't certain mitigation conditions be included in PB and CC approval Conditions for the SP & CU, stipulating that these mitigation Conditions are to be included in the future Implementation Agreement? The PB and the CC can impose conditions that they believe are suited for these applications. Staff felt that the proposed conditions and the material received were adequate in ensuring that the criteria is met. The Conditional Use is only for the Municipal Board walk and the Overlook Pier and the Site Plan is for the development of the park (phase only). The activation of the passive park will be detailed in the Implementation Agreement. Please have Debbie Perez, City Events Manager, (or appropriate knowledgeable management) available for Q&A during Staff presentation on Thursday, to discuss the City's approval process for 'special events" and "park permits". Debbie will be in attendance. 4. P.33. BPC Application Narrative What Phase 1 Park Hours is being proposed to enable "star-gazing" on the Boardwalk at night for this "Enlivened Destination"? The hours of operation will be detailed in the Implementation Agreement. 5. P.37 BPC Application Narrative Drop-Off and Service Access: How will the City enforce the use of the "third drop-off location at the end of Blvd of the Arts for use by the elderly and disabled" to ensure that ONLY those designated people use that location for drop-off? Response from Parking Division staff: The city will enforce the use of appropriately signed and designated spaces for the ADA/and drop offs, using general patrol standards by both Police and Parking Enforcement staff. There is no distinction between "elderly" and those that are not, nor is there a definition making this distinction. Unless signed differently, the law permits anyone to drop off using public streets and curbs. Questions for PB Meeting 2021-01-28 (v1) Questions for Applicant: 1. P. 35. BPC Application Narrative What is "The Living & Learning Lab" and why is it advertised that the location "where Boulevard of the Arts meets Sarasota Bay" is the 'memorable gateway to the Bay"? The Living Learning Lab is a phrase we have utilized to convey that this 1st Phase is an area where we will try different types learning activities, including environmental education programs for school children and other interested users, to share the stories about the damage done to the environment over the past 100 years on the site, and all of the tools we are deploying to help nature heal itself. The 2nd phrase is simply recognition that BOTA dead ends at the Sarasota Bay, and our site has % mile of shoreline 2. P.38. Traffic Calming Measures The text shown is a duplication of the text from the previous section on Pedestrian Circulation. Please provide Applicant's text for this topic. As Phase 1 is primarily non-vehicular park area, there is a limited area for traffic calming. The only area where traffic calming applies is on the small segment of the private roadway (not public ROW) Van Wezel Way where it intersects with BOTA - an elevated cross walk has been added to slow drivers turning north, and alert them to possible pedestrians crossing the private roadway. 3. P.40. Honor Architectural Heritage of the Site Where are the plaques and sponsor bricks from the old GWIZ going to be placed on this Phase 1 site as was promised before the Library/GWIZ building was demolished? These elements were collected and have been stored as previously noted. As Phase 1 of the park is currently under design, the final location for incorporating some of the elements has not been determined. The team is currently studying honoring the Selby Library/GWiz at the old library reading room "remnant" that exists on the south side of the bayou. Additionally, the design architect Sweet Sparkman has interpreted the Field Theory architectural concepts into the Phase 1 site structures. 4. P. 136. Oct. 16, 2019 Community Workshop When asked, "How many will come?", you said "Let us do some more detailed design and evaluate what the capacity is". So 15 months later, what number of visitors are expected on a daily or weekly average and what is peak load for a special event at the Phase 1 Park and what is the capacity of people on the Boardwalk? As previously noted, proposed types, size, and frequency of events will be provided in Questions for PB Meeting 2021-01-28 (v1) the forthcoming Implementation Agreement, as outlined in the Partnership Agreement between the BPC and the City. This document is to be developed and approved by the City Commission after approval of the Phase 1 Site Plan, and prior to CO of the Phase 1 Park. Karen Grassett From: Lucia Panica Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:21 AM Cc: Steven Cover; David Smith; Mike Connolly; Karen Grassett Subject: RE: The Bay Questions Attachments: Typical Sarasota Intracoastal Bridge fender clearance_1 1.27.21.lores.pdr Planning Board members (blind copied), Clarification was requested on question #3 sent in the email below. The clarification requested stated: The question was concerns raised about boating navigation : in boating, what are the recognized standards for clearances, passages, etc. I'd like to be sure that opinion does not overshadow universal standards. To rephrase, is there some expert who knows the actual safe clearances between an access channel and an obstruction like the proposed boardwalk? The applicant has requested that their experts at Moffat & Nichols address the question and the response will be forwarded once its received. In the meantime, here is the response from the applicant: 1. City Code, and State Statutes require a 25' setback from the riparian property line. That tells you that 50' is the desired minimum between boat docks, (although there are many examples of residential docks that are much closer than that). 2. Most of the Intracoastal bridges have 90' clearance at the fenders, but some are as small as 50' (see attached photos). Blackburn Point Bridge clearance is 50.' 3. Based on a call to Sarasota Dock and Davit, a prominent local dock and boat lift contractor, they stated that they can get all of their barges and cranes required to build docks and boat lifts of this scale within a 25' clearance. They installed the recently built boat lifts at COTB. Based on this prior research, and by design, the minimum clearance provided from the COTB North dock and our Phase 1 pedestrian Boardwalk is 100' - more than the 90' fender clearance provided at most local Intracoastal bridge underpasses, and the 92' clearance the COTB North dock has from its adjacent seawall. Thank you, Lucia Panica Director Department of Development Services 941.263.6000 ext. 36592 / 941.954.4179 (f) The City of Sarasota's Values of Excellence: Integrity, Accountability, Teamwork and Respect Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Lucia Panica Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 5:00 PM Cc: Steven Cover <Steven.Cover@sarasotaflgov; David Smith <David.Smith@sarasotaFLgov; Mike Connolly <Mike.Connolly@sarasotaFLgov; Karen Grassett <Karen.GrassettesarasotaFLgov> Subject: RE: The Bay Questions 1 Planning Board members (blind copied), Attached are the questions and answers from the applicant to questions submitted by a Planning Board member for the Bay Phase I project. Additional questions and answers will be sent as soon as they are completed. Thank you, Thank you, Lucia Panica Director Department of Development Services 941.263.6000 ext. 36592 / 941.954.4179 (f) The City of Sarasota's Values of Excellence: Integrity, Accountability, Teamwork and Respect Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Lucia Panica Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 4:50 PM Cc: Steven Cover <Steven.CoverOsarasotaFLgov; David Smith <David.Smith@sarasotaFLgov; Mike Connolly <Mike.c ComolyPainoleruoo, Karen Grassett <Karen.Grassett@satt@sarasotafLgOV Subject: The Bay Questions Planning Board members (blind copied), Attached are the questions and answers to questions submitted by a Planning Board member fort the Bay Phase I project. Additional questions and answers will be sent as soon as they are completed. Thank you, Lucia Pavica Director Department of Development Services 941.263.6000 ext. 36592 / 941.954.4179 (f) capnaesridersor The City of Sarasota's Values of Excellence: Integrity, Accountability, Teamwork and Respect Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. E-mail messages sent or received by City of Sarasota officials and employees in connection with official City business are public records subject to disclosure under the Florida Public Records Act. 2 3 36n9 PIBA C 9 09 GBR S - 359 9 a - 53 8 & a C : - - € , 2 & a C AT - - 8 C C a - - 8 o 0 C 25' < - - - - C TOTAL APPROXIMATE 50 50 TOTAL LEASE AREA, LEASE AREA, BOARDWALK: PIERS 1 AND 2: 78,558 SF 95,023 SF BOARDWALK CONTEXT DIAGRAM 4 SCALE: 1"=100-0'