CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY December 14, 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 and Alternate PB Member Christy Planning Board Members Absent: Michael Halflants City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steve Cover, Director, Planning Department Alison Christie, AICP, Development Services Chief Planner Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services 1:43:45 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Salem called the meeting to order. Planning Director Cover [acting as the Planning Board's Secretaryl called the roll. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1:44:401 P.M. III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Attorney Connolly stated the Quay Development Agreement Amendment item will not be heard today and will be readvertised for a date in the future. 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 ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Cover read the Pledge of Conduct. B. Legislative Public Hearings Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for the presentations that will follow; and administered the oath to those wishing to testify at the public hearings. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 17 1:46:41 P.M. 1. The Bay Park - Centennial Park Site (1059 North Tamiami Trail) [Continued From 11/18/22): Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 22-PA-05 is a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to amend the Future Land Use Map from Open Space-Recreation-Conservation to Metropolitan Regional #5 for an 8.83+ acre property with a street address of 1059 North Tamiami Trail; and to revise the Metropolitan Regional #5 Future Land Use Map Classification text, including addition of a new. Action Strategy 2.13, to allow for implementation of The Bay Park Master Plan. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning) Attorney Connolly provided clarity as to the purpose of today's discussion stating at the last meeting there was a recommended motion that dealt with two aspects, a Future Land Use change and a text change; stated the PB voted to break up the recommended motion into two motions; stated the first motion was to Adopt a motion to find that Petition 22-PA05, amending the Future Land Use Map from Open Space-Recreation- Conservation to Metropolitan Regional #5, is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan 2030 and is in the public interest, and recommend the City Commission approve the petition"; stated that motion passed with a 4-0 vote so is complete; said the second aspect was the text amendment and the discussion dealt primarily with the issue of administrative review; noted page 37 of the staff report has the new Action Strategy 2.13; said the sentence at the end that says an administrative review process shall be incorporated within the Zoning Code and utilized in the Bay Park Zone District (BPZ); said based upon proffers made during the meeting that sentence was change to read I" an administrative review process which occurs subsequent to a public Community Workshop for structures of less than 10,000 sq. ft. shall be incorporated into the Zoning Code; and stated the: following motion was made: 1 Adopt a motion to find that Petition No. 22-PA-05 adding new Future Land Use Action Strategy 2.13, Bay Park Zone (BPZ), and amending the text of the Metropolitan Regional No. 5 classification, including the additional proffer that an administrative review process which occurs subsequent to a public Community Workshop for structures of less than 10,000 sq. ft., shall be incorporated into the BPZ zoning text, is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is in the public interest and recommend that the City Commission approve the petition." - Attorney Connolly stated that motion failed with a 2-2 vote; stated the Planning Board Rules of Procedure in the Zoning Code require three affirmative votes; said the Zoning Code requires that if a motion fails to get three affirmative votes the issue shall be continued to the next meeting; and that members that were absent from the previous meeting will need to listen to the recording of the meeting, and be prepared to ask any questions they may have regarding the application and participate in a motion and vote; asked PB Chair Salem and Alternate PB Member Christy to verify they had done sO; and both verified they had. Attorney Connolly stated that motion is still on the table; and said PB Chair Salem and Alternate PB Member Christy could ask questions at this time or could vote on the motion. PB Chair Salem asked if the motion would include residential use on the property. Attorney Connolly stated that is included and if the pending motion gets three affirmative votes that will be the recommendation that goes to the City Commission. PB Chair Salem stated he has issues with including residential housing in the park. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 17 Attorney Merrill appeared and stated there is no pending motion on the table. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem asked if he was the only one voting. Attorney Connolly stated all PB members will vote. Further discussion ensued. Attorney Merrill stated he felt it was appropriate to reopen the public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated the PB could reopen the public hearing if they sO desired. PB Member Blumetti asked if that would entail a full hearing that includes the applicant and staff presentations. Attorney Connolly stated it would require letting anyone speak that wishes to. Discussion ensued regarding moving ahead with the vote or reopening the public hearing. PB Chair Salem requested a vote be taken. Attorney Connolly restated the motion stating it would be Adopt a motion to find that Petition No. 22-PA-05 adding new Future Land Use Action Strategy 2.13, Bay Park Zone (BPZ), and amending the text of the Metropolitan Regional No. 5 classification, including the additional proffer that an administrative review process which occurs subsequent to a public Community Workshop for structures of less than 10,000 sq. ft., shall be incorporated into the BPZ zoning text, is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is in the public interest and recommend that the City Commission approve the petition." 1 PB Member Ohlrich stated she understood that the housing that is proposed would not set a precedent; said if the rationale for doing sO is true for this park it would hold true for all public parks; stated she strongly objects to housing in public parks; said administrative review is antithetical to the philosophy that has driving the process sO far; said it is not appropriate for the Bay Park at anytime to eliminate the public from the process; stated there are chapters in the Comprehensive Plan that are not supported by this motion; and said she will not be supporting the motion again today. The motion failed 4-1 with PB Chair Salem and PB Members Ohlrich, Blumetti and Christy voting no. Attorney Connolly stated another motion would be necessary. PB Chair Salem stated housing in the park was ai no. for him unless itis affordable housing; said administrative review is also a no for him; stated the process needs to continue to be open and transparent; said he had no objection to administrative review for lights, trash cans, etc.; and said if a motion was made that took the residential and administrative review out he would support it. PB Member Blumetti agreed with PB Chair Salem's remarks; said the PB can't change the Applicant's application; and questioned what the motion would be. Attorney Connolly stated the opposite motion would be a Adopt a motion to find that Petition No. 22-PA-05, adding new Future Land Use Action Strategy 2.13, Bay Park Zone (BPZ) and amending the text of the Metropolitan Regional No. 5 classification, including the additional proffer that an administrative review process which occurs subsequent to a public Community Workshop for structures of less than 10,000 sq. ft. shall be incorporated into the BPZ zoning text, is not consistent with the Sarasota City Plan 2030 and is not in the public interest, and recommend the City Commission deny the petition." Discussion ensued regarding PB Chair Salem's suggestion for a motion removing housing and administrative review. Attorney Connolly suggested keeping the following: "2.13 Bay Park Zone (BPZ) within the Land Development Regulations the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 17 City shall implement the Bay Park Zone District to provide for a park and cultural facilities with a flexible mixed-use district that permits uses including but not limited to parks and open space, government uses, restaurants, Performing Arts Centers, museums and cultural facilities, galleries, and retail." PB Chair Salem asked how to incorporate administrative review for minor things. Attorney Connolly stated the intent of the change at the last meeting was to require a public Community Workshop and having administrative review only apply to structures of less than 10,000 sq. ft.; and noted that is akin to existing language in the Zoning Code. PB Member Ohlrich stated she could not visualize a structure of less than 10,000 sq. ft. PB Member Blumetti stated the item needs to be rewritten; and said he does not wish to re-write it at this time. The PBa agreed by consensus. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if the applicants could change the petition before the City Commission meeting. Attorney Connolly stated if the PB: recommends denial, the item will go to the City Commission and in the ordinance would be both the Future Land Use Map change and the text change requested by the applicants; and said the ordinance will indicate the PB recommendation was to only adopt the Plan amendment for the change to the classification and not the Plan amendment for the text. PB Member Ohlrich noted concerns had been expressed regarding it taking a long time for what has been developed sO far to be developed; stated at the September 26, 2018, Special City Commission meeting Mr. Lafley had stated similar projects take 10-20 years to develop and pointed out this was accomplished at that time in five years; and said time is relative. Discussion ensued. Alternate PB Member Christy suggested the PB move forward with the motion to deny with the PB concerns expressed. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti asked that the motion be stated for the record. Attorney Connolly stated the motion would be "Adopt a motion to find that Petition No. 22-PA-05, adding new Future Land Use Action Strategy 2.13, Bay Park Zone (BPZ) and amending the text of the Metropolitan Regional No. 5 classification, including the additional proffer that an administrative review process which occurs subsequent to a public Community Workshop for structures of less than 10,000 sq. ft. shall be incorporated into the BPZ zoning text, is not consistent with the Sarasota City Plan 2030 and is not in the public interest, and recommend the City Commission deny the petition.' " but recognize the PB would support the amendment if the applicants removed the residential and administrative review proposals. Alternate PB Member Christy noted the reference to mixed-use pointing out mixed-use allows residential. The proposed motion was revised to read I .residential/ mixed-use. PB Member Ohlrich stated the applicants have said development will be consistent with the adopted Master Plan; said if you ask ten different people what the end product would look like you would get ten different answers; and stated allowing restaurants takes the public out and she cannot agree to that. PB Member Blumetti pointed out the motion takes administrative review out. PB Chair Salem stated if the motion passes the result will be a park without: residential uses and the public will continue to be engaged; and said he is ready for a vote. PB Member Blumetti asked that the motion be stated for Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 17 the record. Attorney Connolly stated the motion is to be 'Adopt a motion to find that Petition No. 22-PA-05, adding new Future Land Use Action Strategy 2.13, Bay Park Zone (BPZ) and amending the text of the Metropolitan Regional No. 5 classification, including the additional proffer that an administrative review process which occurs subsequent to a public Community Workshop for structures of less than 10,000 sq. ft. shall be incorporated into the BPZ zoning text, is not consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan 2030 and is not in the public interest, and recommend the City Commission deny the petition" but notes that the Planning Board would support if the applicant were to remove the residential/mixed-use and administrative review components. The motion passed 4-1 with PB Vice Chair Clermont voting no. C. Quasi-ludicial Public Hearings 1. Quay Development Agreement Amendment (601 Quay Commons) [Staff Requests Item be Continued to 1/11/23]: Development Agreement Application No. 23-DA-01 is an application seeking approval to amend the Quay Sarasota Development Agreement to allow for the construction over Quay Commons between Blocks 1 and 9. The entire Quay Sarasota site is approximately 14.69 acres and is located within the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) zone district and a Future Land Use (FLU) classification of Downtown Bayfront. (Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner) This item was continued to a date uncertain under Changes to the Order of the Day. 2:15:38 P.M. 2. Progress at University (1400 DeSoto Road): Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-11 and Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 22-ROA-03 are a request for Site Plan and Rezone Ordinance Amendment approval to replace the expired proffered Site Plan application 11-SP-07 with a new Site Plan application 22-SP-11 to develop 280 multi- family units in four, four-story buildings with associated amenities on a 16.57 acre parcel with a street address of 1400 DeSoto Road. The parcel is currently vacant and previously served as overflow parking for the dog track. The parcel has a Future Land Use classification of Multiple Family (Medium Density) and is zoned Residential Multiple Family 4 (RMF-4). Access to the site is proposed from DeSoto Road. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) Attorney Connolly called the following that had applied for Affected Person status: David Miller, Edward McCaffery, Bob Kresnick representing Sarasota Lakes CO-OP, Inc., Kim Jennings, Gary & Elaine Rumph, and Attorney Dan Bailey representing the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority. The following were present and therefore granted Affected Person status: Edward McCaffery, Bob Kresnick, and Attorney Bailey. Alternate PB Member Christy stated he had to leave no later than 3:55 PM. Applicant Presentation: Attorney Stephen Rees, Jr., Mr. David Brim, MMI Development, and Mr. Scott Batterson, MMI Development, appeared. Attorney Rees noted other team members were present if needed. Mr. Brim stated the proposal is an updated and improved Site Plan for Habitat for Humanity; stated a Community Workshop was held on October 4, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 17 22; presented an aerial view of the site; presented a graphic depicting the old Site Plan versus the new Site Plan; presented photographs of a similar development in Tampa and project renderings; stated per the request of the Sarasota Bradenton Airport Authority the applicants have added fountains to the retention pond on the site to deter migratory birds; and stated they supported staff's recommendation of approval with conditions. Attorney Rees stated the Rezone Ordinance Amendment application is required due to the previously proffered Site Plan; said the applicants have been working with the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority and Attorney Bailey on language that meets the intent of FAA Standards on stormwater ponds regarding migratory birds; stated coordination with the City and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) will also need to occur; said the stormwater pond is currently designed to City standards; stated the applicants agree to comply with FAA Standards; noted there are three proposed conditions that are carried over from the previous Rezone Ordinance; and said the applicants are agreeable to those conditions as well. PB Member Ohlrich applauded the materials provided by Philip Smith, Landscape Architect for this project; noted the list of building one data states storage rooms are provided for residents via lease option; pointed out the number of storage rooms available is thirty-four; which is not enough for each unit; and stated bike racks are required noting there are not enough bicycle racks for each unit. Alternate PB Member Christy asked if the storage rooms, bike racks, etc. were for residents only. Attorney Rees confirmed that is correct. PB Member Blumetti stated this project is presented differently than usual noting an index sheet is usually included that depicts the occupancy, development standards, number of units, etc. and asked what the total number of units are. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly suggested Development Review Planner Pintus could answer the questions when she provides her presentation. PB Member Blumetti questioned who the Architect for the project is; and noted is it rare not to see a title block. Alternate PB Member Christy stated the unit breakdown is provided in a letter from Attorney Rees that is ini the packet and noted fifteen percent oft the units are one-bedroom, five percent are three-bedroom, and the remaining eighty percent are two-bedroom. PB Vice Chair Clermont pointed out the proposed density is in the range of sixteen to seventeen units per acre; questioned how that was financially feasible; and noted the site is a good spot for much needed housing. Attorney Rees stated there is a Comprehensive Plan Policy for this specific site that limits the unit count to two hundred eighty. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned if traffic calming is provided along the outer driveway of the development. Mr. Brim pointed out the location of traffic calming on the Site Plan. PB Vice Chair Clermont suggested additional traffic calming is needed; and stated he appreciated the extra buffering provided. PB Chair Salem questioned if the development would be mixed income or middle to upper income. Mr. Brim stated upper income luxury apartments arej proposed. PB Chair Salem asked if any of the units were set aside for attainable housing. Mr. Brim stated that there were not any noting the low density allowed on the site. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page! 7 of 17 PB Member Blumetti asked if the spaces along the eastern entry point were for parallel parking. Mr. Brim confirmed that was correct. PB Member Blumetti suggested that would help to slow traffic along the outer driveway; and asked where the trash/recycling area was. located. Mr. Brim pointed out the area on the Site Plan. 2:32:53 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Planner Pintus and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. Development Review Planner Pintus noted the size and location of the site; stated the site was formerly used for overflow parking for the Sarasota Kennel Club; stated the site is zoned Residential Multi Family 4 (RMF-4) and the Future Land Use Classification is Multiple Family - Medium Density; said the request is for Site Plan and Rezone Ordinance Amendment approval for two hundred eighty units with accessory uses; noted the Rezone Ordinance Amendment is necessary as the previous Site Plan was proffered as part oft the rezoning; said the previous Site Plan was: for two hundred eighty units in twelve, three-story! buildings with a Community Building, swimming pool, and five hundred four parking spaces; stated the proposed Site Plan is for four, four-story buildings with a Club House, swimming poos, outdoor space, dog park, and five hundred four parking spaces; said the maximum density allowed is eighteen units per acre and slightly less than seventeen units per acre are proposed; noted the required Community Workshop was. held on October 4, 2022 with six citizens in attendance; said the primary concern was traffic which Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein will address; stated the Development Review Committee (DRC) signed-off on the project on October 11, 2022; said the proposal meets all applicable development standards of the Zoning Code; said staff recommends approval with conditions; responding to an earlier question from PB Member Ohlrich discussed the bicycle rack requirements noting the number proposed is slightly higher than what is required; responding to a previous concern expressed by PB Member Blumetti noted the Site Data Table is on the sheet at the beginning of Mr. Cavoli's plans; and said Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein will discuss traffic calming. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein presented a PowerPoint presentation stating DeSoto Road is a County road; the existing traffic on DeSoto is low with slight fluctuations over the past five years; discussed safety issues noting there is a low traffic crash rate at the intersection of DeSoto Road and University Parkway; discussed the Transportation Concurrency Review process stating it is a two-step process; said if the traffic impacts are found to be di minimis an impact fee is paid and safe access must be provided; if found not to be di minimis a traffic study is required; said if a traffic study is required and the study finds the development reduces the adopted Level-of-Service (LOS) then proportionate share mitigation is required along with safe access if the system is working as adopted; stated if the LOS in not reduced an impact fee is paid and safe access provided; discussed State law regarding traffic concurrency noting new developments are only responsible for mitigating their own impacts versus wider system improvements; stated the transportation analysis for this project found the LOS is not reduced, the westbound left turn-in is warranted, there are no bus or bicycle facilities along the property, and a sidewalk is required per the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM); discussed connections to the road network noting right and left turn-ins are provided; said there are two driveways proposed, one of which is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 17 required for Fire Department access; noted pedestrian connections are provided throughout the site; discussed traffic calming noting any roadway that is four hundred feet or longer requires traffic calming; stated the project meets the Zoning Code requirements and LOS standards; noted the applicants are pursuing the possibility of constructing a roundabout at the intersection of University Parkway and DeSoto Road at their own behest; and stated City staff supports the roundabout although that is not ai requirement. PB Chair Salem questioned if staff discussed the need for attainable housing when a development application that includes housing is submitted. Development Review Planner Pintus stated that question is asked as part of the DRC process; and noted unless additional density is requested staff cannot require attainable housing be provided. PB Chair Salem asked if there are any: incentives other than increased density. Development Review Planner Pintus stated there are not. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the site was within the Airport noise corridor. Development Review Planner Pintus stated it was. PB Member Blumetti asked if there had been pushback from the Airport. Development Review Planner Pintus stated there have been discussions; noted the site already has the appropriate Future Land Use classification for multifamily sO staff has to approve multifamily use one the site; and pointed out the applicants are proposing the required noise attenuation. PB Member Ohlrich questioned why proposed condition number one was necessary. Development Review Planner Pintus stated the Utilities Department requested that condition as part of the DRC process. PB Member Ohlrich asked if nearby properties in the County had been considered when looking at compatibility. Development Review Planner Pintus stated she had; and noted the requested density is appropriate for the site and is consistent with the densities to the south and east. PB Member Ohlrich noted a comment in the staff report that states the project exceeds the Code requirement relating to aiding in light and air to the adjacent properties and questioned how that could be. Development Review Planner Pintus stated the setback requirements are greatly exceeded, and trees around the site are preserved or mitigated. PB Member Ohlrich questioned why certain Action Strategies related to attainable housing are included in the staff report when none is proposed. Development Review Planner Pintus said staff believes the proximity of the site to the Airport will help market rate for the site to be within the range of attainable housing. PB Member Ohlrich thanked Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein for his presentation; and asked what difference a roundabout would make. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the traffic study found the circulation would be similar, pedestrian access would be improved, and the possibility of T-bone collisions would be reduced; and noted the intersection is currently a relatively safe intersection. PB. Member Ohlrich asked ifl bike lanes havel been added to DeSoto Road. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated they have not and noted DeSoto Road is outside the city limits. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the westbound turn-in has been added. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that will be part of this project. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the thirteen comments in the traffic study have been included. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated those had been worked out through the DRC process. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 17 PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned how the city ensures the stormwater retention is designed as permitted post-construction; noting he had to attenuate it at his single- family residence to get water out of his yard. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the process for single family is different that for multifamily and commercial; noted single family is exempt from mitigation requirements however have to meet Zoning Code requirements; said the EDCM regulates multifamily and commercial which has precise requirements for the site based on State law that drainage cannot exceed pre- development conditions; and pointed out the applicants also have to go through the SWFWMD permitting process. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned how the efficiency of the stormwater system is confirmed post development. Assistant City Engineer stated a final inspection is performed to ensure the system is built per the approved plans; and said maintenance is required through the SWFWMD permit and SWFWMD can issue fines or take other action if the system is not properly maintained. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if the westbound turn lane issue had been worked out. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated DeSoto Road is entirely within the County; noted the right turn-in is also in the County; said the plan is in place; and said the City cannot hold up approval of a project based on County actions. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if there are requirements for traffic calming in private parking lots. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated his review found that the standard of providing traffic calming for every 400 of parking has been met. PB Member Blumetti stated there is in fact requirements for stormwater for single family. Discussion ensued. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein clarified that there is no mitigation requirement for single family. Alternate PB Member Christy asked if that was because mitigation is accounted for when platting the subdivision. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein confirmed that is correct. PB Member Blumetti, noting the PB m3embers do not see every iteration of a proposed plan, asked if Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein had made comments to the applicants regarding parking along the entry corridor and traffic calming. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein confirmed that was correct. PB Member Blumetti stated it was an improvement. Development Review Planner Pintus pointed out all DRC comments are posted on the City's website. 3:00:33 P.M. Affected. Persons: Attorney Connolly called Affected Persons McCaffery, Kresnick, and Bailey. Mr. McCaffery stated his opposition to the project citing the proximity of the site to the Airport; the headlights from cars in the parking lot shining into his home; traffic; stormwater runoff onto DeSoto Road; height; stated the stormwater retention pond should be east of the driveway; said the railroad track is active and will cause traffic to back up; said the site should only be used for light industrial or storage; and stated the need for housing is overstated noting vacancies in the area. Attorney Bailey, representing the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority (SMAA), stated this project is different from the Sarasota Kennel Club project in that the site was zoned for residential use when is was annexed into the City; said there was no agreement in place between the city and the SMAA at that time, he wishes there was SO the SMAA could have some control over the proposed development; noted there are already 280 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 17 units approved for the site in the Comprehensive Plan sO the SMAA can only request conditions to mitigate the impacts; and requested the three conditions in the previous rezone ordinance be carried over, noting the applicants have agreed to that assuming they can confirm they can meet the FAA standards. Mr. Kresnick, representing the Sarasota Lakes CO-OP, stated Sarasota County as a whole needs to be taken into consideration; said the infrastructure in the area is in need of significant improvements noting flooding issues; said he contacted staff who has not responded; pointed out Sarasota County has the highest density in the State; and stated the site should not be developed as residential. PB Member Ohlrich asked Mr. Kresnick if he contacted the City or the County; and if the flooding issues were on DeSoto Road. Mr. Kresnick confirmed the flooding is on DeSoto Road. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out DeSoto Road is in the County, sO the city has no jurisdiction. Discussion ensued. PB: Member Ohlrich asked Attorney Bailey to confirm that the site is in the 65-decibel cone and that there was no agreement between the city and the SMAA at the time the previous development was approved. Attorney Bailey stated the site is 100% within the cone; and confirmed there was no agreement in place when the previous development was approved. PB Member Blumetti asked if the existing agreement between the city and the SMAA would be enforceable due to the new Site Plan. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated the issue goes back to 2006 noting when the site was annexed into the City it was classified in the Comprehensive Plan as Multiple Family - Medium Density; and stated anything approved for the site has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan per State law. PB Vice Chair Clermont noted Attorney Bailey had stated he wished the SMAA had control over what is developed on the site. Attorney Bailey stated he wished they did; and pointed out the site has vested rights. PB Chair Salem asked Attorney Connolly if the applicants could develop the site by right if consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Connolly stated that was correct. PB Chair Salem stated that the only thing the PB could do is possibly tweak the Site Plan. Attorney Connolly stated they could ask. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly pointed out residential use of the site cannot be denied. 3:19:15 P.M. Citizen Input: Mr. Dean Slabach appeared; stated he lives in Tri Par Estates; questioned when the traffic study was done; said his primary concerns are with traffic, bicycle safety, and pedestrian safety; said DeSoto Road is a narrow, busy road with only a partial sidewalk in the area; noted there is no bike path on DeSoto Road; and stated the City and County need to work together to improve DeSoto Road. PB Chair Salem suggested Mr. Slabach contact both the City and County Commissioners with his concerns. Mr. Dale Funkhouser appeared; stated he also lives in Tri Par Estates; said Tri Par Estates was established by the State Legislature and is a 55+ community; and stated his Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 17 concerns regarding increased traffic on Tri Par Drive due to increased cut-through traffic. PB Member Salem suggested Mr. Funkhouser should contact the County regarding installation of traffic calming devices. 3:26:32 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared and stated the left turn lane is ahead of the railroad tracks; and stated the SWFWMD permit covers street drainage as well. PB Member Ohlrich asked Development Review Planner Pintus if there was any reference to the site being within the 65-decibel cone in her staff report. Development Review Planner Pintus said there is a statement that the applicants comply with the regulations. PB Member Ohlrich stated she did not take that statement to mean the entire site is within the 65-decibel cone. 3:29:45 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Rees, Mr. Brim, Mr. Batterson, and Philip Smith, Landscape Architect, appeared. Mr. Brim stated the applicants had hired an acoustical consultant that confirmed the project is in compliance with the FAA regulations; and stated they planned to implement certain noise mitigation and technology to reduce noise. Attorney Rees stated that the applicants have done other projects by airports; noted the need for rental housing; said this site is an appropriate location noting its proximity to a major transit line, major employers and downtown; stated the applicants are in agreement with Attorney Bailey's request regarding carrying forward the previous conditions in the rezone ordinance; pointed out there are two applications being considered; stated the site is vested for 280 units; said the issue today is if the Site Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and noted the building coverage on the site can be up to 25% and 12.9% is proposed. Mr. Smith discussed the proposed buffers noting the requirements have been significantly exceeded. Attorney Rees noted the site is unique as it is in the City but abuts a County roadway; stated the applicants are in discussions with the County regarding installation of a roundabout at the University Parkway/DeSoto Road intersection; agreed with PB Chair Salem's recommendation that the citizens should contact both the City and County Commissions regarding their concerns; said competent and substantial evidence has been provided the shows the applicants have met the burden for approval; and stated the request must be granted unless opposing competent and substantial evidence is provided. PB Chair Salem asked if there was only a chain link fence along the eastern border. Mr. Batterson stated that fence is on the Tri Par Estates property. Discussion ensued regarding buffering headlights from Tri Par Estates. PB Member Blumetti noted the closest building to Tri Pa Estates has been pushed back from the previous proposal; and pointed out the 15' vegetative buffer along the eastern boundary. Mr. Smith noted the eastern buffer is 45'. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 17 PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if the pond would be constructed to FAA standards. Attorney Rees stated the pond is currently designed to City and SWFWMD standards; noted the FAA standards go beyond that; and stated discussions are underway with the intent to comply with the FAA standards. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked what the noise attenuation efforts entail. Mr. Brim stated double pane windows, custom insulation, wall and floor sound mats, and genie clips. PB Vice Chair Clermont asked if those were suggestions or would be done. Mr. Brim stated those would be done. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the applicants were familiar with the many studies regarding the long term affects of high decibel noise on people living in close proximity. Mr. Brim state he was not; and said the President of the company is a pilot and the technology for airplanes has evolved over the years resulting in reduced noise levels. PB Member Ohlrich stated high decibel noise on a regular basis causes hearing loss and mental health issues; and stated she felt that comes close to opposing competent and substantial evidence; said the PB does an on-balance review; and asked if the parking on the east side would be head-in only. Mr. Smith pointed out the parking is in garages that will block headlights. PB Member Blumetti asked if the applicants were in agreement with including the four conditions Attorney Bailey requested. Attorney Rees stated they were, noting three are carry-overs. from the previous rezone ordinance and the fourth relates to the stormwater pond. Mr. Batterson stated residents will not hear any noise inside the units. 3:42:27 P.M. PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find Rezone Ordinance Amendment 22- ROA-03 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code, find Site Plan 22-SP-11 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code, and recommend approval of the Rezone Ordinance Amendment and Site Plan to the City Commission, subject to the conditions as listed. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the. four conditions Attorney Bailey requested are included. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated they were. PB Member Blumetti seconded that. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated there is no such thing as a perfect site plan; said there is also no such thing as a perfect location for high impact development; pointed out that there is a 3.8 million unit housing shortage in the country; said each community has to take the issue seriously; said only 16-17 units per acre are proposed and if the PB does not approve that they are not taking the issue seriously; stated he respects the neighbors' concerns; and stated the mitigation efforts are why he is in favor. PB Member Blumetti stated he agrees with PB Vice Chair Clermont's comments; said the site orientation is good; said rents will be controlled given the site's location within the sound cone; said denial would lead to litigation; noted the vested rights pre-date the agreement between the City and the SMAA; noted the site will be developed as residential eventually; said the use is appropriate for the area; and noted the higher density to the southeast. PB Member Ohlrich stated she echoed PB Member Blumetti's comments. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 17 PB Chair Salem stated his major concern is there is no affordable housing component; said more market rate units could cause supply and demand issues to take over and make prices more affordable; stated his concerns for the residents in Tri Par noting it is logical that cut-through traffic will increase; suggested the Tri Par Estates residents consider vacating Tri Par Drive and installing gates; noted the PB cannot deny the request; and said he supports the project with the hope that market conditions will dictate lower rents. The motion passed 5-0. Alternate PB Member Christy left at 3:49:00 P.M. The Planning Board Took a Ten-Minute Break 3:59:00 P.M. 3. Bobby Jones Golf Club (1000 Azinger Way): "G" Zone Waiver Application No. 22- GZW-01 is a request for Governmental Zone Waiver approval to place net poles and netting approximately 60 feet in height on the subject parcel with a street address of 1000 Azinger Way. The proposed net pole height exceeds the 35 feet height maximum in the adjacent Residential Single Family Estate (RSF-E) zone district. The 60 feet net poles are necessary to maintain safe conditions on the subject property including the immediately adjacent Nature Park. (Alison Christie, AICP, Chief Planner) Attorney Connolly callled the following that had applied for Affected Person status: Michael and Gail Hillyer; James Murphy, and Delores Branson. Mr. Murphy was present and was granted Affected Person status. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those who were not present earlier. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Chris Cianfaglione, Kimley-Horn & Associates; and Ms. Sue Martin, General Manger of Parks and Recreation appeared on behalf of the City of Sarasota. Mr. Cianfaglione stated the item to be discussed in the proposed netting on around the driving range on the Bobby Jones Golf Course; stated the purpose of the netting is to increase golfer safety and improve maintenance operations; said the proposed netting is 50 in height above finished grade; stated the G-Zone Waiver is required because the 50' tall netting exceeds the maximum height of the surrounding residential zone districts; said if approved the netting would occur consistent with the construction already underway; presented a graphic depicting the location of the site and the extent of the proposed netting; noting the netting would extend around the entire driving range; stated the closest the netting gets to the adjacent property line is slightly more than 185;i is west of the proposed Nature Park area and north of the Cardinal Mooney High School football field; noted the posts for the lights on the Cardinal Mooney High School football field are 80' to 90' tall; pointed out the proposed netting posts are 60' tall and will be set into 10 deep concrete footings; presented a graphic detailing the proposed netting and posts; said the benefits are the height is limited to the netting only and will improve safety and maintenance conditions, including the adjacent wetland Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 17 system; stated the request meets the Standards of Review for G-Zone Waivers; and requested the PB recommend approval to the City Commission. Attorney Connolly asked if the actual height in contravention of the Zoning Code required maximum height of 35' is 50 noting the advertisement for the public hearing states 60. Mr. Cianfaglione confirmed that is correct noting 50' will be above ground with an additional 10 underground. PB Chair Salem questioned the impact on birds, bats, etc. Mr. Cianfaglione stated the netting is consistent with other driving ranges in the area and there have-been no issues with those; and noted the scale of the netting. PB Chair Salem pointed out other driving ranges are in more developed areas. PB Member Blumetti pointed out birds will be able to see the netting and asked if 50 was tall enough. General Manager Martin confirmed that 50' is adequate. PB Member Ohlrich disclosed her ex-parte communications stating she is an affected person as well as the other 194 residents in her complex; and stated many of the residents had contacted her. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if there was netting and poles on the site prior to the golf course shutting down. Mr. Cianfaglione stated there were poles and chain link fence. General Manager Martin stated the previous chain link fence was 30 in height and was replaced with netting once the chain link began to fail. PB Member Ohlrich noted the request is to be analyzed based on the most restrictive zone district; requested a graphic be presented that depicts the area; and asked that the most restrictive zone district be pointed out. Mr. Cianfaglione presented the graphic and pointed out an adjacent parcel with RSF-E zoning is the most restrictive. PB Member Ohlrich asked what the use of that parcel was. Mr. Cianfaglione stated it is a residential neighborhood. PB Member Ohlrich stated she had wondered about the visual impact on drivers along Circus Boulevard; noted the driving range is quite a distance from Circus Boulevard; and asked what the distance is. Mr. Cianfaglione stated approximately 1,500 feet. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated that he too had wondered about the visual impact along Circus Boulevard; said the proposed netting is far enough away; and pointed out the residential neighborhood is heavily treed, sO he doesn't see anything objectionable about the request. Staff Presentation: Development Review Chief Planner Christie appeared and stated the applicants had done a thorough presentation sO she would be brief; noted the size, ownership, zoning and Future Land Use classification of the site; stated a G-Zone Waiver is requested for proposed driving range poles and netting that are 50' in height; stated the G-Zone Waiver is required because Government zoned property has to use the standards of the most restrictive adjacent zoning which is RSF-E which allows a maximum height of 35; stated the required Community Workshop was held on August 18, 2022 and there were five citizens in attendance; said the DRC signed-off on the project on October 25, 2022; and stated the request meets the Standards for Review and staff recommends a recommendation of approval with the one condition noted in the staff report. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 17 PB Vice Chair Clermont noted a citizen had expressed concerns regarding penetrating the old landfill site; and questioned if the site was in that area. Chief Planner Christie stated it was not and pointed out on graphic the location of the old landfill versus this site. 4:13:22. P.M. Affected. Persons: Mr. James Murphy appeared and presented photographs of a Great Blue Heron and panther that reside in the adjacent nature preserve; discussed the process of creating the preserve in the late 1980's; and requested all wildlife in the area be taken into consideration. 4:17:17 P.M. Citizen Input: Mr. Lyle Martin appeared and stated he lives across Fruitville Road; stated his concerns regarding the visual impact on the area residents; and asked how far from Fruitville Road the netting would be. Chief Planner Christie presented a graphic and noted the netting would be well over 1,000 feet from Fruitville Road. Staff Rebuttal: There was no staff rebuttal. Applicant Rebuttal: There was no applicant rebuttal. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find that Government Zone Waiver 22-GZW-01 is consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and meets the applicable criteria of Section IV-1706 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the condition as written. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. V. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICETOTHE) 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. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 9, 2022 PB Member Ohlrich stated she had submitted one very minor correction and moved approval. The minutes were approved by consensus. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 17 There were no topics by staff. VIII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are: informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may: require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Realistic Renderings/3D Renderings (PB Member Ohlrich) PB Member Ohlrich pointed out there are three items; said she had discussions regarding the 3D renderings; stated she heard staff is considering a pilot project; and requested additional information. Director Cover stated staff has made progress, said the IT Department is working on a base for the City; noted it will take some time; and said there is an applicant that is interested in doing a test run. Discussion ensued regarding if the renderings would be in isolation or within context of the surrounding area; the process for implementing the project; ownership of the final product; if the applicant or the City will generate the renderings; capabilities of smaller firms; and timeframes for implementation. 2. Zoom Access to Community Workshops (PB Member Ohlrich) PB Member Ohlrich discussed the need for providing Zoom access to Community Workshops noting the level of citizen participation during the pandemic; and asked what the status is. Director Cover stated Zoom meetings take a lot of coordination; stated it is virtually impossible to provide access via Zoom if the Community Workshop is not held at City Hall; and noted the applicants are now responsible for holding the Community Workshop. PB Member Ohlrich stated applicants should be notified that they should provide Zoom access whenever possible. 3. Building Coverage (PB Member Blumetti) PB Member Blumetti stated he had a productive discussion with General Manager Schwarz; said there is some ambiguity in the text of the Zoning Code; stated those ambiguities will be handled through a Zoning Text Amendment which will come before the PB; and said the issue could be discussed further at that time. 4:32:22 IX. ELECTION OF OFFICERS PB Chair Salem stated he is grateful for the opportunity to serve as Chair; noted he has requested and been granted reappointment for another three years; stated he enjoys speaking for citizens pointing out he has an unique knowledge of both sides; and made a motion to nominate PB Vice Chair Clermont as Chair for 2023. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. Newly elected PB Chair Clermont made a motion to nominate PB Member Halflants as the Vice Chair for 2023; stated he discussed concerns with Attorney Connolly regarding the fact PB Member Halflants has had to recuse himself on several occasions; and stated if he and PB Vice Chair Halflants were both absent from a meeting a Chair could be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 17 elected for that specific meeting. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:33 P.M. Liana Sr Cdbnon Myra Schwarz Dan Clermont, Chair General Manager and Secretary to the Board Planning Board/Local Planning Agency