CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, September 17, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager, Neighborhood & Development Services Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer Ryan Chapdelain, Chief Planner Demian Miller, Associate Principal, Tindale-Oliver Miles Larsen, Manager-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct. Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. B. Non Quasl-judicia Public Hearings 1. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, FUTURE LAND USE, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CHAPTERS OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (2030): The City of Sarasota as applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota [The Sarasota City Plan (2030)] to update the Transportation Chapter, with corresponding amendments to the Future Land Use and Capital Improvement Chapters, to make modifications based on findings of the City of Sarasota Mobility Study to integrate land use, transportation system planning and design, and transportation funding; establishing peak hour trip generation thresholds for three mobility districts; and modifying level-of-service standards. (Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer; Ryan Chapdelain, Chief Planner) Attorney Connolly reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures and the recommended time limits for the petitions. Chairman Gallagher recommended 30 minutes (instead of 15 minutes) for staff presentation. Board Members agreed to these time limits. PB Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 13 member Siegel inquired about the timeline of the public hearing. Chairman Gallagher stated that citizens have submitted letters expressing concerns about the short time the proposed documents have been available for public review, and suggested the public hearing begin this evening, and be continued, as needed, to allow for additional review time. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that the proposal is an important document with city- wide impacts, and, as such, she would like to provide the opportunity to community organizations to review the document, study its impacts, and present their input at the public hearing; suggested the Planning Board hear staff presentations, receive public input by those present at the hearing tonight, and defer action to a later date following community organization input. PB member Siegel agreed with the earlier statements; expressed support for the continuation of the public hearing in order to allow for transparency, public input, and a thorough debate on the issues for the benefit of the end product and the public interest. PB: member Lindsay made a motion to open the public hearing as scheduled, hear the presentation as scheduled, allow everyone who is here to speak, and then continue the public hearing to October 8, 2014. PB: member Siegel seconded the motion. Motion carried 4/0, (PB Vice Chairman Svekis absent). Attorney Connolly administered the Oath to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. General Manager Smith, [as Acting Secretary to the Planning Board], explained that this is the first of three scheduled public hearings on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment; stated the Planning Board will make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding Transmittal and Adoption of the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan; stated the City Commission will hold a Transmittal Public Hearing, at which the City Commission will decide if the proposed amendment should be transmitted to the State review agencies; and stated when the amendment returns from the state review agencies, the City Commission will hold the third public hearing regarding the adoption of the proposed amendment. Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Chapdelain stated that the proposed concepts were presented to the PB members on August 20, 2014; stated proposed substantive changes affect Objective 7 of the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and stated proposed changes to the Future Land Use Chapter and the Capital Improvements Chapter are necessary to ensure internal consistency among these two chapters and the proposed amendments to the Transportation Chapter. City Engineer DavisShaw provided background information, and presented the main concepts; stated in 2010-2011, in anticipation of State statutory changes relating to the concurrency process of the comprehensive plan, the City Commission, at the time, directed staff to be proactive, and to amend the Transportation chapter of the City's Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 13 comprehensive plan accordingly; explained State legislation now requires the local government comprehensive plans demonstrate that the required and optional concurrency Levels of Service (LOS) standards are reasonably met; stated that the State requires the infrastructure that is needed to ensure compliance with the adopted LOS standards be achieved and maintained, for the 5 year period of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Schedule, and be identified pursuant to the requirements of the Transportation Chapter. City Engineer DavisShaw continued describing the major components of the proposed amendment process; stated that staff is working with the community sO as to make roads compatible with the wishes of the people, to provide amenities such as sidewalks, round-abouts, lower speed limits, etc., and avoid widening the roads to facilitate through traffic, because widening projects are very expensive; stated that the proposed changes help clarify what the city can or cannot require of developers; stated that the proposed changes also relate to the use/management of the collected roadway impact fees; explained that the City has determined reasonable costs relating to each trip, and this will assist in the determination of impact fees to be collected; stated that as of October 1, 2014, for the first time since the establishment of impact fees, the City will manage the use of the transportation multimodal impact fees, and that the City can use the fees not only for road enhancements, but for multimodal transportation improvements; stated that trip thresholds are proposed for each city mobility district; explained that if the number of trips generated by a proposed development exceeds the threshold of the mobility district in which it is located, the developer will be required to conduct a traffic impact study to demonstrate the proposed development's trip impacts on the City'st transportation system; further explained that the developer will be charged impact fees based on the proposed development's S fair share of impact on the system, and the amount of the impact fees will be determined based on the cost per trip that the City has established; she continued with the description of the three Mobility Zones: Zone 1- Downtown - High threshold number of trips. 250 PM-Peak Hour trips. Zone 2- Multimodal Corridor-Threshold 100 Peak Hour Trips Single Use/Residential area- Threshold 50 Peak Hour Trips City Engineer DavisShaw explained that if a proposed development's trips do not exceed the threshold of the district in which it is located the developer pays his fair share of impact fees for the additional trips; if the proposed development brings the trips above the threshold of its district, the developer needs to conduct a technical study to show the impact of the development on the City's transportation multimodal system and pay the proportionate fair share impact fees for the additional trips on the network. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that it is in the hands of the City Commission to determine what transportation improvements are appropriate such as, intersection improvements, turning lanes, round-abouts, multimodal use lanes, etc.; pointed out Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 13 that the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) identifies the projects to be funded with the multi-modal impact fee dollars; explained that when a proposed development keeps the number of trips below the threshold, the developer pays impact fees; stated if the proposed development is located on a road that is already identified in the CIP for improvements, then the impact fees go towards the improvements of that road; explained that if the proposed development's: impact exceeds the threshold of the district, the developer has to conduct the technical traffic study; stated that the traffic study will identify the necessary improvements to mitigate the development" S impact, it will establish if the improvements are, or are not, included in the CIP, and will identify the proposed development' S contribution to the needed improvements (its fair share); she stated that then the developer will pay the fair share cost of the improvements; stated that if the study identifies that there is need for several improvements, and the fair share amount for all of them is sufficient to cover the expenses of only one improvement, the City Commission can direct the fair share funds to cover that one project; if that project was not in the CIP, the developer would have to go back to the City Commission to state that they want that project to be constructed, using this developer's money; pointed out that if the proportionate share is not sufficient to fund the necessary improvements then the City Commission will have to find the additional funds; pointed out, that now the City Commission would determine that, not a traffic study, or a management decision, but rather a community effort; she stated that for large developments which may trigger transportation improvements that have not been identified yet, and are not in the CIP, there are established procedures based on which the proposed improvements are reviewed and evaluated and the CIP is amended as necessary. Chief Planner Chapdelain added that the intended purpose with the mobility districts is to direct development in the urban core, protect neighborhoods and single family areas where intensity is not desired, develop livable streets, and deter cut through traffic from encroaching in the residential areas; stated that staff is working on outreach efforts, they will try to get on the CCNA's October 4 agenda; stated that CCNA may even create a sub-committee to work with the staff to explain the threshold numbers because this document is quite technical and staff wants to make sure everyone has a good understanding of the contents. Demian Miller, Associate Principal, Tindale-Oliver expressed appreciation for the City's extended efforts to reach out to the public throughout this project; stated that he will discuss the justification for the creation of the mobility districts as shown in the proposed amendment, and the development of the thresholds; explained that the development of the districts was based on three major tools: (a) the land use categories on the City's Future Land Use Plan, (b) the extent to which the City's existing transportation facilities provided options for automotive transportation, and (c) the extent to which transportation facilities were feasible in the Transportation Plan; stated that his thought was, in high intensity areas, where there is superior mass transit service he could be more flexible in the evaluation of roadway impacts, but in Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 13 areas where the transportation depends on automobiles he had to be more vigorous; continued with his presentation of the mobility zones: Downtown district, an area of intense development, which was a concurrency exception area with a relaxed approach to dealing with traffic impact; Mixed use, metropolitan regional categories, some industrial with a transportation LOS C, a Management area with again relaxed approach to dealing with traffic impact; and The rest of the areas fall in the third category, where we do not expect intense development. Mr. Miller stated that certain corridors were not included in the mobility zones, like Fruitville Road, US 301, US 41 where there is good transit service, and where the money will likely flow because of future investments, according to the designations on the Future Land Use Plan and the Transportation Plan. Mr. Miller explained the Mobility District Concept; stated all development must pay a multimodal transportation impact fee, must address site access circulation requirements, and must comply with future land use, zoning, and land development codes; stated that concurrency addresses the mitigation of a development's off site impacts to the transportation system; pointed out that this is in addition to the applicable land use regulatory requirements of the City; stated that smaller projects that do not have a great impact on traffic, they have to pay fees, while other projects that exceed their multi-modal district's thresholds will be required to prepare a traffic study and pay for their proportionate fair share. Mr. Miller described how the threshold numbers were developed; stated that the consulting firm studied projects in the City that have contributed funds for transportation impacts, based on existing City regulations, and projects that did not contribute significant contributions; stated that the Downtown District's 250 trip threshold was based on the evaluation of a development' S significant impact to downtown S gateway roads" like Fruitville Rd and US301; explained that based on the City's adopted height and density limits, a proposed development would have to do a significant assembly of property in order to reach the 250 trip threshold; pointed out that downtown blocks are 150,000 square feet or about 3.5 acres; 175 condo units at 50du/acre = 92 trips at Peak hour; stated that big buildings in the downtown area do not have a large impact on the traffic; explained that trip characteristics are different in the downtown area because people come in in the morning and leave in the afternoon; gave examples of "Sub-threshold" downtown projects, they include Whole foods -235 New Trips, Five Points Plaza - 125 Trips; offered examples of downtown developments that would require a traffic study because they exceed the Downtown District Threshold > 250 Peak Hour Trips, these include the former Proscenium Project, the Broadway Promenade, and, if it were to be proposed in the downtown district, a Discount Store/Super Store like Target or Walmart. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 13 Mr. Miller continued with the description of the Mixed Use Corridor District; stated that examples of "Sub-threshold" developments, (<100 Peak Hour Trips, <5% of the capacity of a 4-lane Roadway) include drug stores with a drive thru, hotels up to 160 rooms, and developments like Citrus Square; clarified that if projects like these were required to prepare a traffic study, due to their low impact on the transportation system they would not contribute any money for transportation improvements, therefore they were exempt from preparing a traffic study, but pay impact fees. Mr. Miller continued with the Neighborhood District and explained examples of "Sub-threshold" developments (< 50 Peak Hour Trips, <5% of the capacity of a 2-lane roadway) include restaurants, apartment buildings up to 80 units, and office space to 34,000 sq. ft.; stated that when a technical study shows that development traffic will exceed adopted LOS standards (or make a failing road substantially worse) the City must agree to a mitigation plan; the mitigation plan must reasonably address deficiency (nexus), but mitigation may not exceed the developer's "fair share" to correct the deficiency; explained that what changes is that smaller projects are not delayed by performing a full-blown concurrency" study, and definition of small is based on the Mobility District thresholds, while what stays the same is that the City reviews and requires mitigation for large-scale projects (the kind likely to create acute congestion), and development pays (multi-modal) impact fee and must meet other Plan/Code requirements. PB: member Ahearn-Koch expressed concerns about the conflict between neighborhoods and commercial properties; stated the City is a mix of commercial uses and neighborhoods; stated the Urban Design Studio is trying to create buffers between residential and big commercial projects; and noted that in the proposed amendment there is no buffer between commercial and residential. Chief Planner Chapdelain explained that once the Urban Design Studio plan had been approved the mobility districts would be revised accordingly; now they are based on the Future Land Use Plan. PB member Ahearn-Koch explained that her concern is that our Future Land Use Plan has 12 categories, but this shows only 3, and, as a result streets like Hampton Road are treated the same way as University Parkway; asked if there is any way staff can do a case study by neighborhood, explaining what would happen if a project were to be proposed there. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that staff could bring some examples; pointed out that now we have transportation exemption areas and management areas and the rest are all the same; explained that this proposal is based on what would happen based on today's land use regulations; she pointed out that the most important part is that the City is changing from an impact fee to a multimodal impact fee, SO the money can go to different types of projects; explained that staff looks, for example, at US 41 and thinks how the traffic can be handled appropriately and how it can be changed, then, the changes are included in the Plan; explained that upon the filing of a proposed Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 13 development, staff reviews the LOS standards, evaluates if the proposal puts the road in a deficit, and if SO the developer makes improvements, otherwise they are not responsible to make improvements, just pay fees, and that the community must understand that. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned why City approves development in a failing intersection? Mr. Miller stated that this is the result of revisions to the State Growth Management Act in the last ten years; stated that the LOS concurrency legislation prior to 2005 required development be stopped, however no. community did that, rather they found ways to mitigate the issues; explained that amendments to the Growth Management Act since 2005 restrain local governments from denying a development, sO long as it pays or mitigates its fair share of impacts; pointed out that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment provides flexibility to the City, to make sure the City has more leverage to at least ask for contributions. PB: member Ahearn-Koch asked what role does safety play in this? Mr. Miller explained that there is a difference between concurrency and the site and development plan, where safety of access is addressed; explained that concurrency does not take away the City's responsibility to ensure during site and development that the proposed development has safe access. PB: member Siegel stated that he sees three headlines here: first the goals and objectives staff is trying to achieve, which are presented in a general narrative and do not come down to specifics; second is the implementation where there are all sorts of categories, and he sees this to be the biggest challenge, because there will be deviations and exceptions; stated people are looking for certainty and this project does not lend itself to certainty; suggested staff find a way to put the proposed information in a narrative that the public understands, in order for the public to buy into this; stated that there is a lot of subjectivity in the proposed amendment, there will be exceptions, and these need be explained SO that the public will understand them; stated that the third headline in his opinion is the fiscal impact of the proposed amendment; pointed out that the ultimate fiscal impact will fall on the end user, the people who buy the house or rent the units; and stated he would like to see staff present the proposed amendment to the public in a "transitional form" SO people can understand what staff is trying to accomplish. PB Chair Gallagher asked if the route that goes out to St. Armand's and Lido Beach, going out to the big hotels, is considered. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that from a land use perspective they are a single use district, SO a proposed development in that area would do the traffic study if they exceed 50 trips at Peak Hour; pointed out that what could be funded in this area is to go to two lanes at Golden Gate and Bird Key sO that the SCAT buses could bypass the traffic, which would encourage people to ride the bus, something that staff plans to discuss with the Florida Department of Transportation; and added that this could be a multimodal project. General Manager Smith stated that this area is purposely in the lower threshold category because the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of13 City has policies in the Environmental Chapter that prohibit intensification of uses and densities on the island; and added that now the traffic will be maximized at the lower traffic threshold. PB Chair Gallagher asked if projects that do a traffic study will include recommendations about multimodal traffic uses. City Engineer DavisShaw stated yes, they will, as they do right now; explained that the problem they faced until now is that, if the study suggests something, the developer has paid impact fees, and the suggested item is not a concurrency requirement, then, there are no funds for the implementation of the suggested improvement. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that at the previous meeting PB Chair Gallagher requested a matrix to show how the proposed system would be better for the neighborhoods than the developers, and she thought it was a good suggestion. Citizen Testimony: PB Chair Gallagher called the first six names of citizens who had expressed interest in speaking at this public hearing: 1. Jude Levy - Laurel Park resident Ms. Levy stated she agrees with the general concept of multiple mobility however the details in the proposed amendment are daunting and requested additional time for her and her neighborhood association to review it thoroughly and provide comments before Planning Board action; stated that her neighborhood association will work with CCNA; pointed out that the lines appear rigid on the proposed amendment, yet they will be revisited when the Urban Design Studio (UDS) has an approved plan; and stated that City neighborhoods would like to see all the information together, both the UDS Plan and the proposed amendment. 2. Kate Lowman - Laurel Park resident Ms. Lowman clarified that she speaks for herself and that her comments do not represent her neighborhood association as they have not had a chance to meet and discuss the proposed amendment; stated the threshold that applies to all four edges of Laurel Park (250 trips at peak hour) is too high and will have an impact on the small streets of the neighborhood; questioned if the proposed amendment enhances the Laurel Park Overlay and its requirement of increased public involvement and input on all projects adjacent to the neighborhood; suggested the public hearing and Planning Board action be delayed to allow discussion with the neighborhood, and to see the UDS's] plan; and suggested if it will be difficult to stop a proposed development based on the excessive traffic it will generate, then the City should use tools that help the proposed development to better fit in the existing neighborhood, one of which in her opinion is the traffic study. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 13 3. Dan Bridinger - Laurel Park resident Mr. Bridinger agreed with the previous comments, pointed out that Laurel Park is one of many downtown neighborhoods, and questioned if the residents of those neighborhoods are aware of the impacts the proposed plan would have on them; stated that we are moving towards an era where no project can be turned down regardless how much traffic it generates, and questioned if the City will have the finances to pay for transportation improvements; stated that City staff and the Planning Board need factual data on which to base their decisions; and suggested the public hearing be extended to allow for thorough review by the public. 4. Joseph Bessard II - Park East Association Mr. Bessard agreed with the continuation of the public hearing; stated October 8 is not a realistic date because the associations are too busy at this time; questioned the threshold of 100 trips that applies to his neighborhood; expressed concern about "choke points" such as Golden Gate, and University Parkway after the mall is built; expressed concerns about how the City will pay for improvements if impact fees are cut; and requested hard copies become available to the public. 5. David Morris - left the chambers 6. Mike Furen, Chairman to the Board of Icard Merrill Law Firm Mr. Furen requested a clean document for review, (one without strike through, underline, highlighted areas and side notes); suggested that the Planning Board and the City attorney review the proposed amendment and determine that it passes constitutional, statutory and case precedent limitations and requirements for the impositions for developers and citizens; and made specific references to the proposed document under review, as follows: p.7Transportation Chapter, Action Strategy 1.1 adopts LOS for roads. Mr. Furen pointed out that many of the roads within the downtown mobility zone are beyond the adopted LOS standards and currently they are failing the LOS, as shown in Illustration T-20. p.8 Transportation Chapter, Action Strategy 1.5 The City shall ensure that the multimodal transportation system serving a proposed development that is currently operating below the adopted LOS Standards as identified in llustration T-12, shall be maintained at or above the current LOS condition at the time of development review. Mr. Furen stated that there is no adopted LOS standard for the multimodal transportation system. p. 34 Transportation Chapter, Action Strategy 7.1 Maintenance of7 Transportation System Standards, last two bullets Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 13 Mr. Furen referred to the first bullet and questioned what happens if the proposed development does not meet that LOS Standard, can it proceed and how; referring to the next bullet he stated the language is unclear, possibly something is missing; p. 35 Referring to the 4th bullet on this page, Mr Furen expressed concerns about the language because it includes reference to the adopted Concurrency Management System. As the 5 minute time limit expired, Mr. Furen stated he will submit his comments in writing prior to the next meeting. PB Chair Gallagher asked Attorney Connolly if the City could provide for review a clean electronic copy (without formatting) of the proposed amendment, SO that citizens, like Mr. Furen, can access both the document with the formatting presented at this public hearing and the clean document, toggle between the two, and conduct their review. Attorney Connolly stated that there is no legal reason preventing the City from doing that. 7. Ron McCollough - not in the Chambers 8. Pete Theisen Mr. Theisen stated that if five projects are proposed simultaneously in a given area, together they would exceed the threshold but because they would not be considered together the five would fly under the radar; stated that if adopted the proposed amendment will reduce mobility for all modes of transportation within the City; stated the real transportation solutions require money and the money comes from new development or from the taxpayers who have already paid the taxes on their own road usage; stated that the City cannot exempt developers without burdening the tax payers; stated that the proposal is a scheme to transfer the costs from the developers to the taxpayers; suggested the proposed amendment be denied or postponed; stated the City needs fiscal neutrality, a front estimate of transportation costs for a project or combination of projects, a back audit, and a required true up SO that no cost is put on the back of the taxpayers. 9. Jay Tallman - not in the Chambers 10. Gerri Holmes Ms. Holmes stated that she does not agree with the idea that the developers should not pay more than their fair share, rather, she believes if they want to build in a certain area they should help the area to improve; suggested to require the traffic study when the proposed development reaches 50% of the thresholds, otherwise the developers would build just under the threshold but still have considerable transportation impacts in the area; and supports the idea of buffers to protect the residential areas. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 13 11. Cathy Antunes - CONA Ms. Antunes agrees with providing additional time for review; stated that it is a positive development that the City will have more control in the use of impact fees, and that there is a shift in funding multimodal transportation; stated that the City needs a strong vision for multimodal transportation, something this plan does not yet communicate; stated that the City must take a proactive approach for the education of the public, this would bring excitement about the plan; stated appropriate development in the City can bring revitalization, improve the tax base, and the safety; stated that a true multimodal transportation system would improve the quality of life in the area; suggested that prior to eliminating the traffic study, which the people consider a safe guard (even though it has limited value), the City must educate the public to the fact that they are not losing anything; suggested that the City needs to provide evidence of how the vision will work and affect the neighborhoods, and demonstrate that the proposed changes lead in a better quality of life; and emphasized that the City needs to communicate the vision. 12. MikeLasche - Bike Pedestrian Advocate and City Resident Mr. Lasche expressed concerns that the proposal will take us back thirty years; stated that for the past three decades the City's bicycle/ pedestrian policy has been based on science and national and state standards, not locally invented policies by staff who are not experts in the field; stated that great things have been accomplished in bicycle and pedestrian planning since 1985, because the local governments are working with the experts at the USDOT, ASHTO, and FDOT; expressed concerns about policies 3.8,7.1 and 7.3 that they do not include pedestrian standards; recommended that the proposal be rewritten, eliminate references to off road facilities, use national standards and the green book which was designed for Florida cities. 13. Andy Dorr Mr. Dorr was sworn in. Mr. Dorr requested that the Planning Board postpone action and take more time than October 8; stated that his group supports the shift from road to multi modal transportation; pointed that LU 1, Future Land Use Chapter, and LU 84 refer to a plan thatiti is not in the plan; stated that the City needs to provide the vision; suggested the City provide incentives for developers to go above and beyond to do the right thing and be rewarding; stated that this project is underfunded, requires more people and time to work on it; stated the need to get transportation right because it is the backbone of the community; pointed out that more workshops are needed; and pointed out that this document is a good first draft, but this has internal inconsistencies that need be resolved, and the document must be polished up before it is presented to the City Commission. PB Chair Gallagher asked Attorney Connolly if he closes the public hearing or continues it. Attorney Connolly stated that the meeting needed to be continued, however he needs the date when it will be continued to sO that he enters it on the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 13 record and the City will avoid the cost for another public notice. PB member Siegel stated that there was no public notice relating to the present meeting. Attorney Connelly stated tonight's meeting was advertised on August 31st. PB Chair Gallagher suggested the meeting be continued for two months. PB member Lindsay suggested the Planning Board first discuss what changes to the proposed amendment they want to see in response to the public input received this evening, then ask staff to include the revisions to the draft, and tell us when they would be ready to have the next meeting. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked for more time sO she can organize her comments and allow time for neighborhoods to review and organize their comments. Chief Planner Chapdelain stated that staff is not comfortable to select a date at this point. PB member Lindsay suggested that a date be established for public input on the proposed amendment. Following discussion, all present PB: members agreed to December 1st as the deadline for the submission of public comments regarding the proposed amendment. Then, the staff will advise as to the future schedule. IV. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen's input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 20, 2014 Workshop PB: member Ahearn-Koch Jennifer identified needed corrections of minor typographical errors on the minutes of the August 20, 2014 workshop. By consensus the August 20, 2014 Workshop minutes, with corrections, were approved. IV. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF There were no presentations of topics by staff. V. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Discussion ensued about information PB members find on the Internet and its use in their decision making at the Planning Board. PB Member Lindsay stated that this information cannot be used to base PB member decisions on because it has not been shared with all respective parties. Attorney Connolly stated that the Planning Board must follow the requirements of due process SO that all parties know what the decisions are based on; accordingly, PB members must make decisions based on the information that is presented to all perspective parties, it is entered into the record, and all parties have time to examine its contents and validity, sO they can challenge it, enforce it, or rebut it. PB member Siegel asked how one enters such a study into the record. Attorney Connolly explained that it must be submitted to General Manager Smith. PB Siegel asked Attorney Connolly, if, Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 13 during the quasi-judicial public hearings, when he gives the briefing regarding evidence, he could also outline the issues and the standards that PB members should apply. He continued by stating that in the quasi-judicial public hearings the PB should hear the case and stick to the issues of the case and the evidence. Mr. Connolly stated he can provide a brief statement to this effect at the beginning of the quasi-judicial public hearings. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:17 pm. - - - 11-12-14 mà CGL David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]