CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE SPECIALN MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Robert Lindsay, Chair Members Present: Chris Gallagher, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, Michael Halflants, and David Morriss Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager/Itegration, Neighborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manger, Planning & Development Lucia Panica, Planner Karin Murphy, Director, Urban Design Studio Stevie Freeman-Montes, Sustainability Manager John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Lindsay called this 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 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 Plaming Board.) A. Reading of the Pledge of Conduct B. Non-Quasi-ludicial Public Hearings 1. Proposed Text Amendments for the Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Chapter of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) Continued from 5/25/16 and 6/8/16]: 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 Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Chapter to include revisions consistent with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report approved by the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 21 City Commission on October 19, 2015 regarding principles to eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in coastal areas when opportunities arise. (David Smith, General Manager/ Integration; Karin Murphy, Director of the Urban Design Studio; Stevie Freeman-Montes, Sustainability Manager). General Manager Smith noted that this public hearing is continued from June 8, 2016; explained that per Planning Board Direction, staff has incorporated in the text the June 8, 2016 Planning Board recommended revisions, SO that they can be reviewed prior to final Planning Board action; and stated that staff recommends approval. Page 31 ofs staff report, Action Strategy 3.11, Traffic Calming - PB Member Halflants asked why Action Strategy 3.11, Traffic Calming, was deleted. General Manager Smith stated that following discussion, it was agreed that this Action Strategy could be eliminated from this chapter because it is duplicating the intent of other Action Strategies in the Transportation Chapter. Page 27 of staff report, Fertilizer Ordinance PB Chair Lindsay requested clarification about revisions relating to the Fertilizer Ordinance; asked who will comply with the application of fertilizer, city residents, or the City in its own operations. General Manager Smith noted that this is a Countywide Ordinance; according to the City's Code Enforcement Department this policy is also enforced by the County; and added that the City will comply with this policy in its own operations. Page 27 of staff report, Urban Forestry Program PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked for clarification on the following language, at the end of the Urban Forestry Program: "The City shall work toward achieving and maintaining Sarasota County's tree canopy coverage goal of 40%." PB Vice Chair Gallagher pointed out that the 40% canopy coverage goal refers to citywide canopy coverage, and it does not refer to individual sites; and stated that this intent needs to be clearly communicated in order to avoid misinterpretations of the Action Strategy. General Manager Smith agreed, and noted that 40% canopy coverage is a countywide goal. Responding to PB Chair Lindsay's question, Ms. Karin Murphy, Director of the Urban Design Studio, stated that the City of Sarasota at this time has 32% citywide canopy coverage. Discussion ensued. Page 41 ofs staff report, Goal 4, References to Climate Chang and Sea Level Rise PB Vice Chair Gallagher expressed concerns over language relating to climate change; stated that the language of Goal 4 is general; added that climate change is discussed at the national level, regulations are vetted Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page30 of 21 and then incorporated in the FEMA regulations, with which development at the local level must comply, and therefore he does not feel it is necessary for this language to be included in this chapter. PB Member Halflants noted that the Governor has directed the local governments to take a position on this topic. PB Chair Lindsay noted that the PB: is not qualified to select the appropriate set of numbers relating to sea level rise based on which to develop local policy. PB Member Halflants stated that it is an issue that should be included in the Environmental Chapter, and should not be ignored. PB Member Morriss stated that the language refers to "reliable data sources," and at this time there are several credible data sources for sea level rise measures. PB Chair Lindsay stated that it is not a good idea for the City of Sarasota to address climate change on its own; and added that he would rather see the City enforcing the regulations of the federal government on this issue. PB Member Morriss stated that the local government is more agile and can make necessary changes to policies faster than the federal government. PB Member Gannon noted that the language of Goal 4 has been revised. The intent of the discussion in the Environment Chapter is for the city to be aware of problems relating to sea level rise; also he pointed out that the city is responsible to monitor data on this topic prepared by reliable sources based on credible science, and to assess the impact of sea level rise on the community. PB Chair Lindsay asked for consensus on the language relating to climate change. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated all references to climate change should be removed. PB Members Halflants, Morriss and Gannon stated they want the language to remain as is. Page 25, Action Strategy 1.2, Specific Natural Resources Protection Initiatives, Stormwater Runoff PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that Action Strategy 1.2 relating to stormwater runoff may be more suitable for the County. Ms. Murphy stated that the County operates the stormwater systems in the City and is responsible for their maintenance. PB Chair Lindsay requested clarification of the term "bioretention." Ms. Murphy explained that bioretention is a process by which stormwater runoff is collected, and it is filtered and treated naturally prior to being released, such as what happens in swales with plantings; noted that bioretention is appropriate in certain areas, but not on single family lots, or downtown development. Responding to PB Member Gannon's question, Ms. Murphy stated that stormwater management will be regulated by the Engineering Design Criteria Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 21 Manual (EDCM) and the City Code. PB Member Gannon asked if it is necessary to have the additional language in the Stormwater Runoff Action Strategy. Ms. Murphy stated that it will be implemented and regulated by the EDCM and the Code. PB Chair Lindsay asked for a motion. PB Member Gannon moved for transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 14-PA-02, Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Chapter, as amended, to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for State Coordinated Review, and, upon its return, adoption of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 14-PA-02. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Gallagher expressed his appreciation for the amendments relating to climate change issues. The motion passed with a vote of 3 to 2 with PB Chair Lindsay and PB Vice Chair Gallagher voting no. 2. Proposed Ordinance No. 16-5183: An Ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida amending the Zoning Code (2002 Edition) of the City of Sarasota by amending Article IV, Development Review Procedures, Division 19,Site Plans, Administrative Interpretations and Adjustments for Downtown Zone Districts, Section IV-1903, Adjustments, sO as to expand eligibility for adjustments (including the potential of administrative adjustments) regarding access, loading areas and parking on the primary street grid and providing for the availability of administrative adjustments regarding maximum setback limits, minimum height requirements, and certain design standards for additions to, and remodeling of, certain properties; providing for severability of the parts hereof; providing for reading by title only; and providing for an effective date. (Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney) PB Chair Lindsay expressed concerns about having a public hearing on this controversial issue in August, when the Planning Board usually does not meet, because the public may not be aware that this topic will be heard this evening. Attorney Connolly stated that the public hearing has been advertised; explained that the purpose of the amendment is to protect the City from being sued for "taking" noted that the current status of the Zoning Code, after the ruling of the City Commission on this issue, leaves Michael Sanders and the Women's Exchange without access, and this is an attempt to fix the consequences of the City Commission action, SO that these property owners have an opportunity to develop their property if they sO choose; added that this also gives the Women's Exchange the opportunity to remain on the property if they choose to; noted that Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 21 this is opened as a public hearing SO that the Planning Board can discuss and understand the proposal; explained that the public hearing can be continued to a date certain, if the Planning Board wishes; and pointed out that this is a legislative public hearing. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that the last two times this issue came before the Planning Board, it was a quasi-judicial public hearing, and he recused himself, because the Women's Exchange is a client of his firm; requested clarification from Attorney Connolly as to what he needs to do according to the law this time, because this is a legislative public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated that per Chapter 112 FS, a public officer would have a conflict if he. felt that his decision would have a benefit to himself, his family or his business; added that he did not think that this legislative change to the Zoning Code will rise to the level where it would bring financial gain to the firm PB Vice Chair Gallagher worked for; noted that the results would apply citywide; and concluded that PB Vice Chair Gallagher must decide himself whether he should recuse himself. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all who were planning to speak in the public hearings this evening. He stated that the City requested input from the Planning Commission on Ordinance No. 16-5183, and he is making the staff presentation, according to the direction the City Attorney's Office received on June 20, 2016 from the City Commission; noted that the intent and purpose of the proposed zoning text amendment is to address potential consequences of the City's denial of the Women's Exchange proposed Site Plan; pointed out that the Zoning Code provides that properties in the downtown area that are located on a primary street have access on a secondary street, if possible; stated that the code allows for adjustments for properties that are bound by three primary streets; pointed out that the two subject properties are bound by two primary streets; by denying the site plan for the Women's Exchange, the City also denied the loading zone on Rawls Avenue, and therefore access on Rawls Avenue, which is problematic; added that the City Commission, based on its authority per Section IV-1202 of the Zoning Code, waived the filing for a formal application for a text amendment, the submission of the text amendment to the DRC, and the preparation of a staff analysis, which is the reason the package is small for this public hearing, but he will present the information to the Planning Board step by step. Attorney Connolly continued by stating that there are three proposed text amendments, as follows: the first proposed text amendment is found on page 4, of Ordinance 16-5183, amending Zoning Code Section IV-1903, (b)(2) e. Adjustments, Location of Parking. Attorney Connolly stated that the general rule is that there are no exceptions for parking on a primary street, unless the property is bound by three or more primary streets; explained that the amendment provides for an adjustment to be considered to allow relief not only for parking but also from Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 21 vehicular access and loading areas in the first and second layers when a zoning lot fronts on two or more streets; and added that staff recommended approval of this proposed text amendment; the second amendment is on page 5, of Ordinance 16-5183, amending Zoning Code Section IV-1903, (c)(2) b.5. Adjustments, Authority and Procedures, Standards for Additions and Remodeling. Attorney Connolly explained that the text amendment applies to additions and remodeling of buildings that were constructed prior to September 7, 2005, the effective date of the Zoning Code (2002 edition); stated that this text amendment authorizes the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services to administratively adjust, by any percentage, the maximum setback limits and the minimum height requirements of Table VI-1003, as well as the design standards of Table VI- 1004 for street walls and windows; pointed out that these changes propose the opposite of what the City is currently doing in the downtown area when a zoning lot fronts a primary street; and noted that this is option (a) and staff supported this option; added that there is an alternative option (b), which is found on page 10, Section 3 of Ordinance 16-5183, amending Zoning Code Section IV-1903(c)(2) b.5., Adoption of1 Text Amendments, and relates to additions and remodeling of Historic Structures; explained that this option authorizes the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services to administratively adjust the maximum setback limits, the minimum height requirements, and street walls and windows, only if: it is a masonry building constructed prior to 1940, the building is registered on the National Register of Historic Places, the Florida Master Site File, or is locally designated as a Historic Structure under the City of Sarasota Historic Preservation Ordinance, the building will be preserved on site; and any proposed addition is less than fifty percent (50%) of the square footage of the historic building; and the third amendment is on pages 10-11, Section 4 of Ordinance 16-5183, amending Zoning Code Section IV-1903(c)(2) b. Adoption ofText Amendments, to add subsection 6. Location of Parking on Primary Street Grid, authorizes the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services to administratively adjust Code requirements and allow vehicular access, loading areas and surface or structure parking in the first and second layers, only if: it is a masonry building constructed prior to 1940 the building is registered on the National Register of Historic Places, the Florida Master Site File, or is locally designated as a Historic Structure under the City of Sarasota Historic Preservation Ordinance, the building will be preserved on site; and any proposed addition is less than fifty percent (50%) of the square footage of the historic building. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 21 Attorney Connolly stated that numbers 1 and 3 are similar because they address access and parking, number 1 requires a public hearing, but number 3, relating to historic preservation, is handled administratively; and stated the Standards for Review for a text amendment are found in Section IV-1206 of the Zoning Code. Gretchen Schneider, General Manger, Planning & Development confirmed that staff recommends approval of: the first text amendment, the first option of the second text amendment, which would facilitate smaller projects, and the third text amendment PB Chair Lindsay asked how the proposed text amendments affect the overall Duany concept about primary streets in the downtown area. General Manager Schneider responded that facilitating a small addition is consistent with the intent of the concept for primary streets, because the addition will bring the building closer to the property line. PB Member Halflants asked for clarification about the restrictive contents of text amendment 3, and background information about the Women's Exchange Site Plan. General Manager Schneider explained that the current code prohibits loading zones on primary streets, the Women's Exchange building addition triggered the requirement for a loading zone, which based on the current Zoning Code could only be located on a secondary street and there was public opposition to this; and added that the proposed text amendment would offer the possibility to locate a loading zone on a primary street following an adjustment granted by the Planning Board. PB Member Morriss asked about requirements for architectural compatibility during additions of historic structures. General Manager Schneider stated that Historic Preservation Board reviews proposed developments and addresses such issues. PB Member Morriss asked what the city wide impacts of the two options in text amendment number 2 were. General Manager Schneider stated that option (a) applied to all buildings constructed prior to 1940 where option (b) addresses masonry historic buildings. Discussion ensued. Public Input: 1. Alice Sundstrom, President of Laurel Park Association, spoke in support. 2. David Baber, resident, suggested that the language be revised to say "buildings eligible for historic designation." PB Members discussed if they should take action this evening or continue the public hearing to October. Attorney Connolly recommended and requested PB members take action this evening, because it serves the interests of the City and the citizens. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 21 PB Chair Lindsay asked for a motion regarding the continuation of the public hearing to another date. There was no motion to continue the public hearing. Attorney Connolly recommended to the Planning Board the following motion relating to proposed zoning text amendment number 1 (on page 4 of Ordinance 16-5183): The Planning Board recommends that the first zoning text amendment, on page 4 of the Ordinance, which expands the authority of the Planning Board to grant adjustments to the standards for location of parking on the primary grid street (two streets rather than three) satisfies the standards for review in section IV-1206, and is consistent with the Sarasota City Plan, and recommends to the City Commission approval of same. PB Member Halflants sO moved. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Halflants stated that he supports the motion because it allows flexibility. Speaking to his second, PB Member Gannon stated that he supports the motion because there will be a Planning Board public hearing where citizens can express their opinion about what is proposed. PB Vice Chair Gallagher supports the motion because it would benefit many lots that are bound by three primary streets, and because proposals will be reviewed by the Planning Board. PB Member Morriss supports it because it provides flexibility. The motion for approval of zoning text amendment number 1 passes unanimously (vote 5 to 0). Attorney Connolly recommended to the Planning Board the following motion relating to the first option of proposed zoning text amendment number 2 (on page 5 of Ordinance 16-5183): The Planning Board recommends that option "a" of the second zoning text amendment, on page 56 oft the Ordinance, which expands the authority oft the Director to grant administrative adjustments to the standards for additions and remodeling, satisfies the standards for review in section IV-1206, and is consistent with the Sarasota City Plan, and recommends to the City Commission approval of same. PB Member Halflants SO moved. PB Vice Chair Gallagher seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Halflants stated that he supports the motion because it provides flexibility, through an administrative process, for additions to or remodeling of existing structures. PB Vice Chair Gallagher supports this because the additions are decreasing existing non-conformities. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 21 The motion for approval of option "a" of zoning text amendment number 2 passes unanimously (vote 5 to 0). Attorney Connolly recommended to the Planning Board the following motion relating to proposed zoning text amendment number 3 (on pages 10 and 11 of Ordinance 16-5183): The Planning Board recommends that the third zoning text amendment, on pages 10 and 11 ofthe Ordinance, which expands the authority ofthe Director to grant administrative adjustments to the standards for location and parking on primary streets for certain historic structures, as modified by deleting the requirement for masonry buildings constructed before 1940 exists on the site, meets the standards for review in section IV- 1206, and is consistent wuith the Sarasota City Plan, and recommends to the City Commission approval of same. PB Member Halflants SO moved. PB Vice Chair Gallagher seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss expressed concern about maintaining architectural coherence if a proposed addition and remodeling is not reviewed by the Historic Board. Discussion ensued. The motion for approval of zoning text amendment number 3 passes unanimously (vote 5 to 0). The Planning Board was in recess from 7:43 pm to 7:54 pm Attorney Connolly explained that the following public hearing has been advertised as a quasi-judicial public hearing, because it has a Site Plan number, while the other applications are of a legislative nature; added that, in reviewing the materials, it became clear that the proposed packet does not include a proposed Site plan, but a General Development Plan is incorporated into the Development Agreement, which means that all the applications in this packet are legislative, and, therefore, this is in fact a legislative rather than quasi-judicial public hearing; added that the significance of this change is that, in legislative procedures, there are no parties; noted that there are people in the audience who have applied for affected persons status, who cannot be granted that status now, but they can still sign up and speak, however, there is no cross examination or rebuttal; recommended time limits for the presentations, and administered the oath to all who had not yet taken the oath but intended to speak. 3. Sarasota Bayside (333 N. Tamiami Trail): Site Plan Application 16-SP-08, Development Agreement Application 16-DA-01, and Street Vacation Applications 16-SV-03 and 16-SV-05 request site plan approval for development of a mixed use project on approximately 14.69 acres located in the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone District with a street address of 333 N Tamiami Trail. Applicant is also proposing a street vacation for a portion of the El Vernona right Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 21 of way (south of Blvd of the Arts) and portions of two alley right of ways located east and west of El Vernona Avenue as well as amending a previous street vacation ordinance (07-4716) in order to reference the current proposed Development Agreement (16-DA-01) and Site Plan. (Lucia Panica, Planner) Staff Presentation Planner Panica introduced herself and Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer. Project location - Planner Panica stated that the site is 14.69 + acres located south of Boulevard of the Arts, north of Second Street, West of US 41, and east of the boat basin; noted that the property to the north is zoned Governmental Use and the properties on the east and South of the site are zoned Downtown Bayfront; stated that Boulevard of the Arts is a primary street, and US 41 is a secondary street; and added that the site is highly developed with parking along US 41. Site Prior to 2007 Approvals - Planner Panica shared pictures and aerial photographs to demonstrate the site prior to 2007 approvals; and pointed out that this site includes Belle Haven, a 1926 structure, which is the first historic designation of the City of Sarasota, and is registered both on national and local registries; and noted that it has been vacant for over a decade. 2007 Approvals - Planner Panica pointed out that the 2007 approvals included a development agreement, a site plan, and a street vacation, all of which are still valid; noted that the project was approved in two phases, and that the previous approvals included 695 residential units, 175 hotel rooms, 38,972 sq. ft. of office uses, and 189,050 sq. ft. of commercial uses, three 18-story towers, one 5 story building and called for the relocation of the Belle Haven historic building by 250 ft. The project did not commence. Proposed Application Planner Panica noted that the current proposal has the same intensity as the 2007 proposal; and added that its purpose is to incorporated changes of the new Sarasota Bayside project. Development Agreement - Planner Panica stated that the purpose of the Development Agreement is to address utility concurrency, transportation concurrency, and other development related issues; added that the Development Agreement expires in ten years; pointed out that all requirements of Section IV- 1507 are included in the Development Agreement, as stated in the staff report; and explained that the development agreement addresses connectivity with the Cultural District, the Multi-Use Recreation Trails (MURT), utilities, transportation, and the renovation of the historic Belle Haven. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 21 General Development Plan - Planner Panica noted that a General Development Plan (GDP) is required to be submitted with a Development Agreement, and is subject to Administrative Regulations for General Development Plans; stated that GDPs are applicable to properties over seven acres in area, filed concurrently with a Development Agreement, in the Downtown; stated that they intend to layout a masterplan, utility infrastructure and other basic development elements; explained that the proposed 14.69 acre development consists of nine blocks, a waterfront district, a series of MURTS, and the historic Belle Haven; added that Site Plan approval by the Planning Board is required as the blocks develop; pointed out that Site Plans must be consistent with the Standards for Review in Section IV-506, with all parameters of the Development Agreement, with applicable Zoning Code, and with FEMA requirements; showed the nine blocks; noted that Belle Haven will remain in its current location; stated that there are two new items proposed to encourage connectivity with the Ritz Carlton, to the south, and to the Cultural District at the north part of the site; discussed the two types of MURTS, the Bayfront MURT, along US 41 and Boulevard of the Arts, and the Scenic MURT along the marina; noted that detailed site plans will be reviewed as the blocks come in for development; explained that the 2007 Tree Permit provided that all the trees could be removed, stored in a nursery and returned to the site later, which did not happen; pointed out that, as a result, only 21 of the 63 removed palm trees have been found, and they will be purchased and returned to the site; and added that the lost trees will be replaced on site with similar tree species. Street Vacations - Planner Panica stated that the purpose of the street vacations is to consolidate the property in exchange for public pedestrian and vehicular easements along the newly proposed street grid; added that conditions have been placed to grant easements for private facilities in the existing right of way or relocate them at the owner S expense and grant an easement for the new location. Traffic Study -Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein presented the Traffic Study; explained that a traffic study was required at initial review (Nov. 2015); noted that there are 922 gross trips, however 502 (60%) trips were vested from Sarasota Quay and credited to this project, SO 420 trips are added to the network; pointed out that the project is within the TCEA, where growth of trips is allowed within 15% of the 1999 levels; noted that they assumed background growth of 1% per year; added that vested trips and Belle Haven were included as background growth; stated that the study includes trips from nearby new developments, and the study includes peak season factor; stated that the initial phase is vested with the Sarasota Quay trips; pointed out that full build-out meets concurrency; stated US 41 and Fruitville Road are expected to operate at Level E; noted that additional circulation studies will be conducted as each block comes in for development; stated that should the applicant desire access from the south, then there are two options, a signalized alternative or a roundabout; noted that the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 21 preferred option is the roundabout; and explained that the traffic study focused on the external circulation of the site, because internal circulation will be addressed at the time block development occurs. Responding to PB Chair Lindsay's question, Mr. Ohrenstein stated that this is a conceptual plan pending FDOT approval. Responding to PB Member Halflants' question, Mr. Ohrenstein stated that the study looked closer at the access on the US41/Fruitville Road intersection, and at the access on Boulevard of the Arts because the 4th and 5th Street accesses were not as loaded at this time. PB Member Gannon asked how the accesses on 4th and 5th Streets were considered in the traffic study. Mr. Oliver, Consultant with Tindale Oliver, stated that the team assumed very light use of these accesses. PB Member Gannon stated that at the public workshop citizens expressed concerns relating to the traffic on Boulevard of the Arts, and questioned Mr. Oliver as to why the traffic study does not take traffic away from Boulevard of the Arts. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss asked for clarification about the number of credited trips which were vested in the Quay. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss asked about the parking situation for the residential and commercial uses. Planner Panica stated that those issues will be addressed when the blocks come in for development. PB Member Halflants asked if there will be pedestrian access at 4th and 5th Streets. Mr. Oliver stated that it will be addressed at the design of the roundabout. Responding to PB Vice Chair Gallagher, Planner Panica confirmed that all proposed uses, as well as their intensity and density, are consistent with the original Development Plan and are consistent with the present Zoning Code. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked Mr. Oliver to state in simple terms the impact of the traffic on the community. Mr. Oliver stated that the proposal at this time meets the community's concurrency requirements and does not require road improvements, meaning that this development will not burden the roads beyond what the city has determined to be acceptable. PB Member Gannon asked for clarification about six 2006 vacations of rights of way, and discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly provided clarification. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked why there are SO many conditions associated with the street vacations. Planner Panica stated that she was trying to stay consistent with the format of the 2007 documents. Responding to PB Member Gannon, Attorney Connolly described the rights of the public within the right-of way easements. PB Member Gannon asked why the 8ft, instead of the 12ft MURT, along US41, and expressed concerns about limited bicycle access in this area. Planner Panica stated that the 8ft MURT will be used until the blocks along US 41 are developed, for safety reasons during construction, and to avoid braking up the MURT to provide utilities for the phased in development of the blocks. PB Member Gannon asked if there will be streetscape along the MURT as part of the roundabout development. Mr. Ohrenstein stated this is a conceptual design, the final design Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 21 will show details about the streetscape. Responding to PB Member Halflants' question, Planner Panica discussed issues relating to the proposed connection with the Ritz Carlton, at the south part of the site. Applicant Presentations Attorney Charlie Bailey, representing GreenPointe Holdings, introduced the GreenPointe team, including Rick Harcrow, Regional President of GreenPointe; Millard Yoder, Project Engineer, Stantec; Melanie Smith, Civil Engineer, Stantec; Frank Domingo, Traffic Engineer, Stantec; and Chuck Bell, Planner and Landscape Architect. Mr. Bailey expressed appreciation to staff for their assistance; noted that there are four applications in the packet for Quay Sarasota, a mixed use development; stated that the property is zoned DTB (Downtown Bayfront); stated that demolition was completed and the site is vacant at this time; pointed out that the proposal asks for the same uses and intensities of uses as the previously approved proposal (2007), and those entitlements are still, and will continue to be, in effect through May 29, 2018; added that the buildings on the site were demolished late 2007; explained that they intend to use the entitlements already approved for the property; and listed the following significant improvements this proposal brings to the site: a. a new form of development that uses multiple blocks, dispersing dwelling units on the site to create a walkable development; b. the structure of the approval process allows for two levels of review through the General Development Plan and the specific block site plans, to ensure careful vetting; C. Belle Haven, Sarasota's first designated historic structure remains at its current location and is embraced as the jewel of the development; d. improved public circulation and access throughout the development via the Bayfront MURT, which is consistent with the Bayfront Connectivity Plan, and via the Scenic MURT; e. there is also an internal MURT to bring the public to the commercial and office uses on the development; f. restoration of FDOT funding for the US 41/Fruitville Road intersection improvements, which are going to be fast tracked, SO that they are completed by the time of the first occupancy permit at this development. Landscape Architect Chuck Bell presented a PowerlPoint Presentation showing the vision for the proposed mixed use project - an urban village connecting to the existing downtown neighborhoods and nonresidential uses; stated that FEMA flood zones are a concern (requiring 14ft grade) but the team has found creative solutions; noted that they extended on the site the local streets to create human scale blocks, to enhance pedestrian circulation, and to connect to the regional MURTs; pointed out that the street patterns help identify areas of the public realm for public gathering, and allow visual connection and access to the bayfront; explained that the circulation pattern is designed SO as to allow the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 21 public to filter through the project to reach the bayfront; stated that the plan is conceptual at this point; noted that the lower grade areas by the marina will be used for entertainment; explained that all buildings will have retail on the ground floor to create an effective pedestrian environment, and each block has its own parking area; and concluded with a video showing several three- dimensional architectural renderings and various views of the team's concept for this project. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked what is happening with stormwater on the site. Mr. Yoder explained that there is an underground system for stormwater management. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked for clarification about the location of the two MURTS, asked if the Hyatt people can dock in the marina, and requested information about the width of the street vacations. PB Member Halflants asked for clarification about the parking. Landscape Architect Bell responded that each of the blocks will be self-sufficient in parking, and noted that there is new parking technology that they will use, they will have approximately 200 spaces for public parking, and details will come in as the development is phased in. Discussion ensued about the design and look of the blocks. PB Member Gannon asked for clarification on the circulation plan, the traffic study, connectivity to the Ritz Carlton, the 8ft interim MURT, and the maximum set-backs from US 41. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Lindsay asked for clarification on internal circulation. Mr. Bailey explained that internal circulation will be addressed as the site plans for block development are reviewed. PB Member Morriss asked if the team has considered other than retail uses for the non-residential ground floor spaces, and about alternative and innovative parking options, etc. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked how this puzzle will be put together. Mr. Harcrow stated that development will begin at the south side of the subject parcel, Blocks 2 and 3 will follow the development of the roundabout at the US 41/Fruitville intersection, and Bayfront development and Belle Haven restoration will come in early. Discussion ensued. The Planning Board was in recess from 10:00 pm to 10:16 pm. Public Comments 1. Mike Lasche, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advocate, spoke in opposition to the proposal; expressed concerns about the design of the MURT, bicycle access, noise from commercial uses, traffic congestion, construction noise, and drainage issues; and requested action be postponed until all residents return to the City SO that they can attend the public hearing and provide comments. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 21 2. Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt spoke in opposition; noted that the explanation offered earlier about the type of public hearing (quasi- judicial VS. legislative) was inappropriate notice; expressed concerns about the ownership of a segment of the drainage ditch, referring to a property boundary line dispute; stated concerns about the two proposed street vacations; and requested the PB postpone action on the proposal. 3. Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt spoke in opposition; expressed concerns about the property boundaries depicted in the public hearing notice, because they are different than the property boundaries shown in the illustrations and maps of the application; also he stated that street vacations are not accurately documented in the application's exhibits. Responding to PB Vice Chair Gallagher' S request, Attorney Connolly provided the following clarification: the City and the Planning Board do not have the authority to resolve property line disputes; added that the Planning Board acts based on the documentation of ownership that is submitted by the applicant, which is based on the requirements of the City Code; and concluded that property line disputes are resolved in the court. 4. Emma Joels spoke against the two additional right of way vacations, because there had been no discussion on how the review criteria have been evaluated; and requested the applications be denied. 5. Mike Lasche expressed concerns about the MURT being treated on a piece meal basis (block by block); and generally he objects to the lack of specific information relating to MURT issues. 6. David Baber, Sarasota Alliance of Historic Preservation spoke in support of the plans to preserve the Belle Haven, would like to ensure its preservation in perpetuity, and requested that the developer create a Façade Easement with the Florida Trust. 7. Richard Hershner, Gillespie Park resident, supports the idea of a Façade Easement in order to preserve Belle Haven in perpetuity; also recommends that the issuance of the permit for the restoration of Belle Haven be concurrent to the issuance of the first building permit for this project; expressed concerns about the traffic on Fruitville Road; and expressed concerns about the absorption of all the new development, and the current overbuilding in Sarasota, which results in demolitions of older buildings. Applicant Rebuttal Attorney Bailey stated that the MURT on their plans is aligned with the City's MURT Map; added that there is no City requirement that the MURT is Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 21 landscaped, and the proposed internal MURT is an additional optional item; emphasized that this is a General Development Plan, not a Site Plan, and the detailed reviews will take place at the Site Plan review; explained that in exchange for the right-of-way vacations the city is getting public access easements, to which the public will continue to have the same level of access as if they were public streets; and added that the developer is also dedicating land along their property for the construction of the roundabout. Responding to PB Member Gannon's question, Attorney Bailey provided clarification as to who will pay for the roundabout at Fruitville Rd/US 41: FDOT will restore the funding to the City, the Developer will do permitting, designing and constructing on a fast tract basis and the City will provide either reimbursement or mobility credits. PB Member Morriss asked if the development will consider a façade easement for Belle Haven. Attorney Bailey stated that this is a new concept for them, the developer has made considerable financial commitments to restore and not move Belle Haven, and are: not in a position to make additional commitments at this time. PB Chair Lindsay closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. A. Motion for General Development Plan 16-SP-08 PB Vice Chair Gallagher moved to find General Development Plan 16-SP-08 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and the Administrative Regulations for General Development Plans and approve the General Development Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The issuance ofthis development permit by the City ofSarasota does not in any way crate any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill he obligations imposed by state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations ofstate or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. The General Development Plan and all related development plans for the proposed project shall be in compliance with those labeled Sarasota Bayside, received by the Department ofl Neighborhood and Development Services on August 9, 1916 unless othervise stated in the Development Agreement. All subsequent Site Plans approved by the Planning Board shall be consistent with the Standards for Review of Site Plans in Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code. Final construction plans shall be subject to afull review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director ofNeiglhborhood and Development Services. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 21 Speaking to his motion, PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that what happened to the trees has been mitigated, and the Planning Board will review the Site Plans for specific review standards, SO he supports the motion. PB Member Morriss speaking to his second, stated that everything is generic in the Development Plan and specific review comments will be provided at the Site Plan review level. The motion for the General Development Plan 16-SP-08 passed unanimously (vote 5/0). B. Motion for Development Agreement 16-DA-01 PB Member Morriss moved to find Development agreement 16-DA-01 consistent with Section IV-1506 oft the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Vice Chair Gallagher seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Gallagher noted that there were comments on the MURT, but what is proposed is a great improvement over what is there now; added that it is not in the purview of the Planning Board to resolve property line disputes; pointed out that if the developer considers façade easements to be a good option, they will bring it forward in future meetings; and concluded that the proposed Development Agreement meets review standards, and he supports it. PB Member Morriss stated that he likes the incremental approach to this project and the commitment to Sarasota' s fabric, history, and sense of place. PB Member Gannon expressed concerns about the developer's lop-sided commitment in transportation, applauded the great commitment to vehicular transportation and the construction of the roundabout, but people's mobility does not have the same commitment in the agreement, and he would like to see a short timeframe for the construction of the MURT. Discussion ensued. The motion for Development Agreement 16-DA-01 passed unanimously (vote 5/0). C. Motion for Street Vacation 16-SV-03 PB Vice Chair Gallagher moved to find Street Vacation 16-SV-03 consistent wuith Section IV-1306 of the zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to the following conditions. 1. The Applicant shall execute and record in the Official Records of Sarasota County a Utility Easement in favor of the City of Sarasota, Florida for the purposes of maintaining and repairing the existing potable water facilities within the portion of the alley west of El Vernona Avenue and the portion ofE EL Vernona Avenue proposed Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 21 to be vacated. The execution and recording ofthe utility easement required by this subsection shall be accomplished as a condition precedent to second reading ofthe street vacation ordinance. 2. In the event that the Applicant's plans for development oft the vacated portion of the alley right-of-way west of EL Vernona. Avenue and the portion ofE El Vernona Avenue requires the future relocation ofa fany oft the water facilities, then all oft the expenses of construction, including design costs for relocation, shall be borne by Applicant. The design and location oft the potable water, sanitary sewer and stormwater facilities shall be subject to the approval of the City of Sarasota, Florida. The Applicant shall either execute a Utility Easement in fvoroft the City or Sarasota, Florida for the purpose of maintaining and repairing the future relocated potable water if said facilities are not relocated into a public right of way or designate the water line as private. Said easement shall be recorded as a condition precedent to the issuance of the first Certificate ofOccupancy, for the block adjacent to the subject right of ways as depicted in Application 16-SP-08. Performance of this condition shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements ofall applicable odes and ordinances oft the City of Sarasota, Florida and with the requirements ofany department of the City which would process the permit for utility relocation. 3. The Applicant shall execute and record in the Official Records of Sarasota County a Utility Easement in favor of the Florida Power and Light Company for the purposes of maintaining and repairing the existing electric facilities within the portion of alley right-ofway west OfEL Vernona Avenue and the subject portion of EL Vernona Avenue right of zoay proposed to be vacated. The execution and recording oft the utility easement required by this subsection shall be accomplished as a condition precedent to second reading. for the street vacation ordinance. 4. In the event that the Applicant's plans for development of the vacated portion of the alley right-of-way west of El Vernona and the portion OfEL Vernona Avenue re quires the future relocation ofany of the electric facilities, then all of the expenses of construction, including design costs for relocation, shall be borne by Applicant. The design and location oft the electric facilities shall be subject to the approval ofthe City of Sarasota, Florida. The Applicant shall execute a Utility Easement in favor of the Florida Power and Light Company for the purpose of maintaining and repairing the future relocated electric facilities ifsaid facilities are not relocated in to a public right of zoay. Said easement shall be recorded as a condition precedent to the issuance ofthe first Certificate of Occupancy, for the block adjacent to the subject right-of-ways as depicted in Application 16-SP-08. Performance of this condition shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements ofall applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Sarasota, Florida and with the requirements ofany department ofthe City which would process the permit for utility relocation. 5. The Applicant shall execute and record in the Official Records of Sarasota County a Utility Easement in favor of Verizon Florida Incorporated for the purposed of maintaining and repairing the existing telephone facilities within the portion oft the El Vernona Avenue right ofroay proposed to be vacated. The execution and recording of the utility easement required by this subsection shall be accomplished as a condition precedent to second reading of the street vacation ordinance. 6. In the event that the Applicant's plans for development of the vacated portion of the El Vernona Avenue right-of-way requires the future relocation ofany of the telephone Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 21 facilities, then all oft the expenses ofconstruction, including design costs for relocation shall be borne by applicant. The design and location of the telephone facilities shall be subject to the approual ofthe City of Sarasota, Florida. The Applicant shall execute a Utility Easement in favor of Verizon Florida Incorporated for the purpose of maintaining and repairing the future relocated telephone facilities ifsaid facilities are nor relocated into a public right ofway. Said easement shall be recorded as a condition precedent to the issuance ofthe first Certificate ofOccupancy for the block adjacent to the subject right ofway as depicted in Application 16-SP-08. Performance oft this condition shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements ofall applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Sarasota, Florida and with the requirements ofany department ofthe City zohich would process the permit for utility relocation. 7. The Applicant shall execute and record in the Official Records of Sarasota County a Utility Easement in Favor ofComcast Southzvest Florida, Inc. for the purposes of maintaining and repairing the existing cable facilities within the portion of the alley right-of-way west of EL Vernona Avenue proposed to be vacated. The execution and recording of the utility easement required by this subsection shall be accomplished as a condition precedent to second reading of the street vacation ordinance. 8. In the event that the Applicant's plans for development oft the vacated portion of the alley right-of-vay west OfEI Vernona Avenue requires the future relocation ofany of the cable described facilities, then all oft the expenses ofconstruction, including design costs for relocation, shall be borne by Applicant. The design and location ofthe cable facilities shall be subject to the approval of the City of Sarasota, Florida. The Applicant shall execute a Utility Easement in favor of Comcast Southwest Florida, Inc. for the purpose ofmaintaining and repairing the future relocated cable facilities if said facilities are not relocated into a public right ofway. Said easement shall be recorded as a condition precedent to the issuance oft the first Certificate ofOccupancy for the block adjacent to the subject right ofway depicted in Application 16-SP-05. Performance oft this condition shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements ofany department of the City which would process the permit for utility relocation. 9. The Applicant shall execute a right-of-way easement in favor oft the City of Sarasota, Florida for the purpose ofproviding public pedestrian and vehicular access over the street grid with Applicant's adjacent property. The fully executed right ofay easement shall be provided to the Office ofthe City Attorney as a condition precedent tot second reading ofthe street vacation ordinance. The City Attorney shall hold the right of woay easement in escroz. The City Attorney shall be authorized to record the original right ofray easement in the Official Records of Sarasota County upon receiving written instruction to do SO from Applicant. In the event that the as built location ofthe nez street grid is diferent than what Das shown in Application 16-SP- 08, as a condition precedent to the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, for each Block, the applicant shall provide a nez origin al fully executed public pedestrian and vehicular access easement for the as built location of the new street grid. The City Attorney will be authorized to record the right ofray easement with the as built location for the nezu street grid. The. Applicant acknowledges that recording oft the right of way easement shall be a necessary condition precedent to the issuance of the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 21 first final certificate ofoccupancy for any aspect of the project depicted in Application No. 16-SP-05. 10. A condition precedent to the effective date of the subject street vacations shall be the issuance by the City of Sarasota ofthe first building permit for the mixed use project Applicant intends to construct upon the vacated right of way and adjoining property pursuant to Application 16-SP-08 and subsequent Site Plans. The City shall record a Notice of Efective Date f Street Vacation in the Official Records of Sarasota Count y at such time as said building permit has been issued. The street vacation shall be final and those certain portions of right-of-zay(s) shall be closed, discontinued and vacated as of the date of recording in the Official Records of Sarasota County of the Notice of Efective Date of Street Vacation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Applicant does not obtain a Certificate ofc Occupancy, for the mixed use project to be constructed upon the adjacent real property pursuant to Application No 16-Sp-08 within twenty-four (24) months oft the date ofissuance of the first building permit, the effective date ofs street vacation shall be rescinded and all subject right-of-way property shall revert to the City of Sarasota as public right-of-way. This reverter right shall be referenced in the Notice of Effective Date of Street Vacation. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Gallagher spoke to his motion stating the proposed vacation meets all review standards and he supports it. PB Chair Lindsay stated that he likes the fact that this is available to the public as if it were a public street, it is not like a private street in a subdivision where one can close the gate at night. The motion for Street Vacation 16-SV-03 passed unanimously (vote 5/0). D. Motion for Street Vacation 16-SV-05 PB Member Morriss moved to find Street Vacation 16-SV-05 consistent with Section IV-1306 ofthe Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the revised Street Vacation Ordinance subject to the same conditions as stated in Ordinance 07-4716 as modified to reflect the nezu Development Agreement and General Development Plan. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss stated he supports it because it makes sense. The motion for Street Vacation16-5V-05 passed unanimously (vote 5/0). IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO1 THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address thel 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.) Mr. Shawn Pearson appeared and stated that at the Parks Recreation and Environmental Protection Board (PREP Board) meeting last month there was a vigorous discussion on the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting August 17, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 21 transparency and the process followed by advisory boards; suggested that "Citizen's Input" should be on the Planning Board's agenda at the beginning of the public meetings as well as at the end, to better facilitate the citizens who wish to speak and share information; pointed out that the Planning Board should meet with other advisory boards to discuss common purposes and to exchange ideas; and invited the Planning Board to meet with the PREP Board, by contacting Mark Hamilton, Staff Liaison. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 13, 2016 No changes. 2. May 11, 2016 Page 12 of 14 Correction - change PB Member Gannon to PB Member Morriss. 3. May 25, 2016 PB Member Gannon referenced Page 8 of 13 of the minutes, and requested a copy of the staff report Chief Planner Chapdelain referenced in that meeting. General Manager Smith promised to forward the report to the PB Members. Minutes were approved as amended, by consensus. VI. 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. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:32 P.M. David Smith, General Manager - Integration Robert Lindsay, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]