CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Eileen Normile, Chair Members Present: Damien Blumetti, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Timothy Litchet, Director, Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Lucia Panica, Chief Planner, Development Services Department Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Katie Whitney, Code Compliance Specialist I. CALLMEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Normile called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.m., and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary of the Board] read the pledge of conduct. Attorney Connolly presented the Quasi-judicial Public Hearing Proceedings, recommended time limits for the presentations, administered the oath to all who intended to speak this evening, and noted that there are no applications for affected parties. B. Quasi-udicinl Public Hearings 1. Wawa-Fruitville (2268, 2260, 2252, 2234 2nd Street and 2295, 2277, 2257, 2247, 2237 Fruitville Road): Adjustment Application No. 19-ADP-01 is a request for approval of an adjustment from Section VII-110(5)(C), Zoning Code, (2002 ED.) for property located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district for a project to be known as Wawa. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 15 The applicant is requesting wall signage to be located other than at the top of the first floor façade and to allow signage to exceed the allowable maximum height of 24". (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Don Neu, Agent, introduced to the record himself and Mr. Scott Gerard, Wawa Project Engineer; noted that they have been before the Planning Board in the past for this project, explained that this is the last step they need to do; and pointed out that this is an adjustment for the sign. Mr. Gerard stated that he has been with Wawa for twenty five years, he moved from Philadelphia to Florida and has handled all the Wawa stores on Florida's west coast, from Pasco County to Naples; noted that the company is excited to come to the City of Sarasota; said that they have several stores in Sarasota County, and a handful of stores in Manatee County; stated that they are asking for adjustment on the wall sign, to increase the height to 3-ft. 6-in. from the allowable height of 2-ft.; explained that the wall sign consists of individual channel letters, they are individually attached to the building, and it consists of Wawa's name and a goose above it, which is part of their logo; pointed out that this has been trademarked and they cannot adjust position or proportions; explained that the tallest letter in the word "Wawa" is 2-ft. 6-in., the goose is 17-in tall, and combined, the sign is 3-ft. 6-in.; pointed out that the Wawa signs are modest; demonstrated though llustrations the standard wall sign used by Wawa, the proposed wall sign, and the Wawa sign sized to be compliant with the Code of the City of Sarasota; said that the standard wall sign is 51 sq. ft. and it has been used at the stores around Sarasota County and Manatee County, but it is not consistent with the City of Sarasota Sign Code; noted that they revised the sign and reduced its size from 51 sq. ft. to 21 sq. ft.; added that the last illustration shows how the sign would look if it were compliant with the City of Sarasota Sign Code noting it drops the square footage to 9.5 sq. ft., and it is tiny; noted the 21 sq. ft. area of the proposed sign is modest; pointed out that a retailer with a larger name would be allowed to have a sign of a much larger square footage than the one they are proposing; and summarized his comments. Mr. Neu added that the location of the goose over the letters adds to the height of the sign, and the way the City Code reads is as if the entire sign is that high, which is not the case; and explained that the goose: is part of the logo that is a registered trademark, and has to stay there, therefore they are requesting relief. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 3 of the drawings; and said that it appears to be a free-standing sign, placed on some pavers. Mr. Neu noted that she is referring to their monument sign on page 3; explained that that the packet includes their entire set of plans for signs, and clarified that this evening they are not discussing the monument sign, rather they are discussing the signs that are attached to the building. PB Member Morriss noted that it was very helpful to see the size of the sign when designed to be compliant with the City of Sarasota Code because it gives the actual reality of how it applies; and asked about the reason for the goose in the logo. Mr. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 15 Gerard explained that "wawa" means "goose" in Lenape Indian; and added that the original dairy was established in Wawa, a little Borough in Pennsylvania, and the company kept the name. Staff's Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; stated that the subject property is located on the northwest corner of Fruitville Road and Lime Avenue; pointed out that the existing zone district is Downtown Edge (DTE), and that the property is also located within the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay District; noted that on April 10, 2019 the site received Planning Board approval for a Site Plan and for a Minor Conditional Use to allow for the construction of a gas station and a retail store known as Wawa; added that the applicants have also received a variance to allow for metal as an exterior finish material for up to 7% of the building; clarified that there are two adjustments requested this evening, for two identical signs, one of the adjustments is to allow to place the sign just above the first floor façade, at approximately 16-ft 9.5-in above the finished floor, and the other adjustment is to allow the increase in the height of the signs; added that the sign on the east façade is 16-ft 9.5-in from the finished floor, and the sign of the southern façade is 17-ft 7-in from the finished floor; noted that staff had concerns about the 5-ft 6.5-in height of the Wawa standard sign, but the applicants were able to reduce it; noted that details of the signs are included in the support materials of the staff report; and stated that staff supports the two requests and recommends a motion to find Adjustment 19-ADP-01 consistent with Section IV-1903 oft the Zoning Code, and approve the Adjustment subject the two conditions in the staff report. PB Member Gannon asked what is the amount of adjustment that can be applied administratively for height of signs. Chief Planner Panica said that an adjustment of up to 25% of the dimensions can be approved administratively and concurred with PB Member Gannon that administratively the letters could be 30-in and they are requesting 27.25 -in. PB Member Ohlrich asked if these signs are illuminated. Chief Planner Panica stated that the signs are internally illuminated. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she is concerned about the impact the lluminated signs may have on nearby residences; and asked about the proximity of the closest residencies to this Wawa. Chief Planner Panica noted that the nearest Residential Use Zoning is approximately 225-ft. from the edge of this site across Fruitville Road, the site which is currently under construction; added that thereis a gas canopy, which will be the source of the majority of the light; said that the City has lighting standards, which will be considered during the building permit stage; said the next residential development is 555-ft. to the north of the site, but there are buildings in front of it as well, and there is no direct impact; and noted the site across Fruitville Road is the only one with direct view of the site. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of15 PB. Member Ohlrich disclosed for the record that she had ex-parte communication with Chief Planner Panica on this matter. PB Chair Normile asked if other PB Members had ex-parte communications relating to this application. There was none. Applicant Rebuttal: There was none. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti moved to find Adjustment 19-ADP-01 consistent with Section IV- 1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the adjustment subject to the following conditions: 1. Adjustment Application No. 19-ADP-01 is limited to the two Wawa wall signs shown on the sign plans submitted by Applicant and received by the Development Services Department on March 12, 2019. 2 The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create 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 the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violation of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Blumetti stated that the image of the compliant sign compared to their standard sign and the proposed sign was a clear indication that they did their best to apply the Code and make it reasonable for the site. PB Member Gannon speaking to his second stated that as the Planning Board reviews applications to apply the rules in a fashion that achieve the outcome, the Board comes across issues oftentimes where a company's logo begins to impact it, in terms of the placement; added that it is one of the more difficult things companies go through, to just even getting internal agreement on a logo, and then, once it is in place, making sure it gets implemented; said he respects that this is the case; added that if they were to look at it just from the lettering size, it is within the size the sign is intended to be, and that is why he is supporting it. PB Member Morriss said a picture is worth one thousand words, and the picture of the compliant signage in the packet that gives the people a chance to think is great; and concluded that the applicants did the right thing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 15 PB Chair Normile stated that she will support the motion; noted that one of the primary reasons is the speed of the traffic going by past the building; and said that it is not really a pedestrian location, and for someone who is driving to catch that sign, the sign needed to be a little larger. Motion passes unanimously, with a vote of 5 to 0. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: ATTHIS TIME CITIZENS MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING BOARDON: TOPICSOF CONCERN. ITEMS WHICHHAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY: DISCUSSED. AT PUBLIC. HEARINGS MAY NOT BE ADDRESSED. ATTHIS TIME. (A MAXIMUM 5-MINUTE TIME LIMIT.) There was none. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. March 13, 2019 PB Member Normile expressed concern about reviewing minutes that have already been in the City Commission's packets. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he will be discussing this later this evening under Presentations of Topics by Planning Board. Minutes were approved by consensus. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. Mr. Cover stated he has the following updates for the Planning Board: Staff received permission to move forward with the Citywide Public Art Program, and said the Ordinance is pretty much prepared and will come before the Planning Board next month. PB Member Gannon asked what the specific changes are. Mr. Cover said that the Pubic Art Program, and the contributions to it, are currently just in the downtown area, and will now be citywide. PB Member Gannon asked if the change is only to the process. Mr. Cover agreed. Transportation Master Plan "Sarasota in Motion' "- the first technical workshop was held on Friday, May 3, 2019, and the first public workshop will be held on June 4, 2019, form 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., at the Robert Taylor Community Complex, and encouraged everyone to attend; and noted that this is moving forward nicely. On June 6, 2019 staff will be interviewing Bike Sharing companies, and after that they will make a selection to move forward with a Bike Share Program in the City; added that this also includes a ninety-day test trial for electric scooters; explained that they want to see if that will work in the City, ifi it does, great, if it doesn't, then staff will not Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of15 move forward with the scooter program, but they will definitely move forward with the bike sharing program. PB Chair Normile asked if the bikes have any kind of a bell on them, because it seems as though she has been almost been run over multiple times as she walks her dog, because she does not hear people coming up behind her, and thinks a warning bell could be useful. Mr. Cover said that he thinks they do; and said that he will also bring it up in the discussions. PB Member Gannon asked if they have access to baseline data, SO that, as part of this ninety-day test, they can verify emergency room visits if safety is an issue; said that staff would have to make sure that they have a couple months of baseline data, and tracking things like bike injuries, and they can get some data from the test trial. Mr. Cover stated that they will need a lot of data for this program, and by the end of the ninety days staff will have all the statistics they need to determine whether they can go forward with this, or not. PB Chair Normile asked if there will be a sobriety test for everyone who picks up a scooter. There was discussion about the legality of bicycling and scootering under the influence. On June 13, 2019 from 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m., on Longboat Key, both the Sarasota City Commission and the Longboat Key City Commission will discuss a series of transportation issues. Staff wants to schedule a special meeting to conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on application 19-APP-05, appealing the approval of 18-ASP-05, Epoch Residences, 605 S. Gulfstream Avenue; and said staff is looking for a special date to do that either in June or July, and he wants to find out when is a good time for the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly shared some dates, compiled by Karen Grassett, on which staff as well as Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Lobeck are available; they are: June 4, 2019; June 5, 2019; June 24, 2019 only in the afternoon;July 2, 2019;July 9, 2019;July 16, 2019; July 17, 2019; July 19, 2019; July 22, 2019; and July 29, 2019; added that he has confirmed with the Clerk's Office, that there is still time to advertise the meetings, should the Planning Board choose June 4 or June 5; and said the meeting time would be up to the Planning Board with the exception of June 24, 2019 when Mr. Lincoln is available only in the afternoon. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Normile invited Mr. Lincoln to join the discussion. Mr. Lincoln stated that, from the developer's standpoint, the earlier this can be scheduled the better, there is no issue about the appellant's S ability or how the rest of that is going to bear, but this is a circumstance where delays are problematic for the developer, they have been working for a long time, they have the approval, they have construction contracts that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 15 are set up and established, a lot of other things that are tied to the approval that has been issued, and resolving the appeal is really critically important; and concluded, the earlier the better. The Planning Board selected to hold the special meeting on June 4, 2019. The October 2019 regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting is on October 9, 2019 and it conflicts with Yom Kippur; Mr. Cover requested to reschedule it to October 16, 2019. PB Chair Normile stated that she will be out of town; the meeting was rescheduled to October 2, 2019. Mr. Cover stated thatit will be a very busy summer for the Planning Board, and September will be very busy as well. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the form Planning Board Members receive every month that lists petitions, names, Planning Board Action and City Commission Action, and noted that there are two items that will be on this list that are not on the list yet; explained that one is the airport hotels, for which the Planning Board recommended denial to the City Commission, but the City Commission voted to approve; noted that the City Commission's decision making process was different than the Planning Board's decision process; pointed out that the Planning Board considered the Standards for Review, and the City Commission could not consider the Standards for Review, and asked if there is an explanation for that. Attorney Connolly stated that he is not aware of what PB Member Ohlrich is talking about. Mr. Cover said it is the same thing. PB Chair Normile said that the Planning Board members were told, when reviewing the hotels, to use the Standards for Review for Rezones even though this was: not a rezoning; added that when the application went to the City Commission, they were told not to use the Standards for Review for a Rezone, because there was language in the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Agreement, that the Planning Board did not have, that indicated what the limits of the City Commission's powers were, and that only the matrix could be considered. Attorney Connolly stated that he disagreed with what PB Chair Normile just said, but he was not at the City Commission meeting. PB Chair Normile said she may have misunderstood, but the City Commissioners were told not to use the Standards for Review while the Planning Board was told to use them. Attorney Connolly said he has no personal knowledge of what they were told. PB: Member Gannon stated that he listened to the meeting and understood that the appeal was of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 15 site plan, not the rezone, and the rezone had the language referring to the Standards of Review about economic impact. Attorney Connolly stated that there was not an appeal of the site plan, as it turned out, because in the interim, the applicant proffered the site plan as a condition of the rezone, and the site plan went to the City Commission with the Rezone Ordinance Amendment. PB Chair Normile said that they did not use the Standards for Review of a Rezone, which the Planning Board used. PB Member Morriss requested that Attorney Connolly looks into this, and tell the Planning Board what happened, for education purposes. PB Chair Normile said it had something to do with the DRI Agreement language which stated that the City Commission could review, but nothing else. PB Member Morriss said that the matrix was a matter of bookkeeping, and this leads to the question of why the Planning Board spent three hours talking about it. Attorney Connolly stated that he has the same question, because he tried to tell the Planning Board all that. PB Chair Normile noted that the Planning Board were told to use the Standards for Rezone, she actually asked if they should use the Standards of Review for a Rezone if it is not a Rezone. Attorney Connolly pointed out that it was a Rezone Ordinance Amendment, and the Standards for Review would apply, but all that the Planning Board was talking about in that meeting was the change that was authorized by the matrix. PB Chair Normile noted that it is not included in the Standards for Review, and if she incorrect, she would like to be educated on that. PB Member Ohlrich concurred, and stated that it would help Planning Board Members, in future decision making, to know why and how that happened for the airport hotels; added that, as she watched the City Commission meeting, it almost seemed to her that applicant had used the Planning Board as a trial run, a practice, so that when they got to the City Commission, they presented differently, and she asked if it is common for the applicants to use the Planning Board as a trial run. PB Vice Chair Blumetti disagreed with that; noted that it was clear what they wanted to do, as far as he was concerned, they were moving around the matrix, and in his opinion they explained that well; added that it was explained well in the packet, and it was explained by Attorney Connolly at the meeting as well; added that the only difference is that they proffered that site plan, and the Planning Board's denial became a recommendation for approval instead of an appeal, that is how he understood it. Attorney Connolly agreed with that. PB Chair Normile pointed out that from a legal standpoint it is a little confusing because a proffered site plan with a rezone amendment requires a hearing before the Planning Board, and the Planning Board did not have al hearing on a proffered site plan. Attorney Connolly Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 15 noted that the Planning Board had a hearing on the Rezone Ordinance Amendment and the Site Plan. PB Chair Normile said that it was confusing all around, and the part that she thinks would be helpful is that, when all the lawyers showed up at the City Commission meeting they spoke about the DRI Agreement, and that was something the Planning Board did not have, and it would have been helpful. Attorney Connolly stated that Mr. Neu spoke about that, and he strongly disagrees that this was a test; noted that they had no clue of what the Planning Board was going to do to them, sO they went back and reconsidered how to address the issue; apologized for being blunt, and stated that the five Planning Board members came from totally out of left field, and they could have not possibly foresee that coming. PB Vice Chair Blumetti pointed out that it was not all five PBI Members, it was a vote of 3-2. PB Chair Normile said that questions come up, lawyers appreciate the fact that you go to trial when questions come up; stated that the question is how can the Planning Board get the same directive as the City Commission, she thinks they did not, or she was confused. PB Member Morriss stated that he was also confused, or he would not want to waste all that time. PB Chair Normile repeated that she asked if the Planning Board should use the Standards for Review, and that's what they were discussing where the City Commission was told to usej just the matrix, because of the DRI Agreement. PB Member Morriss stated that a more useful question is how this can be avoided in the future. Attorney Connolly stated that he does not know, because no one could foresee where they Planning Board took that; noted two of the Planning Board members came into the public hearing obviously having talked to hotel operators on the North Trail, and had questions that did not come from anything in the materials; and said there was a discussion for the need for hotels, which is not the Planning Board's business. PB Chair Normile stated that this is a separate discussion than what the Planning Board is asking. Attorney Connolly disagreed; pointed out that the applicant came before the Planning Board with what the applicant needed to bring to the Planning Board; said that in retrospect they should have come to the Planning Board meeting with an attorney instead of just coming in with a planner; and said the attorney would have been able to do a better job of trying to bring the Planning Board back to where the Planning Board should have been. PB Member Morriss asked if the Planning Board should disregard public comment that basically there is an economic incompatibility in the works. Attorney Connolly said, "Yes, in that case;" and added that what the Planning Board did in that case was totally inappropriate. PB Member Morriss said it would have been helpful if the Planning Board had more guidance on that. Attorney Connolly said that if the PB Members go back and look [at the meetingl, they will find out that, at the point that they asked that question, he was scared to death, because they were going down a road that they could get sued on; added that he opened his mouth at that point, after three PB members had gone down that path, and he spoke to the Planning Board about criterion #12, and read what Planner Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 15 Greenberg had in his record as to what the answer was to criterion #12; pointed out that the Planning Board members put him in a really bad position, because he could have been blunt with the Planning Board at that point, in which case, he would have created Planners Exhibit #1, and the Planning Board would have been sued under Section 1983; noted that he did not do that; and said that when he opens his mouth, it is not because he feels like hearing himself talk, it is because the Planning Board is about to step in it, and he is trying to get them to stop. PB Chair Normile said that the Planning Board can hear Attorney Connolly; asked if it would be helpful to go into some training, to know what the meanings of things; added that it is hard to understand that criterion #12 only means the Comprehensive Plan, because, otherwise, the Planning Board knows that they have to comply with the Comprehensive Plan; and asked why it is part of the criteria for a rezone. Attorney Connolly said that this is what the case planner brings the Planning Board, and he or she puts in front of the Planning Board the answers to all twelve of the criteria. PB Chair Normile asked if it would be helpful to have some education as to what the meaning of those... Attorney Connolly stated that he does not know what more he can do; added that everything the Planning Board members spoke about in that public hearing was totally unexpected by him; and said he had no idea that they were going down any of those rabbit holes. PB Member Ohlrich asked if Attorney Connolly will be able to investigate what happened. Attorney Connolly stated that he will speak with Mr. Fournier to find out what they discussed relating to the Standards of Review. PB Member Ohlrich said that this will be helpful in the future when the Planning Board is making decisions. PB Vice Chair Blumetti referred to the minutes; stated that the minutes are for the record but they are also for the City Commission; said that the minutes are fantastic, that is not the issue; explained that the issue is approving minutes after the City Commission meeting; expressed concern for cases where there are changes in the minutes, or something is not said correctly, and the City Commission only sees the draft minutes; and asked if there is a better process for that. Attorney Connolly stated that it is a logistics matter; said the Planning Board cannot approve the minutes for this meeting this evening, the next time the Planning Board can possibly do it is at the next meeting; and asked if they have to tell every applicant two months, instead of one month, SO that the Planning Board has a chance to review the minutes. PB Chair Normile said that the Planning Board has to do whatisi right; and added that if there is a serious error in the minutes it could be a problem. PB Member Ohlrich said she does not know any way around that. PB Member Gannon stated that other than being sent via email; explained that the draft minutes could be sent via email, if they are to be used in the back up material for any of the City Commission presentations; added that he understands that they have to be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 15 included in the City Commission packets two weeks prior to their meeting, which is barely after the Planning Board meeting; added if the Planning Board could be notified that this draft has been submitted, at least that subsection that relates to the issues that are going before the City Commission; said that if the PB Members saw something in there that was incorrect, they could at least put something on the record stating that they object to it; asked if that can be done, even though it is not on the Planning Board records as fully corrected minutes, but at least put it on the record for the City Commission, if there was something glaring, not a minor correction, like if something is totally mistaken, or in some cases actually mistakenly something presenting the opposite because the word "not" was left out. PBI Member Blumetti said that School Avenue was not last month, it was the month before. PB Members said that it was a Special Meeting. PB Chair Normile said that if someone in the public requested the: minutes, they would be told "No," 1 because they are draft minutes, and yet, they are released to the City Commission. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that when there are Topics from Planning Board Members to be discussed, like the Code Compliance issues for the meeting before this meeting, he would appreciated it if the support documentation were included in the Planning Board packets; referred to the handout distributed in the last meeting; said that there were several valid points, and PB Members received the handout the night of the meeting; and added that it would be appreciated. Study of Current Code Enforcement Practices-Report to City Commission PB Chair Normile stated that before the Planning Board begins their discussion, she wanted to explain what she is sharing with the Planning Board this evening; said that she tried to write down what everyone said as a motion in the last meeting, and this evening they were going to discuss whether she has done it correctly; asked if everyone has their copy or they need one; said that she went through it, noted that sometimes the PB members are hard to understand, but she tried to write it as verbatim as she could; invited Mr. Litchet to come to the dais; and stated that Mr. Litchet, Mr. Cover, and Attorney Connolly have received a copy. PB Member Ohlrich said that PB Chair Normile did a good job. PM Member Gannon concurred; referred to the first item on the list that was just distributed, and said that he thought that the Planning Board requested the City Commission authorize the hiring of a construction safety firm, because later on it says . to inform staff.. : added that in order to do that, first he has to hire a firm, not " authorize to investigate hiring. ;" pointed out that one. could come back and say, "We. havei investigated, but we have not actually hired;" and said that they wanted it to be more action. PB Chair Normile said that she thought this was in regard to prices. PB Member Morriss suggested that it read " .investigate, hire, and inform.. " PB Chair Normile asked if he needs to investigate. PB Member Morriss stated that normally hiring would involve Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 15 investigation. PB Chair Normile said " hire a construction safety firm to audit current City of Sarasota construction processes regarding staging and inspection...," and said the rest describes what the firm is supposed to do; pointed out that there was considerable additional discussion about the audit itself and whether it should include public input or just be audited on the paperwork; and she asked if that is something anybody would want to amend. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that it was clear that a firm would come in and audit the process, not for every single project, just the process itself. PB Member Gannon asked if they would look at the information relating to incidents and things of that nature. PB Chair Normile said that the question is what the audit is composed of, not that they hang around and go to every project, what does the audit include, what the discussion was. PB Member Gannon stated that it was his expectation that, if they are evaluating, they look at the written processes as they are written out, whether they include everything, and are they comprehensive, do they have all the things needed in the staging plan, but then, in practice, how has it been implemented, and what has been the feedback on it, (pointed out that this is the reason the Planning Board initiated this, because the Planning Board is getting feedback from the neighborhoods), to the extent that some of those issues have been resolved, and there have been updates to the processes, and updates made to the staging plan documentation requirements; and concluded that all the firm is saying is, "Yes, these issues were. raised, these things have been done, this is what the current process looks like," or there may be something additional that would be part of that auditing process. PB Chair Normile agreed with that and asked how to put it in this motion. PB Member Morriss stated that Mr. Litchet probably knows how to do that, say what we want the firm to do, and leave it at that. PB Member Gannon said that a statement about public input should be included in the audit, he means, to look at what the public input has been, not to have a community workshop. PB Vice Chair Blumetti clarified that this refers to historical information, not to have a public hearing. PB Member Gannon noted that the department has accumulated public input. PB Chair Normile asked again, how the PB members want thisi item to read. PB. Member Morriss said thati iti is fine the way it is written. PB Member Gannon agreed, and pointed out that the word "investigate" needs to be removed. PB Chair Normile said "the red part out, and the black part stays." 1 PB Members agreed. PB Chair Normile asked if they are sure public input is included. PB Member Gannon pointed out that this is going to the City Commission, and he is sure they will ask what is included and what is not; and concluded that he does not see any problem not including what appears in red [on the handout that was distributed earlier by PB Chair Normile]. PB Member Gannon clarified that he would tend to include what is in red, but he has no problem simplifying it. PB Member Ohlrich suggested changing the word "to" to "may," 1 the audit may include.. and may include public input." PB Member Morriss stated that there will be a discussion and these things will be more precisely outlined; and recommended that the Planning Board appear and say this is what they recommend. PB Chair Normile said that they have to make sure what they are suggesting is what everybody wants. PB Member Ohlrich stated that eliminating the red Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 15 is fine. PB Member Gannon said that he is trying to think about the City Commission meeting, and what is on the agenda item, then somebody on the City Commission has to make a motion, and they do expect to have some background information tied to that, and that is why he was thinking about stating it SO, that, here is the requested motion, which is in black, and what is in red is more explanatory background material. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that it was perfectly clear when Mr. Litchet explained it, SO maybe when he comes down... PB Chair Normile said that the Planning Board members are3 to2in favor of the black and asked if iti is OK to move on, and she read item #1, which states: Request the City Commission to authorize Mr. Litchet to hire a construction safety firm that would audit current City of Sarasota construction processes regarding staging and inspections and taking into account historical public input. PB Vice Chair Blumetti suggested that the word "firm" be changed to 'consultant. PB Member Ohlrich suggested that, instead of using Mr. Litchet's name, the language include Mr. Litchet's title, as was done in item #2, where the language refers to the City Attorney's Office. The revised item #1 would read as follows: Code: additions are underlined; deletions are strieken-threugh Request the City Commission to authorize Mr.Litchet the Director of Development Services to hire a construction safety firm consultant that would audit current City of Sarasota construction processes regarding staging and inspections and take into account historical public input. PB Chair Normile asked PB Members to comment on items #2 and #3.1 PB Member Ohlrich stated that she made the motion, and she read the language as it was in the email the Planning Board members received. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if they could use a different term for "City's police power. n PB Chair Normile explained that it is a legal term, which relates to public welfare and safety, and it does not refer to the Police; and asked for a motion relating to the amended motion, [item #1]. PB Member Gannon moved to amend Code Compliance Motion #1 as PB Chair Normile stated. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. This motion was accepted unanimously. Mr. Cover pointed out that this is tentatively scheduled on the City Commission's agenda, under Board Presentations, on June 17th, 2019; and added that they have already discussed it, and it will be a Board Presentation at the June 17th City Commission meeting, in the afternoon. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if all PB Members have to be at the City Commission meeting. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 15 Attorney Connolly stated that he has two emails that he wants to read, one from Marlon Brown and one from Shayla Griggs. Mr. Brown, in an April 29, 2019 email to Mr. Cover, said: - suggest the request from the Planning Board goes under Board Reports in the afternoon. It will be up to the City Commission to decide how they wish to proceed. Just let us know at which meeting you would bring this to the City Commission. The Chair of the Planning Board with you sitting there will make the request. During the discussion we (any and all staff) will share with the City Commission our thoughts" Then on April 30, 2019 Mr. Brown sent a follow up stating: "Unless the City Commission wants to schedule a special meeting sO the Planning Board can make their request, I still suggest it be placed under Board Reports, where the Chair of the Planning Board can still make that request. Again, based on staff' S input, it will be up to the City Commission to decide" Attorney Connolly continued with the email from the Interim City Auditor to the Clerk, on May 1, 2019, said: "Tconcur with Marlon [Brown] on the next plan of action on this matter. Attorney Connolly concluded that the intent is that it would be Mr. Cover and the Planning Board Chair that would make the report to the City Commission, and the City Commission will do what they want. PB Chair Normile noted that she did not understand him saying that no one else should come. PB Member Gannon asked if this is simply to make a request for a joint meeting. Attorney Connolly said this is to report to the City Commission, and it is not known what the City Commission will do with the Planning Board's S request. PB: Member Gannon asked if this is to provide this set of motions that the Planning Board just discussed. PB Member Morriss stated that Planning Board Members can attend the meeting, but they cannot present. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there is a time limit or is this a presentation. PB Chair Normile asked what the reason is that they do not want the rest of the Planning Board to be there. Attorney Connolly said he did not know. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Normile said that when the Police Advisory Panel made a presentation, all the members sat together before the City Commission and did the presentation; and added that if there are questions, people could weigh in. Discussion ensued. Mr. Cover said that it would need to be advertised. Attorney Connolly said that both the Clerk and the Deputy City Manager say that, on June 17th, Mr. Cover and the Planning Board Chair will come to make this presentation to the City Commission; added that he does not know what the City Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 15 Commission will do with that presentation. PB Chair Normile said that the City Commission could invite the rest of the Planning Board up. Attorney Connolly responded that he does not know. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated the it is the third Monday in June, and it starts at 1:30 in the afternoon. PB Member Gannon stated that all of them can go up to show support, they do not have to make a presentation. PB Chair Normile said that it is important, also because there is difference of opinion, and if they have questions about it, people can state their opinion; and concluded that the Planning Board will do whatever Attorney Connolly wants them to do, they always do. Attorney Connolly said "No, to both of those statements;" added that he is just reading what the Deputy City Manager and the Clerk have said. PB Member Morriss said if they all wanted to show up, there probably needs to be a notice for a special meeting. Attorney Connolly said that the City Commission could sit with all Planning Board members. PB Member Gannon said they have done that before in a joint meeting, and the placards were set up, but that was something different, this would be that all Planning Board members come down, sit there, and maybe say something or not, just show solidarity. PB Member Morriss said that he is beginning to hear more about state legislature that is beginning to affect City Ordinances, etc., and asked if there is anybody who has a grasp of these things. PB Member Gannon said it is HB 1703, it is inclusionary zoning for affordable housing. Mr. Cover said that there are several items, and staff is tracking them on a daily basis, and some of them will have a big impact on the City. PB Chair Normile stated that the affordable housing one is a big one. Mr. Cover agreed; and added that the Tree one is also big. PB Member Morriss asked if the League of Cities will take any action on these items, because it seems they are pulling a lot of authority out of the City. Attorney Connolly stated that the League of Cities is very active in their lobbying, but you can see how it is just not working this year. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM. %u - Steven R. hamik Cover, Planning Director Eileen W. Normile, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]