CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Gretchen Schneider, General Manager-Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Schneider [as Acting Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY PB Chair Gallagher requested any changes to the order of the day. Acting Secretary Schneider stated item number III.C.1, an application by Fit2Run that was heard at the 7/9/14 hearing and continued to this meeting, has been withdrawn. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO' THE. PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Acting Secretary Schneider read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. B. Non Quasi-ludicial Public Hearings Attorney Connolly reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures and the recommended time limits for the petitions. Board Members agreed to the time limits. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 9 1. ROSEMARY STREET/LANE STREET VACATION: Application 14-SV-03 is a request for vacation of an existing forty (40). foot wide and 280 foot long unimproved right-of-way that runs east and west between Cocoanut Avenue and Florida Avenue, known as Rosemary Lane or Rosemary Street. The applicant intends to consolidate the property south of May Lane and north of Boulevard of The Arts into one parcel for future development of an apartment building. (LUCIA PANICA, PLANNER) Staff Presentation: Planner Panica appeared and stated the applicants were requesting the unimproved right-of-way be vacated; stated the right-of-way is not used by the public and is not maintained; stated the City sanitary sewer system located in the right-of-way is no longer in use and the City Utilities Department supports the vacation as long as the City is released from any liabilities; noted Verizon has a valid easement; stated the western portion of May Lane has already been vacated, there is no connectivity for pedestrian or traffic routing, no rearranging of streets or right-of-ways is proposed; noted the applicants have requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that will result in the combination of the lots to the north and south of the right-of-way; and stated staff recommended approval with the three conditions listed in the staff report. PB member Lindsay questioned if the right-of-way was City owned. Planner Panica stated it was an easement. PB member Siegel questioned if there were any restrictions on what could or could not be done with the right-of-way, if vacating the easement added value to the project, and questioned where the quid pro quo was. Attorney Connolly stated there cannot be a quid pro quo as the City cannot sell a legislative function and noted the right-of-way could be sold if the City had fee simple title. PB member Lindsay questioned if the City would be required to give a right-of-way to a developer if a public purpose in retaining the easement cannot be demonstrated. Attorney Connolly stated that could be a reasonable argument. PB member Ahearn- Koch noted the definition in the Zoning Code for a right-of-way states it is an irrevocable right. Attorney Connolly stated that was legally incorrect, and noted Florida law prevails over the City's Zoning Code. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned what necessitates improvements, how streets are chosen for improvements, noted the fact the right-of-way is unimproved is used as weight in the staff report, and questioned if an unimproved right-of-way has less value or cannot be developed. PB: member Lindsay stated projects are put in the CIPI budget five to ten years in advance. Attorney Connolly stated development is what necessitates improvements, noting the right-of-way being discussed has no place to go sO would not likely be opened up in the future. PB member Siegel stated conclusions reached in complying with the standards were pure speculation and noted changes could occur in the future. Attorney Connolly stated the City is protected by wording in adopting ordinances that conditions the approval of the vacation on building permit issuance. PB: member Lindsay stated previous City Commissions have encouraged street vacations when both sides are in common ownership and noted if not combined the two smaller lots would wind up with an entirely different type of development. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated the staff report states the property could be developed without the street vacation, the staff report states a negative would be the one larger Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of9 9 lot rather than the two smaller ones, questioned if there were any large blocks in the area, questioned if the right-of-way would be needed in the future to facilitate traffic from the school across the street, and noted the school traffic, particularly at pick-up and drop-off times, backs up on the surrounding roadways. Planner Panica stated the negative is large lots are not as pedestrian friendly, stated the parcels to the east and west of the proposed development are similar in size to that being proposed, noted the unimproved right-of-way only goes from Florida Avenue to Cocoanut Avenue, and there are public streets to the north and south of the project. PB member Ahearn- Koch questioned how the elimination of a street that could potentially create two additional walkable experiences furthers the intent of the Downtown Zone Districts to develop areas that are diverse, compact and walkable, with a high quality pedestrian environment. Planner Panica stated the proposed vacation encourages development allowing for application of the zoning regulations and the intent of the Downtown Zone Districts. PB Chair Gallagher questioned the status of May Lane to the east and west of the parcel. Planner Panica stated the portion from Cocoanut Avenue to US 41 is private, the portion to the east is public and consists of a 40 foot wide segment and 30 foot wide segment. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the 30 wide foot segment was a described roadway, stated generally smaller lots provide for better walkability, and noted there are several large blocks to the east where 5th Street does not go through and those are perfectly walkable. Acting Secretary Schneider stated the 30 foot wide segment came to light at the time the school did some renovations and built structures and while it is narrower than it should be it cannot be expanded due to the proximity of the school buildings and other buildings to the north. PB member Svekis stated he had experienced neighborhood traffic issues related to Bay Haven School when he lived in that area, stated school traffic should be controlled sooner rather than later, questioned if the street vacation were granted would it be transferrable, and questioned if the vacated right-of-way could be sold immediately. Attorney Connolly stated the street vacation would not be effective until such time as a building permit is issued, a clause will be included that it reverts back to public use if a certificate of occupancy is not issued within 24 months of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, once the certificate of occupancy is issued the vacated right-of-way could be transferred, noted if that occurred it would likely be as part of the overall development, and stated the right-of-way remains public until a notice is filed in the County Records which will not occur until all conditions are met, the last of which is the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned what the process was for reverting vacated right-of-ways back to public use noting projects that failed in the past. Attorney Connolly stated those right-of-ways were never actually vacated because they were never recorded since a building permit was never issued. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman appeared and stated he represented Roslyn Holdings, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a proposed overlay is being reviewed by the State and is anticipated to go before the city Commission for approval in September, the only way the project can be developed as a market rate apartment complex is to gain economies of scale from efficiencies of building, there will be two buildings with high levels of amenities, the right-of-way needs to be vacated in order to realize those efficiencies, noted the right-of-way had been previously vacated and it Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 9 has been assumed it can be again, the block size is not unusual in the Rosemary area, the applicants have been meeting with the school regarding traffic concerns, adding another street to the area will add to traffic issues due to queuing and conflicting movements, stated there is no public purpose for the right-of-way, Verizon has underground lines and will release the easement once the plans are finalized, a new easement will be granted at that time, the applicants anticipate submitting for building permits by the first of the year, the staff report is complete, and the applicants agree to the recommended conditions. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why the applicants assumed the right-of-way would be vacated, what would happen if it was not vacated, if the white space on the proposed plan he presented was the buildings, and stated the traffic circulation at the school is very well organized and patterned. Mr. Freedman stated the right-of-way was vacated previously, there was never a public purpose for the right-of-way, the City has no plans or need for the right-of-way, the project won't be developed if the vacation is not approved, the white space is the parking structures, and the applicants have been meeting with the school officials and will continue to do SO. PB Chair Gallagher noted the City Commission action regarding primary and secondary streets was different than what the Planning Board recommended. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants had requested May Lane be de-designated from a primary street because the applicants were proposing to vacate May Lane, the applicants realized they did not need to vacate May Lane if the overlay district occurred SO they withdrew that request, the applicants requested the de-designation of Florida Avenue which the City Commission approved, staff had requested Cocoanut Avenue be designated as a primary street and the applicants did not object to that. Citizen Testimony: Mr. David Jennings appeared and stated he represented the Sarasota School of Arts & Science, stated his appreciation for keeping the school in mind, and stated the Board of Directors feel the vacation of the right-of-way will have minimal impact on the school traffic. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB: member Svekis made a motion to find Street Vacation 14-SV-03 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to the conditions as listed. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. PB: member Svekis stated he does not see a future use for the right-of-way and the project is good for the City. PB member Siegel stated it was an excellent project and he supports it. PB member Lindsay stated there is no evidence that anything has changed since the previous vacation, noted the streets were laid out 50 - 60 years ago, and stated it is a useful project for the city and will generate tax revenue. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she respectfully disagreed, noted staff had stated the project could move forward without the vacation, there could be a use for the right-of- way in the future, developing the street could provide for additional pedestrian, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of9 street, and commercial uses, it is a street of general assembly, the project is great and she supports the idea however it is only an intent, to vacate the right-of-way for an intent is risky, and she does not support vacating the right-of-way. PB member Siegel stated the streets were developed 50/60/70 years ago, they were: not developed to accommodate development, the needs cannot be accurately predicted, and there needs to be a balance between the potential benefit of the project with the concerns raised by PB member Ahearn-Koch that the Planning Board needs to recognize, particularly in this part of the City. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated the district is being developed with its own character and flavor including walkable, interesting, engaging blocks rather than large mega-blocks, that flavor needs to be kept, noted staff stated the project could go forward without the vacation, keeping the right-of-way would add a street and walkability that would add to the flavor, the vacation makes it easier for the developer however makes for one less right-of-way. PB: member Lindsay stated a mega-block is not being created, the vacation of the right-of-way brings the property into conformity with the area, if the street is developed it will reduce the capacity of Cocoanut Avenue, there is no benefit that overrides the loss of capacity, condition number two takes care of the issue of intent, and the applicant is only getting a commitment from the City that if the project is developed the right-of-way vacation will occur. PB Chair Gallagher stated what was not apparent in the proposed site plan is the huge benefit of the parking structure in the center, noted there are three primary streets surrounding the property SO constructing a parking garage at the street frontage is not feasible, there will be thousands of additional eyes on the street which is invaluable, the character of the Rosemary District is changing, and the benefits far outweigh the loss of the right-of-way. The motion carried 4/1 with PB member Ahearn-Koch voting no. C. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings PB Chair Gallagher noted the next item on the agenda had been withdrawn and the following hearing is quasi-judicial. Attorney Connolly stated applications for affected person status had been received from Ms. Elizabeth Williams and Ms. Ernestine Young. Ms. Williams and Ms. Young were not present and therefore their requests were denied. PB Chair Gallagher stated he needed to recuse himself from the public hearing, passed the gavel to Vice Chair Svekis, and exited the Chambers. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 9 1. FIT2RUN SIGN ADJUSTMENT (1400 MAIN STREET) (CONTINUED FROM 710 Adjustment Application No. 14-ADP-06 is a request for anadi to allowable wall signage within the Downtown Bavfvo specified in Section VII-110(5)(C) of the Zoa I property with a street address of 1400 Main Sto ents are requested: 1) N Adjustment from thel lo al signage from the specified top of the first floor oposing signage to be located on the mansard local