CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY March 6, 2019 at 6:30 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 City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department David L. Smith, AICP, Manager, Planning Department Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician Others Present: Howard Davis, President, Rosemary District Association Dr. Jason Collins, ADEASQ, Transportation Consultant I. CALL MEETING 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; and read the Pledge of Contact. 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 oft the Pledge of Conduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Planning Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. PB Member Ohlrich asked who is responsible for upholding the Code of Conduct. Attorney Connolly said that it is the Planning Board Chair; added that should a person come to the table to speak and does not follow the Code of Conduct, then the PB Chair can gavel and ask them to comply with the pledge of conduct. PB Member Ohlrich asked if there is anyone in the room who is not responsible to uphold the Code of Conduct. Attorney Connolly stated that the PB Chair is responsible to uphold the Code of Conduct, and anyone who comes to the table is responsible to comply with the Code of Conduct. PB Chair Normile pointed out that compliance applies to both sides of the table. Attorney Connolly concurred. PB Member Gannon pointed out that compliance also applies to the audience, and those who do not comply can be removed from the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 41 audience. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there is a particular issue. PB Member Ohlrich said that she only needed clarification. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all present who were planning to speak this evening, and recommended time limits for presentations. B. Non-Qusit-ludicin! Public Hearings 1. 19-ZTA-02 (Public Art Committee Membership): Ordinance 19-5272, an Ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the Zoning Code (2002 edition) of the City of Sarasota, Article III, Decision Making and Administrative Bodies, Division 5, Public Art Committee, sO as to add a seventh member to the Public Art Committee; and also to provide that at least one member of the Public Art Committee be an artist; providing for severability of the parts hereof; providing for reading by title only; and providing for an effective date. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager, Planning Department) Manager Smith introduced himself for the record; stated that this is a Zoning text amendment where the City is seeking to add an additional member to the Public Art Committee; explained that currently there are six members on the Committee; pointed out that the Public Art Committee requested, a couple times last year, to add a member; noted that the Committee provided a Board report to the City Commission in September [2018], recommending that the City Commission authorizes a Zoning Text Amendment, to add an additional member to the Public Art Committee, and that member would be an artist; referred to page 12 of 46i in the packet, Section III-502. -Membership; terms; transitions; vacancies; removal (b) Qualification of members which states: One member of the committee shall be an artist; "artist, for the purposes of this Division 5. shall mean a person zuho practices and is skilled in the field of public art or public works ofart as such terms are defined in this Zoning Code... Manager Smith referred to a hand out he shared with the Planning Board, which states the definition of public art found in the Zoning Code, because it was not part of the original PB packet; and read the definition on the record: Public art or public works ofart: Public at or public works ofart is defined as the creative application of sill and taste by artists to production of permanent tangible objects according to the aesthetic principles, including but not limited to: paintings, sculptures, site specific installations, engravings, carvings, frescos, mobiles, murals, collages, mosaics, statutes, and bas-reliefs... Manager Smith explained that the Public Art Committee is looking for an artist who actually produces the art that we see in public areas, as opposed to a dancer or an actor who are also artists; stated that staff recommends approval because the petition meets the criteria for approval. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 41 PB Member Morriss asked about the reason for the request for an additional member on the Committee. Manager Smith stated that the primary reason is to have an odd number of members to reduce the chances of tie votes; added that the Committee would like the added expertise of an artist; noted that the Committee has two seats that are occupied by art experts, one is an artist and the other has a PhD in Art History, but it would be nice to have a practicing artist in a required seat on this Committee. PB Member Gannon referred to the top of page 12 of 46, Section III-502. - Membership; terms; transitions; vacancies; removal (6) Qualification of members which states: (a) Creation. The public art committee shall consist off five six members appointed by the city commission, each for a term of three years: plus one student youth representative from the Sarasota County STAR program, serving a term ofone (1) year, as provided in subsection 67 (g) below and section 2-260.1, Sarasota City Code (1986),. PB Member Gannon asked the reason for which the student has to be from the STAR program. Manager Smith referred to Zoning Code Section 2-260.1.- Board membership; STAR program participants, which states: (a) the City Commission will appoint a qualified youth representative to the citizens with disabilities advisory board, the parks, recreation and environmental protection advisoryboard, the public art committee and the Van Wezel Performing arts Board. (b) To be eligible for appointment as a student youth board member, the applicant must be a participant in the students taking active role in Sarasota County (STAR) program of the community youth development project. Manager Smith added that the City Code requires it; explained that the Attorney's Office wanted to include this language in this petition because it is a STAR requirement. PB Member Gannon asked if the requirement calls for a student of a certain age or school grade; and asked about the limitation of the STAR Program. Manager Smith referred to Zoning Code Section 2-260.1.- Board membership; STAR program participants, and read subsection (c) which states: (c) The applicant for a position as the student youth representative 0n a board shall be initially selected by the STAR leadership council of the community youth development project and recommended to the City Commission, for appointment. In making a selection, the STAR leadership council shall give prefèrence to eligible students zuho reside within the city. If this residency requirement cannot be satisfied, then the STAR leadership council shall select an applicant for recommendation to the City commission who attends a school located within the city. In all cases, the STAR leadership council shall recommend a student for appointment wuho has a special interest in the purposes for which the board is created. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 41 PB Member Gannon stated that this is an excellent program, and thanked Manager Smith for cleaning up the language for the scope for this particular committee sO that it fits with the requirements of Zoning Code Section 2-260. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 3 of 46, Action Strategy 7.5 Public Art, which states that " The City will create a public art database for the public to access.. I and asked what kind of record there is now of the public art that exists in the City. Manager Smith stated that there is a web site where one can find all the dates and minutes of the committee's meetings; added that a couple years ago an intern created a "walking tour," a GIS application, and staff created a website with all of the City the public art collection on it, it has maps, one can zoom in on it, it is mobile friendly, he needs to add the art pieces that were last installed, and the public has access to that on the website. Public Imput There was none. PB Member Morriss moved to find 19-ZTA-02 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. Motion to approve passes unanimously (vote 5 to 0). 1. 19-PA-01, 19-ZTA-01 (Rosemary Residential Overlay District): Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 19-PA-01 and Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 19-ZTA-01 is a request to amend the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code regarding the Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD). The new RROD proposes to increase thel base, as of right density from 25 to 40 dwelling units per acre and require enhanced public realm project design features including but not limited to wider sidewalks, additional building entrances and balconies facing public streets, shade and weather protection at building entrances and more porches and stoops for ground floor residential units. Additional density may be granted to a maximum of 60 dwelling units per acre for projects that comply with certain development standards and to a maximum of 100 dwelling units per acre for projects incorporating attainable housing units. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager, Planning Department) Mr. Connolly noted that this is a legislative procedure and recommended time limits for presentations. Manager Smith, Howard Davis, President of the Rosemary District Association, and Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department, introduced themselves for the record. Manager Smith stated that there are two petitions before the Planning Board, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zoning Text Amendment; said that staff will be Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 41 making one presentation, and they will be seeking two motions; explained that the first motion is for a large scale comprehensive plan amendment, which means it has to be transmitted to the state for review and comment prior to the City Commission adopting it later in the year; added that staff hopes to present this petition to the City Commission in May; stated that the Zoning Text Amendment is local, SO the recommendation would be, hopefully, a recommendation of approval to the City Commission; and noted that he distributed some handouts, which he will discuss later this evening. Mr. Davis thanked the Planning Board for taking time to consider the proposed zoning changes; thanked the neighborhood, because this is the culmination of a three-year-plus effort, which begun with a Planning initiative; thanked the Planning staff who worked on this for the last year-and-a-half, added that the end product is one that they are all proud of; added that citizens, property owners, business owners and city staff worked together very well; pointed out that this goes back to 2016, following the passage of the original overlay in 2014; noted that the economy began to recover and there was a lot of interest in the Rosemary District; said that he bought two buildings there and tried to meet as many people as he could; noted that in the process he realized that there were many people with high aspirations and great visions for this neighborhood; and pointed out that at that time there was no Planning Director and there was not much Planning being done in the wake of the recession and the layoffs of the Planning Department, SO they decided, as a neighborhood, to get involved in a grassroots effort to develop their own neighborhood based plan for the future, sO that they can actively participate in the shaping of the neighborhood as it went forward. Mr. Davis stated that to do that, they raised $50,000 dollars from Rosemary stakeholders from donations big and small, and hired Kimley-Horn to assist them on technical issues; pointed out that the traditional model of hiring a consultant, where you are telling him to come back in six months or a year to tell you what you need, was exactly the opposite of what they were looking for; added that they felt that with some technical and graphic assistance working with the professional staff at Kimley-Horn, the neighborhood could come up with a plan, with engagement with as many stakeholders as they could; noted that Kimley-Horn signed up for a year, at $50,000 dollars, and the one year rolled into two years, not because they were not doing much, but the opposite; stated that the level of engagement from the neighborhood was phenomenal, they had a dozen big, neighborhood-wide meetings that started with maybe 40 - 100 people, and many small meetings and one-on-one sessions, and for a while he was the biggest customer of the coffee shop across the street, as he was trying to get the pulse of the neighborhood and take in as many perspectives as possible. Mr. Davis stated that as this process was wrapping up in 2017, the City Commission met with Planning staff to talk about the Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD); sais the community effort produced a significant document, and the important point about that document was that it included a vision statement that the community had reached agreement upon; added that they had nine guiding principals for the neighborhood on topics like enhanced walkability, greater presence of nature in the neighborhood (parks), greater connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods north, south, east and west, and Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 41 preservation and respect for the built and cultural history of the neighborhood; said that these were significant principals for the neighborhood; noted that consensus was reached on those principals, and on more than one hundred recommendations; and said that the community was wrapping that up about the same time the City Commission met with Planning staff and requested that the staff begin to prepare a recommendation for the successor to the RROD, which was slated to expire at the end of last year [2018], or when a certain number of residential permits have been granted Mr. Davis pointed out that he attended and spoke at that City Commission meeting, in 2017; recalled that the City Commission had two specific requests (a) the topic of attainable housing be addressed, and (b) the neighborhood be involved in the development of the new zoning; pointed out that zoning is a tool for implementation of a plan, but it is not the plan; described the process the group followed, whereby they developed a plan, which is not a land use plan, but a policy plan, and an aspirational but very detailed document had the opportunity, through zoning as an implementation tool, to go directly to these guiding principles and some of the other provisions of this neighborhood based, grassroots plan, and use zoning as a tool to advance these neighborhood desires. Mr. Davis noted that the group is using zoning as an implementation tool, which is the appropriate way to use zoning; pointed out that he comes from a real estate and development background, has done a lot of zoning related work, and has dealt with large projects where changing zoning was inherent in the projects; added that the: neighborhood group consisted of the two residents who worked on this full time, two property owner- developers, and two practicing architects; said that a very good balance has been struck in what will be discussed this evening, between continuing to encourage investment in the Rosemary District, which he thinks everybody appreciates is essential in order to see the neighborhood where they want to see it, but also to raise the bar a couple of notches, and make sure that the: new projects in the neighborhood are: more: responsive to the types of things the neighborhood, for years now, wants to see incorporated in projects; noted that there is tradeoffs between encouraging development and raising the bar a couple of notches for what is required from the projects; added that he feels the proposed petition has struck a balance; said that if he were a developer coming into the city and he were presented with this zoning, he would not be daunted by it, rather he would have found it quite creative; and stated that he is proud of what they have done, and he hopes the Planning Board will support them this evening. Mr. Davis referred to the slides in his presentation; stated the mission of the neighborhood working group was to make sure all new Rosemary projects give back to the neighborhood, and that there is a direct link between this two year grassroots planning effort and the provisions in the zoning; pointed out that the basic density in the Rosemary District is 25 units per acre; explained that with the RROD expiring at the end of 2018, the area is back to the Downtown Edge zone district which is 25 units per acre; said that the group is proposing that the baseline density be raised to 40 units per acre; explained that all projects would get that density as a right, and in exchange for that density, there are eight required project features; added that responding to the City Commission's request Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 41 a) year-and-a-half ago, when there was a lot of discussion on attainable housing, there is a series of incentives to encourage the development of attainable housing, and, if that is done to the maximum extent possible, the potential density could be 100 units per acre for those projects that include all eight features and attainable housing; and concluded that is the basic structure of what they are proposing. Manager Smith discussed the eight required features for developments of 40 units/acre: Sidewalks - addressed wide sidewalks; noted that the sidewalks in the Rosemary District are not very wide now, and there may be street posts and trees in the middle of the sidewalk; said that they are looking for a sidewalk of at least 12 ft wide, with 4 ft. of that being an amenity zone, for trees and street lights and benches, next to the curb, and then an 81 ft. clear path, where people can walk unimpeded; Entrances Facing Streets discussed entrances facing the street; pointed out that 30% of ground floor multifamily dwelling units and all non-residential units abutting the street shall have entrances facing the street, to help break up the building and make it more pedestrian friendly; Shade and weather protection explained that, as part of pedestrian walkability, the group wants to see shade and weather protection along the street as well; they are looking at canopy trees every 30ft -40 ft.; said that all buildings should have a canopy for the primary building entrance; added that they are. looking for shade and weather protection for pedestrians entering and walking along the sidewalk; Street level windowus - stated that all ground floor non-residential units abutting a street must provide window transparency for at least 50% of the front façade, to make it more pedestrian oriented; Porches and stoops - pointed out that the ground floor residential units with an entrance abutting a street must have a porch or stoop, something where people can sit or stand outside, and to break up the mass as well; Architectural features on long, street facing walls - noted that, every 80 ft. of façade, they would like to see some type of an architectural feature to break up the façade, maybe a building entrance or some other type of feature, something to make the building and the pedestrian experience more interesting; Residential balconies stated that the residents would like to see residential balconies on at least 50% of the residential multifamily dwelling units above the ground floor; Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 41 Enhance public Art noted that the developers of downtown development, including commercial and mixed use development, are required to contribute to public art 12 percent of the value of the construction value of their development; said that either they pay into the Public Art Fund, and the City uses the funds to buy public art, or the developer can put the public art on-site, or they can put it off-site after they receive city approval; noted that the community wants enhanced pubic art, SO they are looking at an additional 14 percent, sO the total public art for the RROD would be 34 percent, and that enhancement of 14 percent is required to stay in the RROD; and explained that if they paid into the City Art Fund, there will be a special account for that, and it would only go towards art in the RROD. Manager Smith discussed the following optional project features that provide density bonuses resulting in 60 units/acre: Urban Open Space stated that a property owner can get an additional 10 units/acre or an additional 20 units/acre if they provide urban open space equal to 5% of site area or 10% of site area, respectively; noted that the open space must be available and accessible for public use; added that this is a space, on-site, where public art can be located, and iti is a public gathering space; pointed out that the developer would give part of their building space for this; noted that there would also be a chance for one bonus dwelling unit for each $20,000 dollars contributed to the RROD Urban Open Space Fund, with ai maximum bonus density of 10 units/a acre; explained that if developers choose to pay into this Fund, the money will be used to buy open space in the RROD, or, if there is already park-land or open space purchased and owned by the City, the City can use the funds to put amenities where they are needed in these parks; added that developers may not be interested in providing on-site pubic open space, because they will be giving up a good bit of their buildable area, sO the community said that they want to see that lost buildable space moved to the top of the building in additional floors, sO two additional floors could be granted, 6th and 7th floor, and the amount of buildable area on those floors will be equal to the open space area multiplied by 5, because the buildings are five stories high; and stated the requirements for the on-site urban open space are: o at least 1,000 sq. ft. in the area at least 20' wide in its narrowest dimension o publicly accessible o visible from the right-of-way maintained by the property owner open to the sky by with shade a nice gathering spot for the community Mixed-use Projects noted that new development in the RROD that just sunset was residential multifamily development; pointed out that staff and the community would like to see mixed-use Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 41 development; said that there is a bonus density of up to 10 units/acre for a development project consisting of both residential and non-residential uses on the same site, and at least 50% of the ground floor facing a street is required to contain non-residential uses which meet the definition of habitable space; Parking Fund - stated that a developer can make contributions to a Parking Fund and be granted one unit for each $20,000-dollar contribution into the RROD Public Parking Fund, until a maximum bonus density of 101 units/acre is obtained; and added that the funds would be used for future public parking improvements within the RROD because there is a shortage of parking. Attainable Housing - Pointed out that the City Commission asked the community to address attainable housing; defined attainable housing as affordable housing for household incomes between 60% and 120% of the area median income (AMI); noted that this definition is consistent with the definition of attainable housing in the Comprehensive Plan; added that based on 2018 figures, a family of four with a household income between $42,180 dollars and $84,360 dollars would be eligible for attainable housing; said that the additional bonus density may be granted up to a maximum of 100 units/acre only for those projects incorporating attainable housing units; noted that a developer could do housing affordable to household incomes between 40% to 100% of the AMI, if he did not want to use any other incentive; explained that the bonus density would be three (3) units for each (1) one attainable unit provided, with a reduced parking requirement to 0.50 space for each attainable housing unit, as compared to the current requirement of one space per dwelling unit in the downtown area; said that this is to make it easier to build attainablel housing; added that the uniti must remain attainable for a minimum of 30 years; pointed out that the community included a historic preservation tool, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), to try to preserve the eight historic structures that currently exist in the RROD; explained that buildings that are historically designated by the City, or are listed on the National Register of Historic places, are eligible sending sites, where the unused density or floor area could be sent to a receiving site; said that the owner of the property would sell the density to a person who would buy it and the developer would be able to use it; noted it requires an agreement with the City, and it is filed with the County Clerk's Office; said that development rights are severed in perpetuity;and said that this is one of the two ways a building can reach the height of seven stories, when they buy TDRs they can have up to two stories of additional height, not to exceed seven stories. Manager Smith presented the tentative schedule for adoption; said that the proposed petitions go to the City Commission in May, then goes to State review for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in June, and probably in July or August they will go to the City Commission for adoption and second reading after that; continued with the presentation of Revisions to the Future Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan; stated that they are amending the Urban Edge classification to identify the 40 du/acre, 60 Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 41 du/ac, and 100 du/ac within the RROD only, and allowing the additional height up to seven stories, under the scenarios described earlier. Mr. Davis stated that he worked on this project as the neighborhood representative; it was the effort of a six-person working group, as follows: the area residents are Pam Mones, and David Lough, and they are in the audience this evening, the two architects are Greg Hall and Michael Halflants; and the two property owners/developers are John Weiner and himself; said that a two year grassroots effort preceded the development of this zoning; added that the concepts that were presented to the Planning Board by Mr. Smith came out of this process, and are directly linked to the grassroots effort; stated that they are breaking good ground in the City; said that this effort shows that neighborhood constructive collaboration can be done; added that the City has been very receptive to neighborhood input; noted that there are some innovative concepts for the City of Sarasota, although they have been done many times in other jurisaictions;noted that they are not inventing anything, but rather picking from a lot of innovative approaches used elsewhere and tailoring them to the circumstances of the Rosemary District; and concluded that this is the thoughtful result of three years of hard work; and stated he and the rest of neighborhood group are proud of where they have come and the progress they have made, and look very much to furthering the zoning and ultimately adoption of the zoning. Manager Smith reviewed a handout with minor revisions to the TDRs text; stated that in one of the earlier drafts it was indicated that the TDRs will fall under the 60 units per acre threshold, but it was moved to a different section, and it was not clear that the 60 units per acre cap also applies to TDRs, sO the highlighted in yellow on the TDR Related Revision handout, states: - byadhering to certain development standards as identified in 1 through 3 below or transferring development rights in accordance with Section VI-912 (c)(3) Transfer ofDevelopment Rights. 1 Manager Smith continued with the Urban Open Space Revision; said that there have been discussions among staff in the last few days that perhaps a developer may want to provide urban open space on his property but there is an issue providing the open space close to, or at, the front of the property, if it is located on a primary grid street; said that the Development Review staff felt that additional language was necessary, to say that - it may be at or near the property. frontage; - that way, if it is a primary grid street, it is stated in the text that it cannot be at the property frontage, because at the primary grid street one has to have the building close to the street, and 70 % of habitable space; continued with page 3 of the handout referring to the locations and names of the eight historical structures in the Rosemary District; added that on page 3 there is a spreadsheet listing information about the structures, including the addresses, whether they are locally or nationally designated, the name of the building, and the maximum number of dwelling units that could be built on that site; said that none of these buildings have existing residential units in them; and added that a total of 91 dwelling units could be built on them, or perhaps be transferred in the future. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 41 Manager Smith referred to page 5 of the handout and said that they included the traffic study; stated that there are two traffic studies; explained that last year at the time of the application, there was a traffic study based on 70 units per acre, but subsequent discussions with the group indicated that they wanted to seek 100 units per acre, and therefore, the traffic study needed to be redone; said that the traffic study based on 100 units per acre starts on page 49 of 292 of the staff report; noted that the packet did not include an executive summary, he received one later, it is on page 5 of the handout, and it describes in plain English the results of the traffic study; added that Jason Collins, of ADEASQ, the engineer and planner who performed the traffic study is in the audience, and can respond to any questions the Planning Board members may have about the traffic study; noted that he has spoken to the School Board staff, who responded just the day before this meeting, and indicated that 46 additional students could be generated based on the proposal, and that there is sufficient capacity in all the schools; added that this is a long range plan, it could take 10 to 15 years to occur; and explained that the RROD was a four year program and everyone rushed in before it expired, but this is a long range plan, 20 years, 30 years, and development will be gradual over time. PB Chair Normile stated that there will be a lot of questions; and suggested that PB Members ask three questions at a time and allow the other members to ask questions as well. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the Friday prior to this meeting she had a telephone conversation with Attorney Connolly requesting clarification about some emails included in the PB Packet, and asked Attorney Connolly to discuss the topic of their conversation for the benefit of other PB members who may want that clarification as well. Attorney Connolly stated that PBI Member Ohlrich requested clarification regarding emails from PB Member Gannon that are included in the packet; pointed out that Planning Board members are allowed to advocate on behalf of legislative matters; explained that advocating is a problem on a quasi-judicial matter when the Planning Board has to be a fair and impartial judge, but that is not an issue in a legislative matter, because that is the reason Planning Board members are appointed. PB Member Ohlrich congratulated the presenters for bringing to the Planning Board a well written and easy to follow document; referred to page 177 stating that she selected this page because it is an example of the most illegible pages in the document; added that they will agree with her in that the Planning Board members spend time studying their packet, preparing for discussion and deliberation, and they should be able to read every page that is included in the packet; said that this is not the only one, it is the worst one; and referring to the first paragraph of page 120 of 292, thanked the presenters for the explanation of the reason "stories" are used as a reference for height, instead of feet. PB Member Ohlrich stated that in her discussions with staff she learned that parking is already becoming a problem in the RROD, and she wonders why offer density bonuses at all, because that is going to exacerbate the parking problems. Manager Smith stated that part of the density bonuses could be paying into the parking fund which will help alleviate some of the parking problem; added that developers have to provide parking on-site, Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 41 noted that in a mixed-use development with pedestrian orientation it is hoped that people will walk rather than drive, and therefore there is less need for parking; stated that there is a need for parking and that is the reason they want the density bonuses to pay into the parking fund, to raise some money to provide for parking to relieve some of the parking problems. Mr. Davis pointed out that the density bonuses allow additional residential development, not additional commercial development; agreed that there is a parking problem in the Rosemary District, he was there before this meeting and he could not find parking; noted that in order to sell or rent a residential unit you must have sufficient parking for the project or the market will not accept what you have developed; said that the challenge is that there is an increasing number of restaurants which cannot park on-site, very similar to the Downtown area; noted that at some point they have to figure out how to provide publicly available centralized parking; noted the demand is coming from the commercial uses, and particularly the restaurants which do not have a parking lot site that their businesses create the demand for; stated that the residential bonuses go to the residential development, and all the development in the area has provided enough parking on-site because of market considerations; and concluded that they have a parking problem that does not come from the residential development, but it is coming from the commercial development, particularly the restaurants. PB Member Ohlrich noted that some people do not have ambulation strong enough to walk to the restaurants and must drive their car, unload and then get to where they want to go, or just stay home instead, and that is not a good thing for the restaurants. Manager Smith pointed out that the good thing is that the wide sidewalks will enable people who are mobility-challenged to move easier using their motorized scooters; said that they are not going to be running into street lights in the middle of the sidewalks, because there will be a clear path. PB Member Ohlrich asked if they will be in competition with the baby carriage. Manager Smith said that there will be room to pass on an 8 ft. sidewalk. PB Member Morriss referred to the various degrees of densities that are proposed, and asked how they arrived at these densities; said that now the density is 25 units per acre, there are enough goodies to compensate for that, but then they are going to 60 units per acre and 100 units per acre; stated that he knows that the higher density helps pay for the affordable units and the other benefits such as green space; said that clearly there was some thought about how much is enough; said that his first question is about the process of arriving at those numbers; stated that his second question relates to affordable housing; noted that he will use interchangeably the terms "affordable," 1 "attainable," and "workforce" housing; added that he may be old and does not realize that people earn higher salaries now, but he questioned the $84,000 dollars household income; said that working backwards from a teacher's salary, which is a target workforce salary, and asked where would it put us; noted that the Comprehensive Plan refers to 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) as the upper limit for eligible households for attainable housing, and asked Attorney Connolly if the proposed zoning has to stick to that. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 41 Attorney Connolly stated that in his opinion this should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, unless one wants to change the Comprehensive Plan. PB Member Morriss asked if they can change the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Connolly said the Planning Board has to ask the City Commission. General Manager Chapdelain pointed out that the $84,000 dollar household income for a family of four is the upper limit of eligibility. PB Member Morriss said that no one will build anything affordable to lower household incomes. General Manager Chapdelain stated that this is a valid concern; added that if the developer takes advantage of the additional density for affordable housing, they have to come to an agreement with the City about how long it is going to stay affordable, the 30 years, and that agreement will also address how many units are in each of the various income ranges; said that the developer and the City will flush it out in the agreement SO that the developer does not provide only for the top of the range, which will ensure that there is a good mix, and maybe more in the low end of the range than in the high end. PB Member Morriss asked if something can be built into the proposal. General Manager Chapdelain said thati it could be in the proposal or it could be in the agreement; said that they conducted research and analysis of the newer apartments that are in the downtown area, and found that the two and three bedroom units rented at $2,000 dollars to $3,000 dollars per month; stated that the attainable rent for household incomes of 120% AMI equates to $2,100 dollars for a family of four, including utilities; clarified that the rents in their analysis and the earlier numbers he mentioned exclude utilities; and stated that the rents are already at the bottom of this market rate right now. PB Member Morriss questioned if the City is getting anything when giving this additional density. General Manager Chapdelain said they are, because at least 10% of the units will be attainable. PB Member Morriss asked how can it be built into the proposed ordinance; General Manager Chapdelain said that they can incorporate language stating that a certain percentage of attainable units should be affordable to households with household incomes less than 80% AMI, and a certain percentage of attainable units should be affordable to households with household income less than 100% of the AMI. PB Member Morriss suggested that the group should give this some thought and figure out how to do that, sO that it makes sense in some way to favor the school teachers; referred to the process of coming up with the density numbers of 60 units per acre and 100 units per acre, said that he is sure this relates to some industry or national standard, because he knows there have been studies saying that certain density is needed in order to dissolve the excess costs of the affordable units, and asked how the team arrived at those numbers. General Manager Chapdelain said that they looked around at what other local governments are doing, and usually a 10% to 20% range of the bonus density is affordable;a added that going here from 60 units per acre to 100 units per acre was enough of an inducement that would get the private sector to participate for that bonus density; and said that it comes down to a 3 to 1 ratio that has been used at other parts of the country as well, and the team thought that it was a good number and a good ratio to use. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 41 PB Member Morriss asked not to get him wrong, this is a great project and the way the group went about it is exemplary, these are the good questions. General Manager Chapdelain said that they did not want to make it low sO that no one would try it; and added that the team had a long conversation about finding the "sweet spot" sO to speak. PB Member Gannon followed up on the question of density; referred to the goal of the original RROD in the introduction, which was to stimulate infill through increased density, and pointed out that it has been successful; and asked if the City should declare victory and leave it at 25 units per acre. Manager Smith stated that the community wants to see further redevelopment within the boundaries of RROD, adding that there is still vacant land there. Mr. Davis stated that they received some conventional wisdom going in this project; said that one was that there would not be receptivity to heights more than five stories, and it turned out that was not the case; added that another was, look we tried the 75 units per acre, not everyone is happy with the results, but when we go back to 25 units per acre through the natural course of things, people will want us to stay there; noted that the interesting thing is that the benefits of the higher density have been widely recognized, and brought people in the neighborhood; added that without the activation that comes with sufficient population, which then brings people in the street, which then generates demand for these restaurants and stores we see, which create the demand for parking, if we did not have greater density than 25 units per acre, we probably would not have the benefits of the number of people we now have living in the neighborhood; said that the idea that densities had to be as low as 25 units per acre, has not proved to be where the neighborhood is, on the other hand, he does not think that anybody in the conversation said to leave it at 75 units per acre; said that this leaves us somewhere in between, a higher density in exchange for raising the bar, as he mentioned earlier, and projects that contribute a little more to the quality of life in the neighborhood; noted that ultimately it was acceptable, and even greater densities on the projects brought more to the neighborhood, and it was acceptable; said that the idea that everybody would want to go back to 25 units per acre and leave it there, which he heard many times years ago, proved not to be the case; stated that nobody wanted to keep it at 75 units per acre without something else going on; and concluded that is how the group ended up in the density ranges that they came up with. PB Member Gannon expressed appreciation for this clarification; said that it is important to understand the new density levels the group is proposing, and he wanted to set the stage for that; added that there were unhappy people about the density of 75 units per acre; noted that it met the original target ofi increased density and more people; added that it achieved the target but not in a satisfactory way; and asked if that is the reason that the group said not 25 units per acre, not 70 units per acre by itself, and came up with a range that changes; and asked Manager Smith if in the Downtown Overlay Residential District (DROD), there are areas that were granted higher than 100 units per acre. Mr. Smith said that it was in the DROD, which expired in 2007, but it was in a specific area; said that it was Downtown Core, maybe some Downtown Bayfront, where the base was 50 units per acre and the DROD allowed up to 200 units per acre; stated that it was an area that did Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 41 not have much residential in it when it begun, and it was a little more successful, in that there were a number of residential units, condos, that were built at a higher density, like 1350 Main Street that was built at 250 units per acre; and noted the Desota was another project built under the DROD, which was just recently completed due to the recession. General Manager Chapdelain pointed out that there was a requirement that units had to be less than 1,200 sq. ft., noting the thought was that if you had smaller units it would lead to affordability, and as you can see today that is not the case; and added that there were no provisions in the DROD to require that a certain percentage of these units be attainable units and have a long term affordability, which the group is proposing this evening, and unfortunately that was not part of that 2004 Ordinance. Manager Smith stated that the first development, 1350 Main Street, made a contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and to the Transportation Trust Fund; added that it was done on a volunteer bases where the developer said he would do this in exchange for increased density, and then these provisions were included in the ordinances. PB Member Gannon referred to the City Commission's direction to increase affordable housing, and asked: if there: is another way of achieving that, such ashaving higher density or smaller units, therefore the cost per unit is lower; and asked if that is achievable, excluding of consideration of the AMI, can one achieve market base housing that would rent or sell at lower prices. General Manager Chapdelain said that you cannot achieve long term affordability that way, which is key; added that if you are giving extra density for the creation of affordable housing, what is the community getting in return, there are no guarantees that the community will get affordable housing in return, because it is market based. PB Member Gannon asked if the new higher density development has achieved lower prices in the Rosemary District. General Manager Chapdelain stated that the statistics he mentioned earlier, rents ranging from $2,000 dollars to $3,000 dollars, are attainable to household incomes higher than 120% AMI, SO he would say "No," lower prices have not been achieved. PB Member Gannon stated that the discussion is about workforce housing, teachers, etc. General Manager Chapdelain said that those rents [$2,000 dollars to $3,000 dollars] are above what he would call workforce affordable housing. PB Vice Chair Blumetti thanked the group for their contribution to this document, stating that he knows it has been a long process; disagreed with the group on the success of the Rosemary District, in that it was not only the timeframe, there were a lot of issues that contributed to that, one being the density; stated that one of the objectives of the RROD was to create a 50-50 split between residential and non-residential, and asked how the City can achieve that objective the way this is proposed. Manager Smith stated that the Urban Edge Land Use Classification has the goal to achieve a 50-50 split throughout the Urban Edge, and the RROD is designated Urban Edge but has Downtown Zoning; stated that according to the Property Appraiser S information, on this date, within the RROD, the residential development is 24 acres, the non-residential is 32.4 acres, 349 % and 35 % respectively, and 13 acres, or 30% of the land, is vacant; added Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 41 that if the incentive of mixed-use development becomes available, that will encourage the non-residential to be developed along with the residential; stated that the commercial is following the residential development coming into Rosemary now, more restaurants and more offices have opened, because they feed off one another; added that staff would like to see a 50-50 split, SO a little more residential will help catch up to that 50-50 split. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked what if it doesn't, what if the rest of the remaining 13 vacant acres are built at 40 units per acre without mixed use, no green space; said that is a possibility, because the way this is written; and noted that developers do not have to take advantage of the incentives. Manager Smith pointed out that there are eight required enhancements. PB Vice Chair Blumetti agreed and pointed out that they do not include mixed-use development, and for him, the worst-case scenario is that, and it is concerning. PB Vice Chair Blumetti referred to page 28 of 292, the email from Candie Pedersen regarding the LOS for parkland; noted that the email states that the recommended LOSis 1 acre per 1,000 residents, said we do not meet this criteria in the RROD and there are no parks within the Overlay District; noted they are struggling with whether or not to use the Bobby Jones Golf Club acreage in our LOS calculations; concluded that there is an obvious shortage of parks in this area; and asked if they are using Bobby Jones to offset that deficiency. Manager Smith stated that the LOS for Parks and Recreation is a City-wide standard; explained that when it was created in 2008, it was based, in part, on a national standard that was part of the Parks and Connectivity Master Plan, which serves as a support document to the Comprehensive Plan; added that the old standard of 10 acres per 1,000 permanent residents is a citywide standard, sO they look at all the parkland in the city, including county parkland that is located in the city, and determine if there is sufficient parkland acreage; stated that there is sufficient parkland based on the way the LOSis set up, but there is a need for parks and open space in the Rosemary District and they need to find a way to achieve that. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked about the distance of Bobby Jones from the Rosemary District. Mr. Davis stated that they are in desperate need of open space in the Rosemary District, one does not have to go to the LOS, there is no open space in the RROD, it is the fastest growing area in the City, it is booming and there is no neighborhood open space; added that the citywide perspective is not the right way to look at that; said that the proposed zoning could help the situation but will not resolve the problem; added that one way is to increase density in projects and require they provide open space, which is a tremendous way to do it because the maintenance and upkeep tends to be high; said that on the other hand we want to make sure that the open space meets shade requirements and has amenities; stated that the other way is, if a developer does not want to provide on-site open space, he can pay into a fund; noted that as a neighborhood they have looked at potential locations for neighborhood scale open space, but they do not have the resources right now to buy these parcels; said that if a couple developers take advantage of the option to pay: into the Open Space Trust Fund, then they could have the funds to purchase the land; and concluded that they are trying to use the zoning as a tool to get there. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 41 PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he likes the idea, and it makes perfect sense, and asked why is this not a requirement for the developer, depending on the site; added that Bobby Jones is 4.5 miles away and cannot be used as a neighborhood park; and said that if this is required by the City it would be such an interesting part of this area, it has its own character, it is a good idea. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked why the group did not consider an increase in height for the increase in density for affordable housing. General Manager Chapdelain said that the goal was to not exceed five stories; adding that there was not support from the community for heights above five stories. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that there is already a precedence with the incentives for open space and historic preservation; added that it should be considered as a real incentive; pointed out that for open space incentive the building can go as high as seven stories, for affordable housing the structure has to remain at five stories, and asked why they do not offer additional height to accommodate the additional square footage for affordable housing; stated the expensive units could be pushed higher up and the less expensive units could be closer to the ground, that is how it would probably work; and stated that this would be a real incentive to developers, because they get additional square footage. Director Cover referred to PB Member Morriss' comment about the $84,000 household income, and stated that a family of four is not the typical household here in Sarasota, which is typically a little more than 2 persons per household; added that, according to the income levels of two occupants per household, the 120% of AMI household income would be in the range of $31,000 to $62,000 dollars; said that this means if you had two working people coming in at the 60% of AMI level, they are bringing in $7.50 dollars per hour, and two people at the $62,000 annual income are earning $15.00 dollars per hour; and added that he does not think that families of four persons are coming to live here, it will be households of closer to 2 persons, and the household income ranges will be a lot lower. PB Member Morriss stated that if the developer knows he can go as high as what is attainable to household incomes of 120% of AMI, they will not build anything at a lower price, unless if they are required to do so; and said that the group is creating the illusion that they are providing affordable housing. Director Cover stated that if the household income for two persons is $62,000, that means that each of the two occupants are making $15.00 dollars per hour. PB Member Morriss asked who determines the cap. Director Cover said that the units have to be attainable to this income range in order to be considered affordable. Discussion ensued about the size of the units, number of bedrooms, etc. PB Member Morriss said that it is a big hole to go through, and there is no guarantee that the extra density will produce an affordable unit; and concluded that the proposed language requires to be more polished than what this document shows. Director Cover stated that he understands that Bobby Jones is far away from the RROD, but you also have the Bay Project coming, which is a block away, SO that large open space will be very close. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 41 PB Chair Normile asked if everyone built to a density of 100 units per acre how many units it would be in addition to what we. have, what is the add on for that. Manager Smith said that if hypothetically everyone built at 100 units per acre, it would produce 7,100 units. PB Chair Normile asked Dr. Collins who worked on the trip generation analysis to come to the table; referred to page 54 of 292, Table 1- Project Trip Generation RROD Plan Amendment Update, City of Sarasota; and asked about the PM peak hour. Dr. Collins introduced himself for the record; explained that the PM peak hour is the highest level of activity on a site; responding to questions, he added that for this study the peak hours are between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, and Fruitville Road is included in the analysis. PB Chair Normile asked if the difference between the trips between the PM peak hour now, and what we would get after we add 7,100 more units, is 500 trips per hour. Dr. Collins stated that they are using the existing comprehensive plan in a future use scenario as the base condition, and then add what is being proposed that is the additional trip activity; explained that the 550 trips is the result of the additional apartment units, because there is an interaction between the commercial component that is approved with the additional residential units, and additional trips come from the residential units on top of that;a added that those units were identified as predominately apartment units, and the rate of trips for apartments is lower than the rates for larger condominium units or single family housing units, because there is typically a smaller size household that lives in these apartments; noted that when you get into the greater densities, you have more of an interaction, what is called as internal capture, between the commercial and the residential, sO as the number goes up, the percentage of internal capture goes down; and stated that when all that is put together they result in the value of 550 additional trips. PB Chair Normile referred to the 55, 734 net trips for a shopping center. Dr. Collins stated that this is the number of trips over a 24-hour period. PB Chair Normile stated that this number is higher than the trips on the Ringling Bridge. Dr. Collins stated that this: number is based on 6 million sq. ft. of commercial space. PB Chair Normile stated that she understands this is based on a formula, but this as a daily volume and would impact all the roads. Dr. Collins said that number is already included in the Comprehensive Plan. PB Chair Normile expressed concern about changing the land use on a large space in the City prior to having the City's Transportation Plan; added that according to one of the City's consultants one of the things a City Commission and a Planning Board should take into account, when they are considering a very large project, is what the traffic will be, something you are not allowed to do in a rezone, but you can do it in a land use change; stated that she is concerned about jumping into this before we have the Transportation Plan; referred to Mr. Cover, and said that he may have some information on this; added that according to Mr. Lyons, the City is four months away from a parking plan or parking study which will determine how much parking is needed; said that parking is something you can build in a building, and then you can say you must have two parking spaces, or ten guest spaces; noted that all the guest parking spaces that are not included in these buildings are going on the street; pointed out that there are not guest requirements in the code, which means that guests and anyone servicing the buildings have nowhere to park, they go on the street as well; and said that is something that needs to be built in at this phase. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 41 Director Cover stated that is not how parking regulations are determined, the parking requirements that are in place have taken into consideration all of those factors, sO it is not one parking space per unit and guest parking; and stated that the parking ratios in the Code include all of the activity that takes place. Manager Smith added that these ratios are minimum standards, and most times the developers provide more than the minimum, because they have to have parking in order to sell the units, both for the residents and for guests. PB Chair Normile referred to the 1.5 parking spaces per affordable housing unit; and asked how they determine who gets the parking spaces, because no one wants a 0.5 parking space. General Manager Chapdelain said the number of parking spaces is rounded up. Manager Smith responded to PB Chair Normile's earlier questions about housing units; referred to page 10 of 292 of the staff report, said that the source is the Property Appraiser's office, and stated that in 2014 there were 386 residential units in the RROD, and now there were 863 residential units in the RROD; referred to the Map 2, Rosemary Residential Overlay District, Existing Living Units, February 2019, on page 12 of 292, and pointed out that it does not include recent developments that are not fully occupied, which add 514 more units to the 863 mentioned earlier for a total of 1,477 units; added that, based on the 863 residential units and the Census multiplier for the City of 2.8 persons per household, he estimated that there are approximately 1,900 residents in the RROD at this time, and that is probably on the high end, because many of the units that have been built are one bedroom or studios; referred to page 13 of 292 and pointed out the projects that are approved; and stated that there are 1770 pending units in approved projects, which is five units short of the maximum allowed with the RROD. Dr. Collins stated that the transportation analysis was done assuming 100% build out, and that is 100 units per acre for every acre, whether that is going to happen or not; said that when these analyses are submitted to the state, they have to be based on 100% built out, because there is the potential for it, and he wanted to make that clear to everyone. PB Chair Normile pointed out that there is also the proposed road diet on Fruitville Road which, if it comes into fruition, will also send cars into the RROD, and if it does not it will bring more cars; and said that there are many moving parts here, and it is concerning that they are not coming together at the same time. Dr. Collins said that this is as much social science as it is engineering science, and his ability to look at it from the outside is that, in his opinion, what makes this work is the mixed use component; noted that iti is a necessity, because that is what really allows the ability to reduce the trip lengths; explained that if someone going from point A to point B traveling 6 miles in a vehicle, and there is a new land use competitor there, and they can cut that trip in half, that reduces congestion by that much; added that if these trips are brought down to half-a-mile or one-mile trips, then people start changing their modes, either they walk or start using their bicycles or electrical scooters; and stated that getting the mixture and variety of density is when you start to see the long term benefits proposed under this amendment. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 41 PB Chair Normile noted that they are proposing a couple of street improvements that are not in the Capital Improvements Plan at this point. Dr. Collins responded that there are a couple facilities to keep an eye on, one is Orange Avenue between Fruitville and 12th Street, which should be monitored with or without the proposed amendment, and Lemon Avenue; added that those two are at the higher end of the threshold; stated that this proposal has the advantage of including numerous roadway facilities in the grid system, sO traffic can disperse in different directions quite quickly as opposed to one or two roadway facilities taking up the brunt of the additional activity. PB Member Ohlrich referred to density and asked if during the group's discussions there was ever any consideration of requiring attainable housing as, if you do that, then you are eligible for incentives to increase density; said that in this case you could have the base stand even at 25 units per acre, or 40 units per acre, but requiring affordable housing; said that now it seems that we are kicking affordable housing down the road again, because this RROD could be totally built out without any affordable housing; and asked again if there was any consideration of requiring it. Mr. Davis stated that in their many meetings they discussed how to encourage affordable/attainable/workforce housing; said that he comes from a place where inclusionary zoning was used, requiring that every residential project had to provide affordable housing; pointed out that it is a whole different world that we live in here, in Sarasota, and considering the significant regulatory structure necessary, lots of developer opposition when it goes in place, and lots of complications, the only way to ensure thatit happens is to require that affordable housing is included in residential projects; noted that the group is trying to take realistic steps as they move forward; said that as far as attainable housing, they have been responsive to the City Commission's request and directive without going to the requirement PB Member Ohlrich is suggesting, which is inclusionary housing; said the group is trying to reach middle ground in all the topics they worked on without requiring things like mixed-use, it is not in many places, but if you require mixed use and affordable housing then you have made the basic economics of development very different than they are in the City of Sarasota right now; added that they are trying to take steps forward without going too far, yet still moving; noted that affordable housing, parks, mixed-use development are all important, there was a lot of compromise and give-and-take in the group's discussions, and he feels that the incentives they are providing will be taken advantage of by somebody; added that nothing is perfect, and if they get down the road and in two years nobody has taken advantage of them, that would tell them that the incentives were not attractive enough to entice the developers to go the extra distance; added that the other part of the discussion, in addition to trade offs and trying to deal with competing demands and raising the bar SO high that they turn off the faucet, is that this is not cast in stone, sO if they need to recalibrate in a couple of years because some parts of this are not working as expected, they will come back and make the adjustments, but they will have the framework in place; said that right now there is no infrastructure for a lot of what the group is talking about here, bump up the knowledge base, and the experience base, with these various topics, and if things happen as they hope, that is great, and if recalibrations need to happen in the future, there is nothing Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 41 preventing that from happening; and stated that all these discussions took place, and these are great suggestions. PB Member Ohlrich stated that what they have done is commendable, and she wishes she had been in the room with all of them, but the City is running out of spaces where the city can provide affordable housing, and it is reaching the point where the City needs to require it; added that the infill will be built up, all done, and we will still not have affordable housing or attainable housing; pointed out that the City learned from the Desota that increasing density in-and-of-itself does not bring the City affordable housing; asked how much longer will they skirt around the truth and the need; pointed out that the City wants to encourage its employees to live in the City, and asked if we know how many do, and answered probably not very many, SO she thinks it is "kick the can." PB Member Morriss suggested that they start with a more aggressive document, demanding more for less, and if that did not work, then doing what is proposed here; he added that the Rosemary District and 75 units per acre became a Bonanza, it sprung up very quickly all of a sudden, and we somewhat regret that with certain things like sidewalks and structures, and we are inviting this to happen again with a nicer quality Bonanza happening; said that this is a question worth talking about, even though the group has explored all these questions; and noted that the framework is really good, that is why he suggests to start with something more aggressive, that is probably what you want to do. Mr. Davis stated that will result in more requirements. PB Member Morriss agreed and added "more for less." Mr. Davis stated that these are great comments, we are at 25 units per acre now, and he does not see the constituency for staying there, however he thinks if this is pushed too hard, they will begin to see some resistance; noted that they are dealing with a neighborhood, where people are very active, very energized, very smart and tuned in, and he thinks that if this went too far they will begin to see: resistance; added that thesame will happen in the development community, the requirements in the RROD are SO different than anywhere else in the City, the very interest in the neighborhood and the vibrancy we are beginning to see in the neighborhood could be cut off, and that does not work to anyone's benefit; and said that they are trying to strike a balance there, they think they have done a good job, but if it proves not to be the case, any of this can be revisited in the future. PB Member Gannon followed up on the density discussion and asked Manager Smith if the density in the Code represents the maximum allowable density, for example when it says 40 units per acre, do they have to build 40 units per acre, is that the minimum or the maximum density. Manager Smith stated it is the maximum allowable residential density. PB Member Gannon pointed out that a developer could come in and say that he could produce a product at 25 units per acre, or 30 units per acre; and asked what would be the impact on the rollout of RROD-2 if instead of 40-, 60-, 100 units per acre it went to 60-, 80- and 120 units per acre, what would we see as the difference in the next three years. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 41 Manager Smith asked if 60 units per acre is the base without incentives to go along with it. PB Member Gannon said leave all the proposed incentives and the proposed structure the way it is, just change the numbers. Manager Smith responded that one would see several developments at 60 units per acre without paying into a parking fund or open space, but you will probably see more that would take advantage of those incentives and go to the 80 units per acre, they would probably pay into the parking fund and the open urban space, because they get two additional stories and the mixed use development; referred to page 13 of 292 that shows the density per acre, for each development, noted not every one of those approved have gone for the maximum allowable density, SO we will see the same, because the lot may not be conducive to going with 120 units per acre, it depends, as you see on page 13 of 292 there is a mixture. PB. Member Gannon stated that he is trying to find out what combination produces lower costs, because, to date, we have not achieved the lower cost units. Manager Smith provided an answer from the Zoning Code perspective; addressed Mr. Davis and asked if the numbers were higher would he see any: impact on what he expected to have built in the community. Mr. Davis said "No," and pointed out that now they are at a base density of 25 units per acre, and the highest in the City is 50 units per acre, that is Downtown Core; pointed out that they are bringing the base density from 25 units per acre to 40 units per acre, which is a 60% increase; added that with some very straight forward, not difficult to achieve extra measures, they are, going from 40 units per acre to 60 units per acre, which would be the highest density in the city, higher than the Downtown Core, and it could conceivably be built at 100 units per acre, and this is not the Downtown Core; pointed out that all these densities are relative to the rest of the City, and he thinks where the proposed densities are set is appropriate; added that there are three projects in the RROD that are up in the 70 units per acre range, which are the very large apartment projects, the smaller size projects cannot get to those densities, you cannot lay them out in a way that works, with parking and circulation and all other things that come to play, SO he thinks that in the Downtown Edge area these are high densities, twice as high as other densities, which should be an incentive for someone to come in and provide attainable housing, because they have to doit consciously, you cannot densify to affordable housing, it does not work that way; added that the costs of producing go up and do not turn downwards, so there is a flattening of that cost curve, and this is really a function of the costs, not a function of density at a point; said that if you had one unit per acre you have a problem, but when you get up to the proposed densities, what is driving the rents that need to be achieved is the costs of producing the unit, and the main factor is the cost of construction; said that there is no curve that bends back on itself to go down, that curve at a certain point just fattens and stays right there; repeated that you cannot densify your way to affordable housing, it has not been done anywhere in his experience, you have to have either requirements, or you have to provide incentives, SO those units are produced through an incentives system or subsidies, and then long term affordability needs to be required, or they will be produced and then changed; noted that the group tried to go the middle ground here, which is great enough of an incentive where somebody would go down that path; noted that he thinks there is a good likelihood that this will happen, but without providing incentives just providing density is not going to happen, that is why we have not seen it in the City; concluded that more density equates to more affordability, if you Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 41 allow higher density of market rate units to accompany affordable rate units, he thinks somebody will easily accept that trade off, which is what the group is trying to do here; repeated that you get more market rate and you have to produce the attainable units, he thinks that combination is enough to bring somebody to that point; and concluded that density without any other requirements is not going to happen and it hasn'thappened. PB Member Gannon compared the information on pages 12 and 13 of 292 and the information in the traffic study on page 171 of 292; said that Florida Avenue was not included in the traffic study, and it is shown here that Cityside I at 227, and above that, Cityside II at 253, and then some individual units, and if you take all of those at 100 units per acre, it puts more traffic on Florida Avenue, and asked if the study included the hours between 3:45 PM and 4:15 PM on a weekday. Dr. Collins stated that consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the study included the facilities on the City's thoroughfare, and it is intended to mirror the City's Comprehensive Plan list of facilities that are managed or monitored through the thoroughfare plan, and that is why some of the more local streets may have not been included. PB Member Gannon asked if he studied Boulevard of the Arts at 4:00 PM on a school day, noting traffic was not moving because it is blocked because the cars are backed up for picking up kids from the Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences (SSAS), a fantastic school there, but for 30 minutes each school day, Boulevard of the Arts is backed up, Central Avenue is backed up, and you are going to add another 300 units; and added that this is where the garages will empty out, on Florida Avenue not on Cocoanut Avenue. Dr. Collins emphasized that an analysis that is associated with the Comprehensive Plan does not evaluate a specific site plan, because there is not a site plan associated with that; explained that the analysis does not dismiss at all the current situations; noted that this is a long range planning analysis intended to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; added that when they are asked to evaluate a specific site plan, then they get into more of these details, because you have specific driveway locations, and specific counts, and specific details like that. PB Member Gannon stated a specific site plan, if it is located in the RROD, rarely comes to the Planning Board, because they are approved under Administrative Review, SO the Planning Board does not get to talk or review most all of the site plans in the RROD; said that this is the reason he is asking the questions here; added that each site plan is reviewed for what is the increase in traffic from that specific site; noted that they are here today to review the traffic for the entire area, and if we already have streets that are: failing, blocked for certain times in the day, adding more traffic; stated specifically Florida Avenue is going to be really impacted, when you have traffic backed up, and you try to put more traffic down a street that for certain times in the day you cannot even turn on that street; and asked how does this analysis enable the Planning Board to evaluate this. Dr. Collins pointed out that there are different types of traffic congestion, and different types of circulation problems, which he hears a lot in association with the school; noted that there is a lot of travel demand management that takes that in to account as well; suggested that one option is to do a more detailed study for a particular area within the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 41 RROD; said that this is a "Catch 22,"if the Planning Board is not able to review the specific site plans, and this is the only time to review this, that is a valid point; stated that he is not sugarcoating it by saying that there are no problems, but when someone accounts for traffic counts completed in the area on an hourly or daily bases, the volumes are short burst sometimes, it is not an hourly volume or a 2-hour volume; said that it comes back to the methods of evaluation. PB Member Morriss asked how such a question could be addressed in this document. Dr. Collins stated that the fundamentals of this analysis relate to the long range issues, looking at a 20 year horizon just like the documents are talking about 20 year horizon; added that is the reason they brought up the point of Orange Avenue and Lemon Avenue saying that those two roadway facilities have an identified need for observation and more detailed analysis, based on those historical volumes, but if there are other facilities that are not there, then that needs more consideration. PB Vice Chair Blumetti addressed Mr. Davis and stated that this is a long term plan, and coming back in two years is not particularly feasible, it will take longer than two years to find out if this is going to be feasible, and he thinks that things need to be clarified now; added that he wanted to clarify his earlier comment that the 40 units per acre is the worse thing that can happen, because that will not provide the walkability and the green space that the group and the Downtown Edge Classification describe in the proposed document; referred to sidewalks and asked if there are provisions in the Code to allow for outdoor eating greater than 4-ft., or are they limited to this little 4-ft, or 8ft. for walking and to 4 ft for outdoor dining at the edge of this kind of oversized sidewalk. Manager Smith stated that this is the minimum requirement, if a developer comes in and wants to put a 20-ft sidewalk that is great; added that the sidewalk cafes, if they use their own property, they do not require aj permit. PB Vice Chair Blumetti pointed out examples on Main Street and asked why this would not be the same, why wouldn't this be promoted, and why not designate areas where this can happen; and asked if this isn't the idea of walkable city. General Manager Chapdelain stated that there are a lot of competing interests as far as having the green space available for the shade trees, and providing space for the decorative lights, etc. Discussion ensued. General Manager Chapdelain said that he is trying to be sensitive to the work that has been done, because they discussed all these issues about density, and about issues to be improved in the public realm, and they struck a balance, and got consensus on what is being presented; added that sidewalks was one of the strongest things that they heard, they wanted that minimum 8-ft clear, because they heard concerns about not having the proper width, due to things in the middle of the sidewalk impeding comfortable access; and added that it was one of the strongest themes, having the 8-ft. clear pedestrian path. PB Vice Chair Blumetti agreed and suggested that at some point, when promoting sidewalk cafes, helping the business owner make a successful business, and the pigeonholing on a 4-ft. sidewalk-activities, outside the 8-ft highway of walking, it seems that it could be expanded. Director Cover asked PB Vice Chair Blumetti if he were the developer and he wanted an outdoor café area, he could come in with something with a wider area; pointed out that Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 41 these are minimum widths, pushing into the property. Discussion ensued. Manager Smith shared an illustration of the Alexander Art Plaza Project in West Palm Beach, and discussed how the building can be set back to allow for outdoor café space. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if the Urban Open Space would be allowed to have a restaurant in it, if those functions can be combined, or does it have to be a park. Manager Smith responded that the Open Space must be open; and added that it probably could, if it were accessible and open to the public. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked for clarification about the design standards for a balcony, noting that the minimum depth is 6-ft, but the sidewalk is 4-ft. and the balcony is over the right-of-way, which means that you need to set the building back; and asked if there is a way toincrease that SO the one can have a 6-ft balcony, because 4-ft is only big enough to stand. Manager Smith said that the standard came from the Building Code, and quoted " when a balcony is 8-ft or more in height above grade and encroaches on a public right ofz zvay the minimum depth shall be 4f.. sO the developer may have to set the building back a couple more feet to get the balcony there, but the 4ft requirement is from the Building Code. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if it has anything to do with the Zoning Text Amendment, because you cannot change or modify the Building Code, and asked if the balconies that are higher than 8 ft could encroach more. Manager Smith said that he did not know, one would have to look at the Building Code. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if he is reading the proposal wrong. Discussion ensued. Mr. Davis noted that the 4 ft is a Building Code provision and ita allows 4ftof encroachment into the right of way, sO that would not be on your property, that is actually over the edge of the street; stated that this is in the Building Code, and they picked that up and repeated it here. Discussion ensued. Manager Smith said that encroachment is not likely to happen, at least in the front, because of the wider sidewalks. PB Vice Chair Blumetti referred to parking and asked for clarification regarding the ratio of one parking space per unit; noted that the attainable units have a ratio of 0.5 parking space per unit, and the distribution of the parking space is up to the developer, and asked how they came up with the 0.5. General Manager Chapdelain said the intent was to give some relief for the affordable units, they are in the urban core, maybe they do not have access to a vehicle, or are not as reliant on a vehicle; and said they also looked at some standards nationwide, and it seems to be a movement for some parking relief when talking about that type of use. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there is a way to lower the ratio to 0.25 or 0. General Manager Chapdelain said that that is an option. PB Chair Normile stated that this is an incredible effort from the whole community, it is pretty amazing and the fact that you worked with the community and that the community worked for SO long is remarkable; noted that part of what Planning Board heard this evening is a little bit PTSD from what has being going on in the City; pointed out that it isn't fixable quickly, because a Comprehensive Plan Amendment takes a long time and a Zoning Text Amendment takes less but it is still a long time, and in the meantime, everybody has their building permits in; asked if they take all the questions that have been raised, why did they not build in community meetings or public hearings into the Rosemary District which would continue the public input; said that there has been administrative site plan review for a long time, that did not produce any Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 41 atainable/atfordable housing units, we have a shock value as to what has gone up, lot- line to lot-line, staff and everyone is looking on ways to fix it, and the Planning Board is reacting to some of that; and asked if they can explain the reasons for which they did not include any community meetings or public hearings. Mr. Davis said that all the questions are thoughtful and are appreciated, and in one meeting they are retracing many steps they took over the course of a-year-an-a-half, said that he was sitting here with a little bit of sense of de-za-vous, because the group went in all of those directions and discussed them many times in the process of trying to strike balances; noted that this is a significant step forward; added that they thought let's do something that really reflects what we hear loud and clear from the neighborhood, let's make it something that, at the end of the day, it will meet with wide-spread acceptance, and let's not go sO far that we either cannot make the forward progress we like or chill the development all together; added that all these topics are thoughtful, and are good comments to make; said that from the beginning this was the group's rules of the road, the standards tol be applied to the process;added that the topic of the development review process, which is different, did not come into play in a significant way until the last few months; said that even last week the group had conversations about this; repeated that the group worked really hard on crafting a set of rules that would strike the balance that he has referred to, raised the bar and produced better projects, and they hope attainable housing, and SO forth; said they had many things on their agenda but did not have the process for reviewing projects, and, from the visibility of that topic in the last few months, the group got more comfortable with it; added that he feels that this topic is being looked at by Director Cover and his staff, in a parallel process; stated that it is very important they canhave what they are proposing here, in terms of the rules that are applicable;noted that there is no conflict between the two; explained that if the proposed were to go forward, and then the review process were to change, requiring meetings, that does not require any of the proposed to be changed; added that the City can keep the old process or change it to a new process of reviewing projects, these same rules would bej just as valid and just as applicable; SO he speaks for himself, he is not representing anybody else, he thinks some progress in that area would be great, it is not the subject matter the group was looking at, because it is a citywide topic, not a RROD topic, although it applies, and fortunately there is a parallel effort going on, and there is no conflict between what the group has done and that effort; and added that they two can be quite compatible in the future. PB Chair Normile noted that the only conflict is the timeline. Director Cover pointed out that this is the zoning ordinance, and because it has to 8o to the state, because of the comprehensive plan, this will not go to the City Commission until fairly late this year, probably in the fall for final adoption; added that staff has a parallel process going on that the Planning Board knows about, where they are looking at all the review processes, including the administrative review and community workshops, which is progressing in a very similar timetrame; said that staff has to report back to the City Commission no later than May as to what they are recommending in terms of processes; added that once staff gets the final guidance from the City Commission at that point, then staff will be putting together the final Ordinance, which probably will come through in a similar Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 41 timeframe; agreed with Mr. Davis that whatever staff does with the process can fit very easily with this, and nothing would have to be changed with this Ordinance; stated that this is the Zoning Ordinance for the Rosemary District, and then staff will have the other Ordinance with the processes coming virtually at the same time; and concluded that this is really good timing. PB Chair Normile noted that the Laurel Park Overlay includes community workshops and public hearings. PB Member Gannon noted that earlier Mr. Davis stated that this proposal is quite innovative for the City of Sarasota, even though he has seen elements of this elsewhere, and asked Mr. Davis if he finds, when a city is implementing innovative coding like this, that community input is necessary during site plan reviews to be sure that this innovation really rolls out the way it is intended. Mr. Davis said speaking for himself, he is in favor of public input process; noted that he spent his entire career meeting with communities relative to his projects, sO he is there; stated that he does not think it is essential for what they are proposing, there can be any review process the City wants to apply to this; added that generally, he thinks larger projects can benefit from community engagement, SO whether it is this or something else, and what form that takes, those are separate matters; and said that it is a good direction to move in, details to follow, but again, he thinks the proposed ordinance works with or without specific review process. PB Member Gannon agreed with Director Cover that the parallel process, the review of site plan approval that the City Commission has directed the Planning Department to do, is quite appropriate; noted that the history of what happened in the Rosemary District has had incidents because of the current DTE Code, and zero-lot-lines; pointed out that significant impacts have occurred to residents in adjoining properties, and their input in that process would have had much different outcomes than what the Planning Board is seeing this evening; added that this is based on his experience; and siad he agrees with what Director Cover is saying that the separate, parallel process could work to bring this together by the end of the year. Mr. Davis added that we [the City] will have a better set of rules and a better review process. Director Cover said that what is exciting about the proposed ordinance is that the issues the Planning Board was talking about, the group heard those issues in the timeframe that they worked with the community, and those issues are actually plugged into this ordinance; and added that maybe this is not solving everything, but the really big issues, like sidewalk widths, are in this ordinance. PB Member Morriss stated that whenever an area gets up-zoned, for example going from a density of 25 units per acre up to 40 units per acre, to 100 units per acre, the value of the underlaying property goes up with it; noted that this happened with the prices in the Rosemary District with the 751 units per acre; and asked where is that 'sweet spot;" added that the group has been struggling with this, and the question is, can it be pushed back, Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 41 to make it a viable sweet spot but not give SO much away, and possibly have built-in requirements for affordable housing, have a stronger definition of what affordable housing is SO that it is actually affordable; suggested that this is something to think about, see if there is a way to answer those questions; explained that when you start with a high value property it is harder to back off of that, when you start with a lower value property and say if things work we can ratchet it up and then the value becomes higher; and suggested the group plans on that, and the Planning Board will hear what the group has to say. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A 10. MINUTES RECESS Public Input PB Chair Normile stated that speakers have five minutes to speak 1. Dan Mahon- lives in the Rosemary Park Condos - spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning- feels the 1,000 sq. ft. of living space is small; cannot understand privately maintained and insured public urban space; he would like to see community workshops to inform the public, people want sunshine in the process; he does not think that affordable housing will be provided by the private sector in the RROD; 2. Michael Lasche- City of Sarasota resident; affiliated with the Bicycle Pedestrian Advocates, and STOP; (spoke for Jude Levy who had to leave); distributed handouts to the Planning Board; spoke in support of the proposed zoning 3. Chris Gallagher- lives in the Rosemary District in Citrus Square- distributed hand outs to the Planning Board; spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning; expressed concerns about the proposed code because it could outlaw buildings like Citrus Square; stated that the purpose of the RROD was economic development not affordable housing; supports higher densities because the density makes the neighborhood safer; opposes the proposed wide balconies, and the requirements for shade and weather protection; window transparency does not ensure walkability; said that the Zoning must be consistent with the EDCM; and suggested a street design expert be hired. 4. Linda Holland (not present) 5. Pamela Mones - resident of the Rosemary District - spoke in support of the proposed zoning; said what has been presented this evening is the wish of the neighborhood and has to be respected, they are trying to make RROD-2 better than RROD-1. 6. Richard Mones resident of the Rosemary District - spoke in support of the proposed zoning because RROD-2 meets the needs of the residents. 7. Scott James - not present Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 41 8. Sue Stewart - resident and property owner in the Rosemary District - spoke in support of the RROD-2 as presented this evening. 9. Josh Weiner resident of the Rosemary District spoke in support of the proposed zoning; said the people want to make this a great neighborhood. 10. Frank Lambert - Sarasota resident- works seven days a week in the Rosemary District and supports the proposed zoning. 11. Karel Dudych - gave his time to the next speaker - granted by the Planning Board. 12. Michael Halflants - architect, professor of Urban Design and Architecture at USF; works in the Rosemary District - spoke in opposition of the proposed zoning; expressed concerns about exclusionary zoning; said TDRs do not work on small parcels; noted the luxury market is very healthy in Sarasota. 13. Gregory Hall - resident of the Rosemary District - supports the proposed zoning because it represents the wishes of the community; stated the RROD: 2 - goal: create a vibrant community; noted attainable housing is the wish of the City Commission not the wish of the community 14. Martin Harms (not present) 15. David Lough - resident of the Rosemary District - supports the proposed zoning; said it is the wish of the residents 16. Dan Lobeck - City of Sarasota resident- affiliated with Control Growth Now Spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning, it favors the interests of the developers. Rebuttal Mr. Davis stated that the speakers spoke against and in support of the density, sO he feels they are in the right place for that; responded to Mr. Halflants' comment about changing density numbers to 40 units per acre, said that previously the group had density ranging from 25 units per acre to high densities based on a series of density provisions; added that it was getting very complicated, each time the group met they added things; noted that Director Cover suggested to simplify what they were doing, take some of the incentives, move them to baseline requirements, and move the baseline density up, rather than every one of these features being freestanding; and said that is what happened, some of these were condensed and incorporated to the baseline requirements rather than having 13 separate incentives. Mr. Davis noted that there was a lot of discussion this evening about what constitutes attainable/affordable/workforce housing; pointed out that the group spent very little time on the definition of attainable housing, assuming that the range discussed this evening was a given, that it was not in the purview of the Planning Board, that it was a Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 41 larger discussion that had already occurred; said that they applied that standard and did not go into further details, they adopted the definition of the City of Sarasota that was in place; and concluded that one cannot change everything at the neighborhood level. PB Member Ohlrich noted that one of the speakers this evening said that this is complicated stuff and there are some refinements that could be made; and asked if Mr. Davis agrees that some refinements could be made, based on what the Planning Board and the speakers said. Mr. Davis said that this statement would always apply, this type of work is never finished; noted that the group spent a tremendous amount of time to get where they are, they considered all the topics that were raised this evening; added that they are all valid viewpoints, spending more time would result in moving one thing and then another and then we would have whole new sets of questions; pointed out that, at some point, it is wise to put a bow on it and say it is done, and the group is at that point; and said that they could work for the next three or four years, but he does not think there would be any more consensus, because of the great diversity of opinion on anything they would develop. Mr. Davis said that this is the worst possible point, where we are not addressing the neighborhood's strongly held desires for the future and what they can do to improve the regulations, and we are sitting at a density that nobody feels is appropriate for this neighborhood right at the edge of downtown; added that we have a choice before us, we have fallen back to Downtown Edge, at 25 units per acre, with all the requirements that are in place, but none of what is available to other areas with DTE zoning in the City; said that nothing is being specially crafted for the Rosemary District; noted that the proposed is responsive to years of work from the neighborhood, it is a very carefully crafted compromise that offers a lot; said that it may not be perfect, but it can always be further refined; stated that the group spent a tremendous amount of time to get there, so as he sees it, there are two options before us, and he feels strongly that moving forward with what the group crafted collaboratively, is the better of the two approaches. General Manager Chapdelain agreed with Mr. Davis' comments; referred to PB Member Morriss' suggestion of looking into the mixture and percentages of the attainable housing; said it could be further refined, and he thinks that is a good suggestion; clarified that the attainable housing definition is from the Comprehensive Plan; added that the income ranges of 60% to 120% of AMIhousehold income are based on the definition of the Urban Land Institute (ULI); noted other local governments in Florida go up to 140% of AMI; added that, as demonstrated earlier, the market rate rents in this area are already attainable to household incomes above the 120% of AMI household income, and they are there today, however he feels they need to address the different percentages within that range; and suggested between this meeting and the City Commission staff takes a better look at that, to see how they can address it. PB Member Morriss stated that he is interested to see that someone with a salary like a teacher could afford to live there; suggested that they simplify things, added that they could make it complex to the point no one gets anything out of the deal, and asked how to phrase something like that. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 41 Attorney Connolly stated that it depends on the incentives offered, suggested that the incentives are different for each category of attainable units for household incomes of 60%, 80%, 100% and 120% of the AMI household income. General Manager Chapdelain stated that now the requirements include a 1 to 3 ratio, which translates to 10% of the bonus units being attainable, SO he suggested that within that 10% of units, a certain percentage of units should be attainable to households with incomes between 60% and 80% of AMI household income, a certain percentage of units should be attainable to households with incomes between 80% and 120% of AMI household income, and then a certain percentage of units should be attainable to households with incomes between 100% and 120% of AMI household income; so he suggested that they break it down as a percentage within that range. PB Member Gannon noted that the density is going down from 75 units per acre to 40 units per acre with built-in amenities, and the remaining lots in the RROD are the smaller size lots, unless one were to buy a sequence of lots, which seems difficult because of the market demand there; and asked Director Cover if a developer who had a project and wanted to build smaller housing units would be able to do that at a density starting at 50 units per acre, or 60 units per acre. Director Cover explained that the reason the base was set at 40 units per acre is because they wanted to build-in certain things that were absolute requirements; added that none of the persons they spoke with wanted to see development at 25 units per acre, that is not what anyone is looking for in this area; repeated that the base was set at 40 units per acre and it does not take much to get to 60 units per acre; said that they wanted to make it very clear in the proposed ordinance that to get the density of 60 units per acre one must provide certain things that the community wants, but it is not difficult to reach this density; added that what the group wanted is to have a big difference between the densities of 60 units per acre and 100 units per acre, to make it attractive to provide attainable housing in a project; said they reviewed many different numbers, and the numbers sometimes were too close; stated that they heard from developers that they would not take the incentive for the provision of attainable housing if the difference was 20 units; added that when they presented to the developers the difference in density between 60 units per acre and 100 units per acre, and a ratio of 3 to 1, the developers found the incentive attractive. Director Cover referred to an example mentioned earlier of a 25,0000 sq. ft. property; said that by going to 100 units per acre, you can put many more housing units on the property because the units will be approximately 1,000 sq. ft.;r noted that if you have a mix of market and attainable housing you can actually have a really good balance, where you can have some units that are more affordable within the income ranges mentioned earlier. PB Member Gannon said that he was concerned because the map shows many small parcels with 5,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. to do a development at the current density of 40 Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 41 units per acre, you cannot create anything of small enough size to recover the costs per unit. Director Cover noted that with building the density up to 100 units per acre, an opportunity is given to the small properties to make a viable project, where they may not be able to do it at a density of 25 units per acre. Mr. Davis referred to slide 24 of his earlier presentation, to point out some fairly easy paths one can take to get from the density of 40 units per acre to 60 units per acre; said that it is not just with thee incentive of mixed use, and listed the following: Providing open space, which is hard to do on small lots, in which case one can pay into the open space fund, because the amounts to pay are not prohibitive Providing mixed use projects, whereby meeting the basic standards one can get another 10 units per acre making payments into the Public Parking Fund, one can get additional density for that. Mr. Davis pointed out that all of those can get one to the density of 60 units per acre without going to attainable housing; stated that this was intentionally done sO that if someone desiring additional density to make a project work, particularly on a smaller site, had multiple paths that he/she could take to get there, and more, the bar is not prohibitive to get there; said thathe wanted to clarify thatits notj tjust by providing a mixed use project, you do have alternatives as the owner of a smaller site; and said there are actually four separate paths to increase density. General Manager Chapdelain added that the buy-in, if you will, for the bonus densities is $20,000 dollars for one bonus unit; added that he wanted to clarify that because there was confusion about the language, the costs are per unit; and said that it is the same with the parking, it is $20,000 dollars for one bonus unit. PB Vice Chair Blumetti followed up on Mr. Gallagher's S earlier comments, and asked about the clause in the building design standards stating that the buildings will incorporate the syntax of the Sarasota School of Architecture; and suggested, if possible, to say that the building will have the syntax of a historic building. Manager Smith stated that staff is working on a separate ordinance regarding historic preservation that may take care of some that. PB Vice Chair Blumetti explained that his concern is about newly designed buildings, for example Citrus Square is a relatively new building, it does not qualify as a historic site at this time; asked if there could be a syntax that the building maybe parallels some other buildings; noted that the reference to the Sarasota School of Architecture is rather broad, it encompasses quite few designs, if the language could refer to something equivalent but not modern. Manager Smith noted that the reference to the Sarasota School of Architecture relates to the Downtown Edge and the underlying zone district; added that staff looks at individual Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 41 projects to see if they have those characteristics; and said staff is currently writing the historic preservation ordinance, which is going to allow things to occur. Director Cover clarified that this would be that a new building has characteristics of historic buildings; agreed and added that when this happens, maybe the new building could be exempt from some other design criteria, such as openings. PB Member Morriss asked if there was a way to streamline adjustments, for example if you had a balcony requirement for 6 ft and wanted to reduce it to 4 ft, if it is more appropriate to the architecture that is being designed; and asked about the process for Adjustments right now. Manager Smith said that adjustments are available and are granted by the Planning Board, they cannot be granted by Development Services Director. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that there are existing paths to take for Adjustments, for example if one did not want a 6- ft. balcony but wanted something like the balconies in Citrus Square, then they have a path to do that. Manager Smith said he thinks SO and stated that the diversity in buildings is important and this is a valid point, because all becomes the same after a while, and if you can say, hey, we do not need to have a 61 ft. balcony in this building, it is a plus. PB Member Morriss asked if there is any use of making this a simpler path, or more of an administrative path, built into this document, because the process can be cumbersome, expensive, and lengthy sometimes; and asked if there is a way to make it simpler. General Manager Chapdelain said that the simpler way is to ensure that it follows the same path that is being followed today in the Downtown. PB Member Gannon asked for clarification relating to the balcony issue, and noted that the proposed zoning code requires if the balcony is 8 ft off the ground and encroaches in the public right of way, then the minimum balcony width is 4 ft. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Normile asked if the term 'attainable" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan. General Manager Chapdelain said iti is defined in the Housing Chapter. PB Chair Normile asked if anything else is defined in the Comprehensive Plan such as "affordable" equals "attainable," equals workforce" housing. General Manager Chapdelain stated that staff uses the terms interchangeably, however the term "attainable" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan, that is what the City Commission adopted years ago. PB Chair Normile asked if there is any other term used by other governmental bodies for lower household income levels. General Manager Chapdelain said that there is Very Low Income Housing for household incomes of 50% or less of the AMI, and Low Income Housing for households incomes less than 80%or less of AMI. Manager Smith stated there is also a moderate income level which is 82% to 100% of AMI. PB Chair Normile asked if these terms are defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Manager Smith stated that these definitions are also included in the Comprehensive Plan; added that in 2007-08, the City Commission said that the City has a big need for "attainable" housing which they defined as housing for household incomes in the range of 60% to 120% of the AMI, and included Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 41 action strategies in the Comprehensive Plan to encourage "attainable" housing. PB Chair Normile asked if that is the part that needs to be changed. PB Member Morriss suggested that in the ratio of 3 to 1, the requirement could be Low Income housing units for the first 2 units, and 1 Attainable housing unit for the 3rd unit. General Manager Chapdelain agreed; and pointed out that Low Income housing units are for household incomes in the range of 60% to 80% of the AMI. PB Member Morriss stated that this is simpler because the same language is used. General Manager Chapdelain agreed; and added that this the area that they will revisit to refine it to include more opportunities for the lower income households. PB Chair Normile said that this can be done without changing the Comprehensive Plan. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly pointed out that there are two recommended motions that the Planning Board needs to look at: a motion for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, found on page 21 of 292 of the packet; he recommended that the Planning Board considers this motion first; and ai motion for the Zoning Text Amendment, found on page 29 of 30. Attorney Connolly referred to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment recommended motion on page 21 of 292; stated that that all 292 pages are not the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the verbiage of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is on pages 6 - 9 of 292, and that is what the Planning Board is asked to vote on this evening; used the metaphor of the constitution, and said that the Comprehensive Plan is the "Constitution," you start with that first, and it is implemented by the Zoning Ordinance; and said the Comprehensive Plan amendment has less verbiage and more concept, sO the Planning Board will not go down too many rabbit holes with that. PB Member Morriss referred to the discussion about Low Income Housing versus Attainable Housing units, and suggested that the language on page 6 reflect that discussion, by including reference to low income housing units, as follows: Page 6 of 292, Action Strategy 2.12, Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD), line 9 should read: hundred (100) dwelling units per acre may be achieved for residential development that incorporates low income and attainable housing, as defined in the Housing Chapter... Attorney Connolly pointed out that the term 'attainable" in the Comprehensive Plan includes the "low" and "very low" income housing, because attainable" housing is for household incomes within the range of 60% to 120% of AMI; added that this is the Comprehensive Plan and cannot go to that detail, this is the theory, and this may be discussed in the Zoning Text Amendment; and stated that: in the Comprehensive Plan, the term "attainable" would cover "low income" housing. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 41 PB Member Gannon asked if with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it still contains the baseline numbers. Attorney Connolly agreed, and referred to page 6 of 292, where there are references to 40 units per acre, 60 units per acre, and 100 units per acre; and added that they are also found on page 8 of 292, and on the same page there is discussion of the possibility to get up to seven stories. PB Member Gannon referred to the list that was put together with all the existing and planned projects, and noted that there were six projects that exceeded the density of 70 units per acre, three of which are larger apartment buildings and three more that are under development, and in the process; asked Director Cover if the smaller ones that range from 10,000 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. to get 75 units per acre, if they were not done under the prior RROD, would it be possible for those developments to be done under the new RROD, because in his understanding, it would not be possible to get done without the affordable housing, especially the three smaller ones that are now under the development process. Director Cover stated that they would not be able to get above the density of 60 units per acre unless they had affordable housing included in them. PB Member Gannon asked if that is the desired effect of what the group wants to have. PB Chair Normile pointed out the following correction to a typographical error in the text on page 6 of 292: Page 6 of 292, Action Strategy 2.12, Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD), line 8, should read: units per acre made may be achieved... through certain development standards. Up to one-.. PB Member Morriss stated that he feels his questions have been answered very well, searching for the "sweet spot," " he thinks this is it; noted that Mr. Halflants' presentation earlier helped him better understand the proposed amendments; said that when thinking of 100 units per acre, one thinks of a forest of buildings and tall towers with people pouring out the doors; added that this is not what really happens, because the small sites are not really developable to that kind of density; pointed out that it is a different picture, when one realizes that the proposed intends to allow for a more reasonable size units to occur on that. lot, and if we can deal with the "affordable"/ "attainable" housing, he feels comfortable to make a motion for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. PB Vice Chair Blumetti pointed out that Mr. Halflants' example was based on a density of 75 units per acre. PB Member Morriss stated that one can get to the 100 units per acre if they also provide attainable housing units. PB Vice Chair Blumetti thanked all the people involved in this effort, who dedicated sO much time to this project, and said it is incredible; added that he has no problem with the development standards, they make complete sense; stated that as new projects get Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 41 developed and the wider sidewalks, trees, etc., this lends itself to a more walkable city; said that what he does not understand is that there is nothing in the proposed language that says that properties cannot be developed at a density of 40 units per acre, everything beyond this density is incentivized, and he thinks that a base density of 40 units per acre is too low, and he cannot support it. PB Member Morriss pointed out that PB Member Gannon made the same point. PB Member Gannon concurred. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that green space and mixed-use development should be required, depending on the site; added that the City should take responsibility to find where those areas should be, and this should not be left only up to the developer, because they are rezoning the City. PB Member Morriss noted that the City is responsible for green space, independent of this; added the proposed code is actually trying to get the private sector to pay for something the public should be paying for; added that this area has no green space and some reasons are kind of unpleasant; noted that he is coming from a neighborhood that has very few parks, and he understands the idea of spending some of the cash the City takes in the neighborhood in which the cash was generated; added that he understands the enhancement to get developers to give up land for green space, but at the same time the City cannot abdicate its responsibility to provide green space in the neighborhoods, as a community. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that mixed use and green space are part of the Urban Land Use Classification, it is the mission statement so-to-speak, SO he does not understand the reason for not raising the density and require green space as a component of that. PB Member Morriss said that the reason may be the fact that some of the smaller lots maybe undevelopable when a chunk is taken out for open space. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that they can move it up, it is the same space just moved around, that is part of the open urban space concept; added that the open urban space concept is to take a chunk of the building that is going to be a park now, and move it, SO they are not losing anything, it is just creating green space; said that if the site warrants that, if it is big enough and it makes sense for that site, where the park is big enough, then take the initiative and say that these identified sites should have that feature; stated that by leaving it up to the property owner those two critical things, mixed-use and green space, you are looking at the potential of that never happening; said that they may never take that incentive, and you may never see mixed-use or green space, they may say they do not want the additional units; and argued that since there is a potential for that to happen, itis difficult for him to support the proposed amendment. PB Member Morriss asked how does one fix it. Director Cover referred to open space, and stated that some sites are sO small that you will not get the open space on-site, and those sites would be contributing toward the open Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 41 space fund; added that the community said that they are interested in pocket parks and smaller parks, SO the medium size properties have an opportunity to provide that, and this is built into the proposed amendments; noted that for the larger parks, which the community also wants, one must have a larger property, and if that does not work, that might have to be a capital project, like it is done in other areas of the City, through the City Budget; said there are three tiers: (a) small lot, you are not going to get anything on- site, but they contribute to the open space fund, (b) a medium size property, you can get a pocket park or a smaller park on-site, and (c) if you really want that larger park, you probably are: not going to geti it because there are SO many small parcels in this area, unless someone combines properties, and if you cannot, it may have to be a Capital Improvements Project ultimately; and concluded that these are the three options. PB Member Morriss added that the same may apply to parking as well. Director Cover agreed; and referred to PB Member Morriss' earlier comment that this is an opportunity to collect funding that will help offset the costs of a new parking facility or the purchase of property for a new park; and said these funds will: not pay for the whole thing, but they will help. PB Member Morris said that they will pay taxes once they are built and open. PB Vice Chair Blumetti pointed out that all these things will happen only if the developers use that as an incentive; noted that they do not have to do that, SO there is a chance there will be no parks, no mixed-use, at a density of 40 units per acre; and said that this is what the proposed zoning says. PB Member Morriss said that the City screws up elsewhere. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked what he means. PB Member Morriss said getting parks is a City thing, getting proper parking is also a City thing, this is trying to do a public-private partnership and uses the Zoning Code to make somethings happen that might relieve the City of their burden but not all of it; and added that he cannot imagine enough space donated by any developer to have a real park, however it provides more green space than was there before. Director Cover said that he understands what one thinks about everything coming in at 40 units per acre; noted that the grouphas talked with a lot of people and developers; said that if you were starting off with the Rosemary District the way it was ten years ago, possibly that could happen, but he does not think it is going to happen now, because it has not happened for all the projects; pointed out that when you are starting off in an area you are trying to turn around, developers are going to be more conservative; noted that this area has reached the point where it is incredibly popular, it is one of the hot spots of the City, if the density goes up to 60 units per acre or to 100 units per acre, there will be a tremendous amount of interest; added that if he were a developer and bought a piece of property and he could do 40 units per acre, or he could do 50 more market rate units and 10 affordable housing units, he knows his choice in a second, especially in a popular spot in the City; and concluded that the market will play out, and a lot of projects will come in with densities higher than 40 units per acre. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 41 PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he does not necessarily agree with that, but there is still a chance, there are no guarantees, it is simple supply and demand; and said even if the density is bumped up to 75 units per acre, and only added the development standards, you have a better chance of getting affordable housing in there. PB Chair Normile asked if the Planning Board can make an additional recommendation, besides the land use change, is the Planning Board able to make another recommendation to the City Commission that they add to their capital improvements budget and make it aj priority to purchase property for parks in the Rosemary District. Attorney Connolly said that the City Commission has already started that process, however the Planning Board can make an additional recommendation in a separate motion. PB Member Ohlrich stated that city staff and the residents who participated in the committee had two years to negotiate, collaborate, and get it all together, while each of the Planning Board members had one intense week of many, many hours of reading the material they received, and she is very concerned that the "will" and "shall" statements in our Comprehensive Plan, rather than "may" or "should" statements about attainable housing, she does not think they are taken seriously by this community, and this disappoints her greatly; added that she will support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment only because she sees that the size of the lots that are involved and remaining to be developed in the Rosemary District are SO small that they are highly unlikely, unless someone buys several of them and puts them together, to bring the city attainable housing. PB Chair Normile recommended that PB. Member Ohlrich make a motion and then discuss it. PB. Member Ohlrich said that her motion is: Based on the evidence in the record and all standards for review, adopt a motion to find that Petition 19-PA-01 is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is in the public benefit and recommend that he City Commission vote to approve transmittal to State review agencies and adopt the petition. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Blumetti reminded the Planning Board members that there are no guarantees that it will not be 40 units per acre. PB Member Morriss stated that there is a guarantee that they will be 25 units an acre if this is not done. PB Chair Normile stated that there are no guarantees ever. The motion passes with a vote of 4 to 1 (PB Vice Chair Blumetti voting "No.") Attorney Connolly reminded the Planning Board that the recommended motions for the proposed Zoning Text Amendment are found on page 29 of 30 and the actual verbiage Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 39 of 41 proposed to be incorporated in the City's Zoning Code appears on pages 3 - 20 of 30, inclusive. PB Member Morriss mentioned that Attorney Connolly said earlier that the reference to low income housing was too fine a grain for the first motion, that this is the motion where it should be injected; and asked how to do that. PB Chair Normile referred to page 7 of 30 subsection C.; and asked if the Planning Board can recommend that something be changed without having the exact change, in other words, Mr. Chapdelain was going to go back to take a look atit. Attorney Connolly said "Yes," as long as the Planning Board can succinctly enough describe to staff what it is you are trying to accomplish, you can certainly leave the draftsmanship of it up to staff. PB Member Gannon was unclear as to what Attorney Connolly suggested. Attorney Connolly explained that we are not asking the Planning Board this evening to draft the levels of attainable housing, but when the Planning Board makes a motion, assuming that the motion is to approve, then, the Planning Board would instruct staff to refine subsection C. on page 7 of 30 in order to delineate the different groups of affordable housing being accomplished. PB Member Morriss asked how one would incorporate PB Chair Normile's idea of giving them a nudge about the green space and the parking. PB Chair Normile stated that it will be a separate motion. PB Member Morriss moved to find 19-ZTA -01 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. Attorney Connolly asked if they are also including that on page 7 of 30, subsection C., would be modified to further define the various levels of attainable housing. Both PB Member Morriss, the maker of the motion, and PB Member Gannon who seconded the motion, responded "Yes." The motion passes with a vote of 4 to 1 (PB Vice Chair Blumetti voting 'No.") PB Chair Normile passed the gavel and made a motion that the Planning Board recommends the City Commission immediately make it a priority to place the purchase of a green space in the Rosemary District on the Capital Improvements. Attorney Connolly stated that the motion does not have to be sO specific, you want to nudge the City Commission, if you will, to do what they can and spend City assets on Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 40 of 41 green space in the Rosemary District; added that they have already started this process; said that either in the last meeting or in the meeting before, there was a presentation and a discussion about four or five different parcels, and he believes staff are trying to purchase one of them; and stated that they are already onboard, but he did not think they would mind a little prompt, based on this evening's discussion. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. PB Member Gannon stated that the immediate attention to the matter is important because right now there is an effort to gage criteria for parks throughout the City; added that it is quite evident from what has already occurred that parks are needed now, not two or three years from now; and added that in order for this particular Overlay District to be successful, it needs those parks now. PB Member Morriss referred to the earlier discussion about parking and asked if that should also be included, planning for a parking structure at some point in the future. Attorney Connolly suggested that he asks the Chair if she would amend the motion in that respect; added if she does not, then you can go ahead and make a motion after we finish with this one. PB Chair Normile and PB Member Morriss agreed that parking should be addressed in a separate motion. PB Morriss said it will take care of itself. PB Chair Normile pointed out that the Parking Plan will be completed in four months, and she thinks that he [Mr. Lyons] will have some recommendations The motion passes unanimously, with a vote of 5 to 0. PB Chair Normile and PB Member Morriss thanked the people who worked on this for a long time. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: AT THIS TIME CITIZENS MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING BOARDON TOPICS OF CONCERN. ITEMS WHICHHAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, AT. PUBLIC HEARINGS MAY NOT BE ADDRESSED AT THIS TIME. (A MAXIMUM 5- MINUTE TIME LIMIT.) There was none. V. 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. There was none. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting March 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 41 of 41 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. There was none. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:29 PM Ew. heunile Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Eileen W. Normile, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]