CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Patrick Gannon, Chair Members Present: Eileen Normile, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Lucia Panica, Chief Planner, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLN MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Gannon called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.m., and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Contact. Attorney Connolly described the procedures for Quasi-judicial Public Hearings; recommended time limits for the presentations; noted that there are no applications for affected persons status for either of the public hearings; and administered the oath to all present who intended to speak this evening. PB Chair Gannon asked the Planning Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications they may have. had in relation to the quasi-judicial public hearings. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she visited the Ringling College site with staff, and during that visit, she also discussed with staff the Midtown Plaza application. PB Member Blumetti disclosed a site visit with staff to Ringling, and discussion with staff about the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 15 Midtown Plaza application. PB Vice Chair Normile disclosed site visits to both locations, and discussions with staff. PB Chair Gannon disclosed discussions with staff. B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Ringling College of Art and Design Underclass Housing Project (1160 Greensboro Lane): Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-19 is a request for site plan approval to construct a dormitory facility for Ringling College of Art & Design with approximately (65) 4- person suites, (9) RA dorm rooms, and (1) staff apartment, located in the Office Regional District (ORD) zone district and the Ringling Overlay District with street address of 1160 Greensboro Lane. The existing three structures in the subject area are proposed to be demolished. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Applicant Presentation: Ms. Tracy Wagner, VP for Finance and Administration, Ringling College of Art and Design, Inc., introduced for the record herself and her team: Mr. Byron Lynch, Assistant Vice President for Facilities Management, Ms. Bobbi Claybrooke, AM Engineering Mr. Phil Smith, Landscape Architect, DWJA; and Ms. Susan Sullivan, Architect; expressed appreciation to City staff for their assistance in moving the proposed site plan through the process; stated that the team is requesting the approval of a site plan for a residential facility; referred to the Aerial Location Map in the staff report and identified the subject property; noted that the facility responds to their increased housing demand due to growth and enrollment, and it replaces existing outdated housing facilities on the campus within the Ringling Overlay District; noted that this year they reached their highest enrollment, 1,561 students, of which 513 are first year students; added that the proposed facility will house first and possibly second year students; noted that in the proposed facility there are 269 bed spaces, in 65 four-person suites, as well as 9 single rooms for resident assistants and one staff apartment; stated that it will replace three two-story buildings on campus that currently house 128 students, and were built in 1986; noted that new incremental residential units do not drive up parking requirements, but the School has updated their campus parking master plan to demonstrate compliance with the Ringling Overlay District; added that the project area covers approximately 1.5 acres, the address is 1160 Greensboro Lane; pointed out that the School owns many of the adjacent parcels; said that that the zoning is ORD and the proposal is an appropriate use for this zoning classification; stated in their effort to preserve grand trees, they explored many iterations of the site plan that would accommodate residential and adjacent dining facilities, and realized that they would not be able to save as many trees as they would like; added that they decided to move forward with only the residential facilities, which is what they are presenting this evening; stated that they have submitted the project for a traffic study evaluation, and it was determined to be deminimus, but as part of the update of the School's Campus Master Plan, they are working with a transportation consultant, F. Pierce, who reviewed thej parking calculations for what is proposed here, and they have determined that there is adequate parking for this project; and stated that there was no requirement for a Community Workshop, but they intend to update the community in the spring, when they will present to the community their updated Campus Master Plan. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 15 Mr. Lynch stated that this residential hall will be for the first year students; noted that the largest concentration of students will be from August to May, the length of the normal academic school year; added that they will house some students in the summer during summer classes; stated that the facility will house one staff employee and nine student resident assistants; added that parking is available for the residence hall; noted that trash collection will be done in the same manner as is done for the existing residence halls, where trash is collected and taken to a central location; and said that moving-in and moving-out will be handled the same way as it is done now, students will stage along Greensboro Ln., where they will park their vehicles and move their belongings to the residence hall. PB Member Morriss asked about their schedule for completion. Mr. Lynch responded August 2020. PB Member Ohlrich stated that while reviewing the application she was taken back to the day when she and many other students moved into their dormitory and was reminded of the chaos that ensued when this happened; and asked if the applicants can demonstrate how they plan to minimize the chaos that will take place. Ms. Wagner referred to the Aerial Location Map and stated that the students park along Greensboro Ln., unpack their items on a hotel cart and take them to the residence hall while the parent drives the vehicle away to park it at the parking lot at the north east intersection of Old Bradenton Road and N. Riverside Drive, and it is done quickly; added that during this time staff is notified to park at the most remote locations SO as not to clog the system; and concluded that they all work together to make this as painless as possible. PB: Member Blumetti noted thati iti is remarkable how this campus has changed in recent years with the Visual Arts Center and the Library, and this building definitely fits into that context; added that he knows from personal experience that parking is not easy here; and questioned the decision of not providing additional parking for the 269 additional students. Ms. Wagner stated that parking demand varies from year to year, and often junior and senior year students do not bring a car; said that they just completed a parking lot along N. Tamiami Trail; pointed out that the parking areas in the center of the campus are always 100% full, but the periphery parking lots are usually occupied at about 25%; added that they are also waiting for permits to be issued for the construction of parking at another location on campus; concluded that with these new parking facilities, there will be adequate parking for the proposed residential facility; pointed out that with the help of their consultants they will do things that will change behaviors, like adding zip-cars, and other things that will eliminate the need for parking; said that often a student brings a car, uses it twice a semester, and then it sits there all year long not being utilized, sO they will try to eliminate the need for parking in such situations by providing alternatives; and pointed out that they also work with SCAT and MCAT, SO students can ride the bus free, which has been popular, and they advertise it among students to encourage them to not bring cars on campus. PB Member Blumetti noted that the report states that Greensboro Lane will not be used as a loading and unloading zone, the East Tamiami Circle side of the building will be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 15 used for loading and unloading, and that loading and unloading spaces will be provided along the north façade, adjacent to the mechanical and trash rooms. Ms. Sullivan explained the statement in the report, and assured PB Member Blumetti that East Tamiami Circle will not be used for loading and unloading. PB Vice Chair Normile referred to the dining hall and asked if they are going forward with that at a different time. Ms. Wagner responded, "Yes." PB Vice Chair Normile asked if they are going back to their original plan. Ms. Wagner stated that they are rethinking that plan; added that the challenge the school put before their architect is to locate the building in a way that: (a) would save the most of the grand trees possible, and (b). loading/unloading: would be easy for trucks that service the dining hall to pull- in and out, and take off on a city street; and concluded it was likely the dining hall will not be at this location. PB Chair Gannon asked the applicants to go through their thought process as they were taking inventory of the trees, and they encountered the grand trees, and how that affected the design process. Mr.S Smith stated that they spent a lot of time looking at the trees and their condition; referred to a graphic of existing conditions, pointed out the clusters of grand trees on the site, and the location of the pine tree on the corner of the site in the City right-of-way; noted that they also looked at the canopy of the trees SO as to avoid placing buildings under the canopy of the trees in order to save the trees; added that there is a grand tree at the north corner of the site whose roots are shallow, exposed, damaged, and entangled in utilities, sO that tree would be difficult to save; said after the inventory they decided that they can only build the residence hall on this site sO they began programming the work around the trees; and said they worked with the Civil Engineer to determine the location of the drainage vault, sO as to not disrupt the root system of the trees. PB Chair Gannon asked Mr. Smith to state for the record how their decision to remove the grand tree meets the City requirements for removing a tree. Mr. Smith responded that they tried different designs and worked extensively with staff; they tried to provide room around the existing grand trees to make sure they were preserved; they evaluated what would happen to the tree when a building is demolished; and the fact that the root system is intertwined with the utilities, all those factors were considered. PB Member Ohlrich asked the applicants to discuss their communications with non- campus residential neighbors. Ms. Wagner responded that typically they have various open houses on campus, however for this application they have not had one yet, they have just gotten the building renderings, which are very useful to the neighbors, sO now they are looking forward to scheduling something to share the renderings, and also present the update of the Campus Master Plan. PBI Member Ohlrich asked which neighborhoods the applicants include in these discussions. Ms. Wagner responded that they include Bayou Oaks, Indian Beach-Sapphire Shores, Central Cocoanut, and a group of neighborhood associations in the City, the CCNA, to whom they are bringing an update on January 7th. Responding to PB Member Blumetti's S questions, Mr. Lynch Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page! 5 of 15 confirmed that the trash will be picked up every day, and the size of the trash room is not a concern. Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; stated that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of East Tamiami Circle and Greensboro Lane; referred to the Future Land Use and Zoning Map, and noted that the 1.5 acre subject property is a small part of a 7 acre property outlined in red; added that the project contains three two-story dormitory buildings that are proposed to be demolished; said that the future land use classification is Community Office/Institutional, the Zoning is Office- Regional District (ORD), and the subject area is within the Ringling Overlay District; pointed out that the surrounding zone districts are Residential Multi-Family (RMF-3) to the north, ORD to the east, ORD and North Trail (NT) to the south, and NT to the west; stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a site plan to construct a dormitory facility; noted all the lots are owned by the Ringling College, are located within the Ringling Overlay District, and may be combined to satisfy standards such as density and building coverage, even if they are separated by a right-of-way; noted that the building and coverage requirements have been met as discussed in the staff report; stated that the maximum allowable height to the top of the roof is 65 ft. and the proposed structure is 56 ft. to the top of the roof; added that the setback requirements and window requirements of the Overlay District have been met, the pedestrian standards of the ORD district and the landscape requirements have also been met, and the applicant is exceeding mitigation requirements; and stated that the site plan has been found to meet site plan review criteria and the Tree Protection Ordinance and staff has provided a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions stated in the staff report. PB Member Morriss asked about the net change in beds between the existing and the proposed development. Chief Planner Panica stated that the applicant can respond to the number of beds, however, in terms of density, considering that a dorm room is equivalent to half a dwelling unit, there is a net increase of 10 dwelling units. PB Chair Gannon asked why on a site plan application like this, a neighborhood workshop was not required. Chief Planner Panica stated that community workshops are not required for a straight site plan, they are required for rezonings, street vacations, and major conditional use. PB Chair Gannon noted that there were no applications for affected person' S status. Public Input 1. Jeffrey Wilkinson - resident of Riverside Drive; spoke about the impact of the school's expansion on the residents of Riverside Drive; noted that construction traffic from the previous school expansions was disruptive; expressed concerns about parking; stated that the residents contacted Mr. Lynch requesting that construction traffic stay on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way and on Old Bradenton Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 15 Road, however the construction traffic uses, as a short cut, Riverside Drive, which is a road with curves; said that the 18-wheelers broke four water mains on Riverside Drive alone, which is costly for the City to repair; also stated that they did not get a notice by the school about the proposed dorms to be built, they just saw the yellow sign; noted that there are about six empty houses on Riverside Drive and MLK Way, the neighbors were evicted, and the properties are owned now either by the school or nameless/faceless LLCs, sO the neighbors would like to see the School's Master Plan; pointed out that the empty houses are now occupied by homeless people and the police have been called there a few times; said he supported the efforts to protect the grand trees; and added that they get a lot oft traffic from the construction of the Central Sewer Plant that is going up, even though the contractor has put up signs "No Construction Vehicles Beyond this Point." 1 Applicant Rebuttal: Ms. Wagner stated that the difference in number of bed spaces between existing and proposed development is 141 beds; thanked Mr. Wilkinson about his information; added that the school was notified about these concerns during the construction of the facilities along Dr. MLK, Jr. Way; noted they had problems with the sub-contractors; said that they are in the process of providing additional student parking near the pedestrian bridge, and hopes the students will park there instead of Riverside Drive; added that she is not sure that the breaks of the water mains are related to the school's construction and she does not know how to address that; noted that an individual who works with the College has purchased the houses, and that there are legal issues with one of those properties and its transfer to the College; and stated that she will look into issues that relate to these properties and will address them. PB Member Morriss asked about the length of the construction phase, and who is the person of contact, someone with authority within the organization, who can be contacted when problems arise. Ms. Wagner stated that this will be a construction site for 18 months, including the demolition of existing structures and the construction of the proposed structures; and said the neighbors are welcome to contact Mr. Lynch in the Office of Facilities Management. PB Member Morriss asked if they intend to use the same contractor, and if sO, he suggested Ms. Wagner recommend to the contractor to communicate these concerns with his subcontractors. Ms. Wagner stated that they intend to use the same contractor and will discuss these issues. PB Member Blumetti asked if this timeframe of 18 months is consistent with the timeframe for the Visual Arts Center that was just built, and the timeframe for the Library. Ms. Wagner responded that the timeframe is generally 18 to 24 months. PB Member Ohlrich stated that one project can be annoying to someone but a campus that has projects going on all the time, the anxiety and the annoyance builds overtime; said this goes back to communication with the residents; explained that this is the reason she asked if the applicants had communications with the neighborhood associations; suggested providing a direct line with somebody they can talk to when subcontractors Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 15 are driving through their neighborhoods; said that this helps reduce the anxiety and the things that make it difficult for the neighbors; and she encouraged the applicants to actively pursue that. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if some of the homes fell into disrepair while sitting dormant. Ms. Wagner stated that there is a legal issue with one of the properties; said that an: individual feels he has rights to this property, and now the matter isi in litigation; and added that she does not think it is a code enforcement issue, but they will look into this matter. PB Vice Chair Normile encouraged the school and the neighbors to contact the City should they feel there is a code enforcement issue, and about the orange fences thrown to the side that Mr. Wilkinson mentioned. PB Chair Gannon stated that the Code today lacks the ability to require community workshops prior to site plan submissions, and prior to stage plan submissions, and the Planning Board hears a lot of concerns from the neighborhoods; said that this shows inadequate communication; added that the PB has seen evidence that even having the design that fits the code, the construction staging, especially when it goes on for two years of more, has a dramatic impact on the neighborhood; and asked if the applicants would be willing to proffer a Community Workshop with the staging plan prior to getting a building permit, because it is important that the community have that involvement and they have feedback on how the construction will impact them. Ms. Wagner stated that she will be happy to proffer that. Staff Rebuttal: Chief Planner Panica stated that there have already been discussions about the staging plan and noted in reviewing that plan, staff will be looking at truck routes to limit the impact on the residential areas, material storage and parking for contractors and sub- contractors prior to the issuance of the building permit. PBI Member Morriss asked how well the staging plans are enforced, and who is the appropriate contact person in the City that concerned citizens can contact. Chief Planner Panica stated that staging plans are monitored quarterly; and added that concerned citizens can contact her or Code Enforcement. PB Vice Chair Normile asked how the truck routes are enforced. Chief Planner Panica stated that it is hard to enforce, however there is a plan showing the expectations which are communicated to the subcontractors, and she does not know if the police can be called. PB Chair Gannon noted that the staging plans have to be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permits, and there is no requirement for a public workshop; said that in a seminar held last month on construction safety and the impacts on the neighborhoods; said the presenters were Mr. Murphy and Ms. DavisShaw, and Mr. Murphy said given the current staff, they are doing inspections when they are called to do SO, they are not monitoring construction, and they make on-site visits when there is a request, unless a citizen calls to complain; noted that some of the best practices used Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 15 by some applicants include holding a neighborhood workshop and providing a list of contacts; and said he hopes that these practices are promoted by the planners when they work with the developers. PB Chair Gannon close the public hearing. PB Member Morriss moved to find Site Plan 18-SP-19 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Ringling College Underclass Housing, received by the Development Services Department of October 29, 2018. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Development Services. 2. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of sate or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Vice Chair Normile seconded the motion. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the proffer will be included. PB Member Morriss revised his motion to include language requiring neighborhood workshops prior to the Building Permit. PB Vice Chair Normile seconded the revised motion. Discussion ensued. Revised motion passed unanimously (vote 5 to 0). 2. Midtown Plaza (1201, 1299, 1325 and 1375 South Tamiami Trail): Rezone Application No. 18-REN-05 is a request to rezone real property with street address of 1201, 1299, 1325 and 1375 South Tamiami Trail, known as Midtown Plaza from the Commercial Shopping Center - Community (CSC-C) Zone District to the Commercial General District (CGD) Zone District. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman and Mr. Gavin Meshad introduced themselves for the record. Mr. Freedman stated that he represents Midtown Associates, the owner of Midtown Plaza, a 7.64 acre parcel at Bahia Vista and US 41; said that this is an old shopping center, and as such, when it was first developed the zoning code as we know it today did not exist; said the City then came through and applied the Commercial Shopping Center - Community (CSC-C) Zoning District to it many years ago, because at the time it was Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 15 the most logical designation, and that resulted in a lot ofnon-conformities, least ofwhich is the minimum lot size for CSC-C, which is 10 acres and this site is only 7.64 acres; noted that over the years, as the new owners took it over and made changes, they needed to get variances to accept the non-conformities, and to be able to move forward; said as the time went on this has become cumbersome; said that the Community General District (CGD) designation is an ideal zoning designation for this property; stated that this application is about changing the zoning of the entire parcel; noted that it includes no development proposal at this time; pointed out that Winn Dixie has moved out and the owners are trying to fill in that space; stated this application is to rezone the parcel to CGD; thanked staff for their cooperation for making sure the applicants meet all the CGD district criteria and verifying all the variances and non-conformities would go away; said that, ifthis happens, it will be much easier to secure financing as the time goes by and a major tenant comes in and renovations need to occur; stated this change in zoning would provide the ability to finalize any future development plans on the property; and said any future development plans would have to go through Site Plan approval process, noting right now they are searching for a tenant for the Winn Dixie space. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the Planning Board's concerns about communications with neighbors and neighborhood associations expressed earlier this evening; and noted that this project is not at the point to have communications with surrounding neighbors because they are not proposing to do anything but change the zoning. Mr. Freedman stated that they had a Community Workshop and only one person spoke and requested that when the applicant redevelops to be sensitive to the neighborhood, and to plant some extra trees at the southeast in the corner ofthe subdivision, because this is not the most attractive corner right now; and added that the applicant understands this concern and has no problem with that request. PB Member Ohlrich asked if they will continue to communicate with the neighbors. Mr. Freedman stated that it is most productive to be proactive in that regard. PB Member Blumetti stated that he understands why the applicant is asking for CGD, because the other implementing uses are non-conforming uses; and asked if the applicants have looked into the possibility of going to CRD zoning. Mr. Freedman stated that CRD creates a whole lot ofnon-conformities. PB Member Blumetti agreed with Mr. Freedman, and added it would be a process to do that, however he thinks that this property will be underused, and not reach its potential with the CGD zoning. Mr. Freedman said ifthere is a massive redevelopment for this parcel, the CRD might be the way to go, but at this time the applicants would not be allowed to rezone to the CRD because they would be creating new non-conformities. Mr. Meshad stated that this is to clean up all the non-conformities, noting the current zoning is a non-implementing zoning district; said should the Form Based Code be implemented at some point, there may be some place in that for this site; said he agrees that they should look at this from a grand scheme but could not do it at this time. PB Member Blumetti noted that there is an Urban Village categoryin the Form Based Code, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 15 which is undefined, however he thinks of it as a mixed use of residential and shops; noted that residential is not allowed in CGD; and concluded that he understands the applicant's choice, but feels it is unfortunate for this property. PB Member Morriss said this just a bookkeeping process. Mr. Freedman agreed and called it al housekeeping process. PB Chair Gannon asked ifa hotel would be a permitted use on the property under the CGD zoning. Mr. Freedman agreed noting that at the 45 ftl height restriction it would only be a three-story hotel. Discussion ensued about density and other potential uses. PB Chair Gannon stated that this is more than housekeeping, it is a significant change ifit impacts the intensity and the allowable uses; pointed out that, at this meeting, the PB is looking at the allowable and potential uses in the CGD zone district, and as the process continues, the PB will review site plans of allowable uses within the CDG district. Mr. Meshad stated he has to work with the Zoning Code that is available and consistent with the land use plan; noted that he only has four or five districts to choose from, and CGD is the only one that he can use without creating additional non-conforming uses; and said the CGD would clean up the non-conforming uses that are currently there. PB Member Blumetti stated that he does not see the hotel as a concern at this location; added that therei is a hotel across the street, and we can use another hotel at that location, considering its proximity to the hospital and the surrounding neighborhood; noted that the 45 ft height will not be an issue, and the density is not dense enough; pointed out that this does not really give them what they should have at this property; said that he understands that this is cleaning up non-conformities; and asked if the applicants have to change the zoning when renovating the property in order to make it more attractive to tenants. Mr. Freedman responded to make it attractive to tenants, and banks, and financing. Staff Presentation: Planner Greenberg introduced himselffor the record; stated that Rezone Application 18- REN-05 is for Midtown Plaza, an approximately 7.64 acre site consisting off four parcels; noted that the applicants are proposing to rezone from the Commercial Shopping Center Community (CSC-C) District to Commercial General District (CGD); said that the propertyi is located in the Community Commercial Future Land Use classification, at the intersection of Bahia Vista and South Tamiami Trail, and has frontage on the adjacent streets S. East Ave., and Prospect St.; pointed out that the CSC-C district is not an implementing district for the Future Land Use designation, and the applicants are requesting to rezone to an implementing district; pointed out that there is only one district that they can rezone to without rezoning to non-conformities, such as setback requirements; stated that no development is proposed at this time; demonstrated in a table the development standards for both the existing and proposed zone district, not including the size of the property which is also non-conforming, and pointed out that should this rezoning get approved, any future development will be subject to additional development requirements relating to pedestrian standards, screening, and ground floor Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 15 windows, that are not required in the current zoning district; and concluded that staff has reviewed the application, has found it consistent with the review standards, and recommends approval. PB Member Morriss asked ifitis fair to say that any noxious uses will require Minor or Major Conditional Use approval to be located there. Planner Greenberg referred to the code, and the allowable uses under the proposed zoning district, and stated that an alcoholic beverage store, for example, would require Major Conditional Use approval. PB Member Morriss asked if a pharmacy is allowed in the proposed zoning district. Planner Greenberg stated that both the existing and the proposed zoning districts allow aj pharmacy as an accessory use to a grocery store or to a drug store. PB Chair Gannon referred to the maximum building coverage requirements of the existing and proposed districts, noting it goes from 30% maximum coverage today to no maximum. Planner Greenberg explained the that both coverage and floor area ratio together determine coverage requirements; and noted that the existing building meets the requirements ofthe proposed district. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Gannon stated that the proposed zoning district allows hotels and motels, and, as conditional uses, bars, taverns, and night clubs; and asked about the impact to the neighborhood. Planner Greenberg stated that he does not foresee major impacts on the neighborhood; and added that he attended the public workshop and the comments about parking related to other adjacent uses, and not necessarily to the specific property. PB Chair Gannon asked to hear staff's S thinking as it relates to impacts the proposed change may have on the neighborhood. Planner Greenberg stated that one has to take into consideration the scale of the site, which is two blocks put together making it almost a regional location, should a hotel come in at this site is not going to be a major difference than the impact of what could come in right now, which is commercial intense development; added that there is an existing motel to the south, SO staff does not feel thereis a compatibilityi issue, should a hotel go in now; noted that any new development would have to comply with additional pedestrian standards, which enhance neighborhood compatibility; and read the following excerpts from the Zoning Code: The purpose ofpedestrian standards is to encourage a safe, attractive and usable pedestrian circulation system in all non-residential developments; they ensure a direct pedestrian connection between a street and the buildings on site, and between buildings and other activities within the. site. In addition, they provide connection between adjacent sites where feasible. PB Chair Gannon asked if these are required in the current zoning district. Planner Greenberg stated that they are not required now; added that this is a heightened awareness ofpedestrian circulation that addresses not only pedestrian circulation on site, but also pedestrian circulation to adjacent uses; and concluded that these are additional site plan review requirements. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 15 PB Member Ohlrich referred to the Community Workshop information in the packet; noted that there is a list of organizations and persons to whom the notice was mailed, and a short list of persons who attended the workshop, however there are no notes indicating the topics of discussion 9 or the concerns that were voiced by the few people who attended the Community Workshop; and asked Planner Greenberg to address that lack ofinformation. Planner Greenberg stated that this is an actual representation oft the workshop; explained that there was a letter and pictures that were submitted for the record, and are part ofthe staff freport; said at the workshop a relative ofthe person who submitted the letter and the pictures wanted to confirm that these items had been received by staff; and said that was all the discussion. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the minutes are different than what they usually are. Planner Greenberg pointed out that there is no site plan with this application. PB Member Blumetti noted that it appears that the CSC-C zone district has more permitted uses than the proposed CGD zone district; pointed out that already there is a wine store, a restaurant/bar, and a liquor store on this property; and asked if his observations are correct. Planner Greenberg explained that, with respect to the comment on the quantity of uses, the implementing zoning districts are organized differently than the non-implementing zoning districts. PB Member Blumetti concluded that with the exception of the hotel, there is little difference between the uses permitted under the existing and the proposed zoning districts. Planner Greenberg agreed. Public Input 1. Dean Anderson - resident of Avondale, located in the corner ofUS 41 and Bahia Vista; stated that his house is located within 500 ft of the subject parcel, he was notified about this public hearing but not about the Community Workshop, which he would have attended since he is the President of their Neighborhood Association; said that there is no opposition to the project; and requested that they be involved in the future. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Member Ohlrich moved to find Rezone 18-REN-05 consistent with Section IV-11- 06 ofthe Zoning Code and recommend to the City commission approval ofthe petition. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. Speaking to her motion, PB Member Ohlrich stated that the information presented this evening indicates that the application complies with the standards. PB Vice Chair Normile stated the Avondale Neighborhood Association is on the notification list for the meeting. Mr. Freedman stated that they used the same list for workshop notifications, and he does not know why Mr. Anderson did not receive it. PB Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 15 Vice Chair Normile recommended that Mr. Anderson contact Ms. Kelly, at the City, to confirm that his correct address is on the record, SO that he gets future notifications. Speaking to his second, PB Member Blumetti said that he supports this implementing zone district, said he would support the CRD district for a more dense development; and concluded that in a way the proposed is a compromise, and he supports it. PB Chair Gannon stated that he will support it; said he was surprised to see in the comparison ofthe uses in thei two districts al hotel, ai new use that was not allowed before; and suggested that when the Planning Board reviews rezonings, differences like that should be presented, ifnot by the applicants, by staff, SO that the public can understand the potential impacts, because rezonings can be very technical and it is hard for a resident to have an understanding of the potential impact. Motion is approved unanimously (vote 5 to 0) IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO: THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no Citizen': s Input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. October 10, 2018 PB Member Ohlrich stated that she has electronically submitted to staff her revisions to page 29. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to approve the revised minutes. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. Minutes, as revised, were approved unanimously. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Sealing of Plans Planning Director Cover noted that there was significant discussion in previous meetings about who signs and seals plans submitted to the City; said staff discussed the topic and any future submissions of architectural plans will require an architectural seal; and added that this will be reflected on the City's application forms sO that all parties are well informed. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 15 VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that about a week ago she was invited to a lunch in the Police Department, probably because for years she was on the Independent Police Advisory Panel, and the Chief and the Deputy Chief took questions, and she asked how they can better coordinate Code enforcement between the Police Department and the City Development Services; said that she was surprised with the response because they do not have extra manpower; proposed that the Planning Board produce a study of current Code Enforcement practices that would offer suggestions of coordination with the police and other agencies resulting in better code enforcement; volunteered to do the study herself if other PB Members do not have time or the inclination; added that in future meetings the Planning Board could discuss chapter topics, such as police participation, sidewalks, current practices, etc.; said than when she was on the Police Panel they prepared an extensive report regarding accreditation, and she has an understanding of how a report can be done by a group under the Sunshine laws, noting it is not easy, itis a pain, but each one works independently on their own chapter, and they bring it back to be discussed at the PB meetings; noted that if the Planning Board were to approve the study, it could go to the City Commission as a Planning Board recommendation; asked PB Members to think about it, and talk this evening if they are interested to bring this up for discussion at the next meeting. PB Chair Gannon stated that an item could be added to the agenda. PB Member Morriss expressed support for this idea, stated that in a recent neighborhood meeting there were a lot of complaints about the degree and quality of code enforcement on the North Trail; and stated that such a document is long overdue, and a new set of eyes is a good idea. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that the Police Chief was very interested in the improvement of code enforcement and is willing to assist. PB Chair Gannon asked if the proposal is to come back with a topic and an outline of the elements to be included in a proposed study. PB Vice Chair Normile clarified that first the Planning Board has to discuss if they want to do the study, and then they can discuss it in a public meeting that is noticed what the chapters would be; said each chapter will have its own heading, and if someone wanted to pick up a chapter and do that research and write it themselves, they could, and that is how it could be built, at a public meeting, and eventually it can be brought back to a public meeting for approval; and stated in her experience with the accreditation report, they reviewed the document page by page and approved it in a public meeting. PB Chair Gannon clarified that PB Vice Chair Normile suggestion is to include this on the agenda for the next PB Meeting as an item under "Presentation of Topics by Planning Board." PB Member Ohlrich stated she will support that, hopes to get more information and maybe provide a service to the City and the people by having procedures more clearly identified. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting December 12, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 15 PB Chair Gannon stated that today there are multiple web-site forms where one can submit the non-compliance, sO we can consider the reporting process. PB Member Blumetti said he would certainly want to hear more about what the chapters would be. PB Member Morriss asked if PB Vice Chair Normile has an idea about how extensive this document should be in order to work. PB Vice Chair Normile stated it has to be as long as it has to be, for example, it has to include input from the Police Department and the City Departments, they have to identify how they can use help, their staffing, etc. PB Chair Gannon stated that if there is any materials to be distributed, PB Vice Chair Normile can submit them to staff, and then they can be forwarded to the other PB Members, as part of the packets. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that there will be no materials for the next meeting, because it will be discussion as to whether the PB Members want to do this, and whether PB Members have suggestions on how to do it well, and topics. VIII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS PB Member Morriss nominated PB Vice Chair Normile for PB Chair. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the nomination. All PB Members supported the nomination. PB Vice Chair Normile accepted the nomination. By acclamation, PB Vice Chair Normile was elected to be PB Chair. PBMember Ohlrich nominated PB. Member Blumetti for PB Vice Chair. PB Member Morriss seconded the nomination. PB Member Blumetti accepted the nomination. By acclamation, PB Member Blumetti was elected to be PB Vice Chair. Planning Director Cover stated that this has been a very good year, and the coming year will be tremendous, with a lot of things coming down the pipe line, SO at the next meeting he will present to the Planning Board the plan for the upcoming year, because there is a lot coming. Mr. Cover thanked everyone for a terrific job and wished everyone a happy holiday. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting Adjourned at 7:34 PM. a hehe Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Eileen W. Normile, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]