CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY October 14, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Planning Board Damien Blumetti, Chair Members Present: Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, Terrill Salem Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Lucia Panica, Director of Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long Range Planning Chris Brown, Development Review Senior Planner Megan Lui, Transportation Planner Stevie Freeman-Montes, Interim Economic Development General Manager Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning lechnician, Development Services I. CALLI MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Blumetti called the meeting to order and Director Cover [acting as the Planning Board's Secretaryl read the roll call. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF' THE DAY Mr. Cover stated there were no changes to the agenda. 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 Secretary Cover administered the Pledge of Conduct. PB Chair Blumetti asked that all Planning Board members refrain from checking their cellphone or email during the Planning Board Hearing if at all possible unless it was an emergency. Attorney Connolly recommended presentation times for the petitions that will follow, and PB Members accepted them by consensus. Attorney Connolly administered the oath for all present who intended to speak in the following public hearings; and summarized the procedures for the quasi-judicial public hearings that will follow. PB Members disclosed their ex-parte communications as follows: PB Member Gannon met with staff regarding the application. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich did a site visit with staff. PB Member Morriss had read the various emails that had come about it. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 2 of 31 PB Member Salem had read emails that were on the city's website; and PB Chair Blumetti met with staff regarding the application. B. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. Raffurty's LLC (1888 Main Street) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 27, 2020): Site Plan Application No. 20-SP-12 and Major Conditional Use Application No. 20-CU-04 are a request for Site Plan and Major Conditional Use approval for an existing restaurant located in the southeast corner of S. Links Avenue and Main Street in the Downtown Core (DTC) zone district, with a street address of 1888 Main Street. The Future Land Use classification of the property is Downtown Core. The applicant is requesting approval of a "nightclub" use as defined in the Zoning Code to allow operation with a 4COP Quota license. The current operation of a restaurant is not proposing to change. (Chris Brown, Development Review Senior Planner) Affected Persons: Attorney Connolly called Stephen Rees who had filed an application for Affected Person status. Mr. Rees was in the audience representing Brandon Lacoff, and Attorney Connolly recommended that hel be granted Affected Person status. PBI Members agreed by consensus. Applicant Presentation: Attorney Rob Robinson introduced himself and Mr. Karl Raffurty for the record, and verified he was sworn; discussed the proposed Site Plan noting several other restaurants have existed at the site, the last being World of Beer; noted Raffurty's took over the World of Beer restaurant location and opened for business on or about March 1, 2019; pointed out the attached parking garage served most establishments off Main and Links; discussed Raffurty's operations noting they offered a full-service menu of tavern food, the hours of operation were 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. seven days a week, and that all music that emanated from Raffurty's was in compliance with the City ofSarasota Noise Ordinance; said the applicants have been operating as a restaurant under a SRX liquor license; stated because the alcohol sales exceed the food sales they need to switch to a 4-COP liquor license, which is considered a nightclub in the City's Zoning Code; and pointed out a nightclub requires Major Conditional Use and Site Plan approval; discussed the staff report stating they felt Condition #1 could be eliminated because the issue is already addressed in the City Code; stated Raffurty's was in agreement with staff condition number three; stated Raffurty's wanted the record to reflect that Raffurty's had been in continual operation since March of 2019 and the only sound broadcast from the second floor was through the existing speakers and the sound consisted mainly of music played for restaurant patrons; stated there had been one formal noise complaint to the City tot their knowledge, which resulted in ai finding of no violation; stated Raffurty's controlled the volume of sound from these speakers fully complied with Chapter-20 Sound Regulations; stated the complete elimination of live or amplified music as proposed by Rivo would have a substantial impact on Raffurty's operations and will put Raffurty's at a competitive disadvantage to other restaurants and nightclubs with outside music; stated the City Noise Ordinance and staff conditions adequately addressed any concerns regarding live or amplified music on the second floor patio; stated Raffurty's would not change the way they operate if the Major Conditional Use and Site Plan were approved; stated Raffurty's had been a good community citizen since opening 18 months ago; stated law enforcement incidents occurring post application Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 3 of 31 had mainly been offsite and had not directly affected Rivo residents; and stated Raffurty's expected no other impacts as a result of the license change and that no additional mitigation was necessary. PB Member Morriss asked if the menu had been supplied to anybody in the City for analysis; and noted the PB: members had received copies of reports ofi incidents originating from Raffurty's from Attorney Dan Lobeck. Attorney Robinson stated Raffurty'sl had been audited by the State and on two occasions it was determined the alcohol sales exceed the food sales which is why they are requesting to operate as a nightclub; stated he was not sure if a menu was provided; and discussed the incident reports noting most of the incidents occurred in the vicinity rather than at their place of business. PB Member Gannon asked about the two quarters during the State audit where the liquor sales exceeded the food sales; and asked if that was correct. Discussion ensued. PB. Member Gannon then asked about the application on page 30 of the package in Section VII-602, specific standards for certain uses; asked about the proposed Conditional Use and adverse impacts to adjacent residential areas; asked about the definition of adjacent; asked why the applicant stated there were no adjacent residential areas within 500 feet; and questioned why they referenced Rivo but did not mention the CityScape condos located on their block. Discussion ensued regarding the adjacent residential areas. PB Member Gannon asked for the records to be updated to acknowledge that statement. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich asked if Raffurty's would be operating as it had been operating if this was approved; noted a discrepancy between the hours of operation stated versus what was in the packet; questioned how much seating was available both indoors and outdoors; questioned the statement there were only two speakers outdoors, noting during a site visit she counted four outdoor speakers; and pointed out she had obtained copies of twelve noise complaints from the Sarasota Police Department that had been filed for 1888 Main Street. Attorney Robinson confirmed Raffurty's would not be changing the way they operate; confirmed there are in fact four outdoor speakers; and discussed the noise complaint reports, noting he was unaware of those. Discussion ensued regarding complaints being filed that do not result in a notice of violation versus complaints that do result in a notice of violation. PB Chair Blumetti asked Attorney Connolly about the protocol for Planning Board members introducing information like this into the record. Attorney Connolly stated it was not competent and substantial evidence. PB Member Salem asked if they had a dancefloor or if they were going to remove tables during the later hours to accommodate dancing; questioned if they considered themselves ai family restaurant and if sO would they continue to be a family restaurant; requested data regarding the demographics of the patrons; asked if the sole purpose of the applications was to become compliant with the State regulations regarding alcohol sales; and questioned if the business would remain if the applications were denied. Attorney Robinson stated there was no dancefloor, nor do they intend to have a dancefloor; stated there would be no changes of any nature to the operation of the restaurant as a result of the license change; stated the patrons range from age 21 to 101; confirmed the sole purpose of the request was to become compliant with State regulations; and said a couple of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 4 of 31 possibilities if they were to be denied would be to limit their alcohol sales or more than likely they would close. PB Chair Blumetti asked what kind of investment Mr. Raffurty had in this restaurant and if this was the only Raffurty's or if there were multiple Raffurty's; asked if it was safe to assume that if the applications were not approved and the restaurant failed that would be pretty devastating to Mr. Raffurty; and asked about the amplified music. Attorney Robinson stated this location was the only Raffurty's and confirmed Mr. Raffurty would be financially devastated if the restaurant were to close. Discussion ensued regarding the use of amplified music both inside and outside. PB Member Morriss asked how many temporary activities with Special Event Permits the applicants intended to hold over the course of a year; noted most people did not eat after 9:00 to 9:30 at night; stated if they going from 9:30 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. every day clearly the alcohol sales would start tipping the balance towards the alcohol side; and asked if they had tracked when the sales of food versus the sales of alcohol started tipping toward the alcohol side. Attorney Robinson stated Mr. Raffurty did not envision any special events with the exception of possibly St. Patrick's Day or something of that nature. Mr. Raffurty stated they did have a lot of patrons there eating past 9:00 p.m. Attorney Robinson stated a detailed analysis of sales of food versus alcohol had not been performed. PB Member Gannon asked if their intent was to maintain their full menu throughout the hours of operation; asked about activities where the patrons spilled out into Links Park; and questioned if special events would be held. Attorney Robinson that past 10:00 p.m. there was a menu that was smaller; stated it had wings, pizza, burgers, pub-type grill food; confirmed the applicants had not applied for or obtained any Temporary Activity or Special Event Permit during the time that Raffurty's had been open; stated they hadn'thad any activity in which they utilized that space at Links Park; stated sometimes regrettably patrons did spill out onto Main Street in front of Raffurty's; and stated the events they had could be contained onsite PB Vice Chair Ohlrich discussed the decision-making criteria that formed the PB member's decision and referenced Section VII-602, page: 29 of the packet, specific standards for certain uses; and asked what particular attention were they giving to mitigate the effects of noise upon the neighboring properties from the establishment. Attorney Robinson stated the primary one was the agreement to the staff condition that there be no amplified music at any time emanating from the speakers on the second story. Discussion ensued regarding noise mitigation. PB Member Salem asked about emails from neighbors complaining about noise; asked what the demographic of patrons would be from the hours of 11:00 p.m. until 2 a.m.; and questioned if Mr. Raffurty or any of his staff had reached out to any of their residential neighbors to coexist. Mr. Raffurty stated he did that two months before he opened; stated he spoke to about 50 Rivo residents and informed them that after 10 p.m. he would have no loud music outside anywhere; stated he invited them to come in and get 10% off; stated he wanted to be a good neighbor; stated, since then, he had talked to the manager and stated that if he did have band or something like that that he would even go walk to the building with a noise meter to make sure that they were in compliance. PB Member Salem Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 5 of 31 asked, if the license was approved, would that be something he would continue to do. Mr. Raffurty stated 100%, absolutely. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Brown introduced himself for the record; discussed the applications noting a Site Plan is required to accompany Conditional Use applications; stated the request was a change allowing the use to switch from restaurant to nightclub; noted the conditions that were proposed would ensure that this business continued to act as a restaurant even though it had the nightclub designation; said the request was consistent with the Future Land Use Designation; pointed out the intent of the Downtown Core zoning was to create a lively pedestrian environment; discussed the noise complaints noting a police report is only generated if a violation is found rather than on a complaint being made; said only one noise report was filed and that was just from last month and stated it seemed the only reason for the write up on it was because the complainant asked that it be written sO that it would be documented; stated the other interesting thing about that report was that it was made at 8:58 p.m., which was actually before the 10:00 p.m. cutoff of the Noise Ordinance; discussed the notifications for the Community Workshop noting CityScape not only received notification but that they had also received a letter of support from that condominium association; and stated staff recommended approval of this application with the conditions as written. PB Member Morriss stated most people were pinning the noise issue on music; noted there are other sources of noise including from the patrons as they left or entered the facility; pointed out conditions are placed on Conditional Uses; discussed the police reports noting although they don't indicate there had been action taken, they did indicate that there had been activity; and asked if staff had looked at that. Senior Planner Brown stated staff had taking various sources of noise into account; noted the only thing that really was being reviewed was the Conditional Use approval to change the use from a restaurant to a nightclub; pointed out thata all but three oft the thirteen police reports indicated the incidents happened either outside of Raffurty's or didn't even mention Raffurty's by name at all; noted the location is on a corner, and corner lots are prone to more foot traffic; stated there is also a public park there that also attracted a certain amount of activity; stated while the business is in the downtown area, it was a little bit further away from the density of downtown; and stated he thought it was more of a location-based thing than it was anything happening at Raffurty's spilling out. PB Member Gannon discussed the staff analysis noting his concerns with staff's S response relating to adverse impacts; pointed out a discrepancy in the operating hours that were stated at the: meeting versus what was in the staff report; questioned the hours the outdoor area was open; asked how the public safety aspect was analyzed; and questioned how complaints that were not filed through the Sarasota Police Department were received. Discussion ensued regarding Code Compliance complaints versus police reports. Senior Planner Brown acknowledged the discrepancy in the operating hours noting the actual operating hours are 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. seven days a week; stated the outdoor area is considered an accessory use and as such must close at 11:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 11:59 p.m. on Friday and Saturday; reiterated police reports are only filed if an actual violation has occurred; and noted no Code Compliance complaints have been filed. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 6 of 31 PB Vice Chair Ohlrich asked if there were limits to the number of Temporary Activity and Special Events Permits one establishment could obtain during the course of a calendar year; noted an extensive discussion regarding the issue of noise recently resulted in a proffer that maxed the sound at 65 decibels and questioned why that option was not being discussed as part of this application; stated this applicant or any subsequent applicant could also go above and beyond and set their speakers to a maximum of 65 decibels and asked if this was true; and asked if enforcement of the Noise Ordinance would continue to be complaint driven. Senior Planner Brown stated Temporary Activity Permits were limited to two per year; stated Special Event Permits were: not limited but that there was a narrow band of potential events that would actually qualify as a special event; stated the applicants were subject to the same maximum decibel levels that any business would be subject to as a part of the Noise Ordinance; confirmed any applicant can proffer a maximum decibel level; and stated that enforcement of the noise ordinance continues to be complaint driven. PB Member Salem asked if heard Senior Planner Brown correctly that he received a letter of support from one of the condos downtown. Senior Planner Brown stated he received a letter from a resident of Cityscape; noted he did not know if they there were speaking on behalf of the entire association; and pointed out the letter was page 82 of the staff report. PB Chair Blumetti asked that Senior Planner Brown point out where in the Code is mandates that Conditional Uses stay with the property. Senior Planner Brown stated he thought it was IV-906. Attorney Connolly stated he believed he was looking for IV-910, subsection B3, which talked about the affidavit and a successive owner of the same property. PB Chair Blumetti asked Attorney Connolly to read the part that applied. Attorney Connelly read the verbiage into the record. PB Chair Blumetti thanked Attorney Connolly and Senior Planner Brown. PB Member Morris had no additional questions. PB Member Gannon stated they had a discussion about the applicant and their SRX license and the audit from the state; asked when they opened were they operating under a Conditional Use under the SRX. Mr. Brown stated they were not; stated when they opened they had an SFS license. PB Member Gannon asked if that did not require any approval from the City. Mr. Brown stated that approval went through the State Alcohol and' Tobacco Bureau but that the City did need to sign off on the application. PB Member Gannon asked does the applicant then state to the City that they will operate according to those rules of the license. Mr. Brown stated he didn't know if they made that case to the City because the application form was sent to a state agency but stated it was explicated in the application to that agency and then they signed off on it. PB Member Gannon questioned if Raffurty's was operating under a Conditional Use when they opened. Senior Planner Brown stated the restaurant was operating under a SFS license at the time they opened. Discussion ensued regarding the approval process for liquor licenses and the monitoring of establishments to ensure they are operating within the rules of the license. PB Member Gannon discussed the staff response relating to safety and welfare and questioned if staff s reference to Conditional Use was specific to this property; and asked if data was available that indicated how long the business had operated against Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 7 of 31 their liquor license. Discussion ensued. Senior Planner Brown pointed out if the Conditional Use is approved the property would still operate as a restaurant; noted most issues associated with Conditional Uses were related to businesses that operated as a nightclub with no. food component; and stated City staff does not regulate compliance with liquor licenses, noting that is a State function. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she had no questions; stated she would like to address the proffers at some point because she thought one. had been eliminated and the PB had talked about rewording some of the others; and stated she did not know when the appropriate time to do that was. Affected Persons: Attorney Stephen Rees from the law firm of Icard Merrill of Sarasota identified himself for the record and verified he was sworn; stated he was here on behalf of his client BPOZ 1991 Main LLC who had also filed an application for Affected Person status timely;noted BPOZ 1991 Main LLC acquired the property in mid-November 2019. and immediately timely filed its Site Plan approval for 400+ residential units and retail on the first floor; said BPOZ 1991 Main LLC did not receive notification of the Community Workshop due to the timing of the purchase of the property; expressed BPOZ 1991 Main LLC's concern and opposition to the proposed change from a restaurant use to a nightclub use; discussed the police reports; and stated their largest concern was with the outdoor area and noise. PB Member Salem asked if the BPOZ 1991 Main LLC project had been permitted and approved. Mr. Rees stated the Site Plan was pending; noting the development application was filed December 2, 2019, and had undergone: multiple rounds of Development Review Committee comments; and stated it was still pending in Development Review Committee. PB Member Salem stated they were hearing Raffurty's request and had not yet heard their request for their site and asked if that was correct. Mr. Rees stated that was correct. PB Member Salem stated Raffurty's made the statement there was no adjacent residential and stated theirs was to be built but was not there now and asked if that was correct. Mr. Rees stated that was correct. PB Member Salem stated he wanted to make it clear that he did not think the applicant made a mistake or misspoke because they might or might not know what was planning to be built across the street. PB Chair Blumetti asked Mr. Rees if his client owned the building. Mr. Rees stated he did. Attorney Connolly asked PB Chair Blumetti what he meant by this building; asked if he meant the Raffurty's building. PB Chair stated yes. Attorney Connolly stated Mr. Rees' client did not own the Raffurty's building. Mr. Rees apologized and stated BPOZ 1991 Main LLC owned the portion of the former mall directly across the street on the north side of Main Street. PB Chair Blumetti stated they had two citizens scheduled to speak, Mr. Lobeck and Mr. Miller. Public Input: 1. Mr. Dan Lobeck stated the staff condition relating to noise was ineffective because the outdoor area depicted on the Site Plan did not include the stage noting bands have played on the stage; said he lives on the 12th floor of Rivo and the noise is very disturbing; stated Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 8 of 31 noise complaints should be considered competent and substantial evidence even if no violation occurred; suggested language related to the availability of food service; questioned the applicant's credibility; and requested a unanimous vote of denial. 2. Mr. Dean Miller stated he represented Rivo Condo Board of Directors and they are opposed to the applications; stated Rivo Condominiums are just outside the 500 foot limit used for notification purposes; chastised the City for not reaching out to them and advising that they should get involved; questioned the operating hours; said there should be no amplification of any type of sound from the 2nd floor; requested area businesses and residents be consulted before the issuance of any Temporary Activity or Special Event permits; and suggested the use of public right-of-way by Raffurty's be investigated. City Staff Rebuttal: Senior Planner Brown commented on PB Member Gannon's question about the liquor license and the City's ability to regulate that or enforce it; stated as long as the business itself had a liquor license that was the extent of their ability; stated if it turned out they were: not operating in good faith that was something to take up with the State Liquor Board; and commented on Rivo not being notified of the Community Workshop noting they are outside of the 500 foot radius for mailing notices for the Community Workshops and for qualifying for Affected Persons status; and stated it was just a matter of Code. PB Member Gannon questioned why the proposed development of 400+ residential units across the street was not taken into account during staff's s analysis. Senior Planner Brown stated he was aware of the BPOZ project; pointed out there were a number of projects in any state of development or predevelopment at any given time in a city; and stated this was a project that was still in the DRC process and it was premature to consider how this Conditional Use was going to impact a project, which might or might not be constructed. PB Member Gannon stated Rivo was outside of the 500 feet, but there was an existing one and a future one within the 500 feet and the analysis did not seem to take that into consideration as to the impact of the developing neighborhood. Rebuttal of Affected. Persons: Mr. Rees stated he was only able to get through the Standards of Review in section IV-906; stated several Planning Board members pointed out the additional criteria for sale of alcoholic beverages; stated, in section VII-602(r), the majority of those would be answered in the negative in terms of whether or not they could compensate for the adverse impacts for the hours of operation; stated law enforcement activities had been addressed quite a bit, both on and offt the property; stated the adequate provisions for the elimination of noise still remained the largest concern for his client who was actively pursuing their development approvals; stated the use of the nightclub and the extent of the outside areas that could not be contained were what was driving the concerns here; and encouraged the Planning Board members to deny the petitions. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Robinson noted that the property across the street was not permitted, was not under construction, and it was optimistic to think that it ever would be given the effects that property would have on the transportation system of downtown; stated it was critical the Planning Board understand this property was not undergoing a metamorphosis into a Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 9 of 31 nightclub; stated they were willing to put in the conditions of approval that Raffurty's was going to continue to be a downtown destination for residents of the area tol have something to eatand gather and have a drink as well; stated they did have a valid liquor license today; stated they were amenable to adjustments in the conditions in terms of something to reflect that the kitchen needed to be open sO they were not serving brown bag sandwiches for people that wanted to buy alcohol at midnight; stated the second floor speakers were being shut down and may actually be removed; and stated they would be compliant with the noise regulations. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated someone talked about the performing stage and there actually had been live bands blaring music; and asked what he could tell them about that. Mr. Raffurty stated they had not had any live music upstairs since March 1st and stated it was one band; stated they didn't do live music upstairs on that performance stage at all; and stated that was for people to go up there and sit, eat, relax, and overlook Main Street. PB Vice Chair commented on the noise complaints. Attorney Robinson stated they had testified they had only one interaction with the Police Department, which was the one documented for September. PBI Member Morriss asked what the actual gap was between the 519 % the State requires and where they actually were in terms of food sales. Attorney Robinson stated they thought it was about 60/40. Senior Planner Brown clarified it was important to the City that the proffers and conditions as written were things that they were able to enforce; stated condition number three regarding the live or amplified music on the second floor was only able to be enforced if the speakers were removed; and stated, in the event of an approved Special Event with amplified or outdoor music, temporary speakers on a stand would be allowable. PB Member Gannon wanted to clarify the proffers before the hearing was closed; asked whether or not the number one proffer regarding Conditional Use going with the property was being removed. Attorney Connolly stated his recollection was that Attorney Robinson said the Applicant was eliminating number one. Attorney Robinson stated he had a conversation with Senior Planner Brown yesterday about that and they agreed that they would remove that proffer. PB Chair Blumetti noted Attorney Connolly read that and that was why he had him read that into the record; stated the second thing was proffer number three; and pointed out once a motion is made the Planning Board could suggest changes to the proffers and see if the Applicant approved. Attorney Connolly stated, while we've been using the term proffers, the only one that was a proffer was number one; stated the others, two through five, were conditions; and stated if number one was a proffer and it was being removed by the Applicant that it was in the control of the Planning Board what conditions the Planning Board was going to attach to its recommendation to the City Commission. PB Member Gannon asked whether or not they needed to discuss that with the Applicant while the hearing was still open. Attorney Connolly stated it was in the Planning Board's hands now. PB Chair Blumetti closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 10 of 31 PB Member Salem made a motion to find Site Plan 20-SP-12 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and to find Conditional Use 20-CU-04 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the Site Plan and Conditional Use to the City Commission, subject to conditions two through five as written. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated there had not been a second; stated she had some changes to the wording of the conditions; and asked if she should wait until there was a second. PB Chair Blumetti stated yes. PB Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Member Salem asked to speak on the motion. PB Chair Blumetti asked PB Member Salem to amend condition number three to remove the outdoor speakers sO that it was not even a temptation to turn on the outdoor speakers from at least the second floor; and stated the motion was to approve the Site Plan and Major Conditional Use with condition number three revised to include removal of the speakers. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she would also like to amend condition number two to state the full-service food menu shall be available during all business hours. PB Member Salem stated he did not like that because that was burdensome to the business owner; stated it should be up to the business owner to determine what foods to sell on their menus. PB Member Gannon stated that the applicant stated that they do have two menus, including a late-night menu that still had cooked food; stated he did not have as much of a problem with it being the full menu versus a partial menu as long as it was cooked food from the kitchen; and stated the kitchen shall remain open serving food items from its menus during all operational hours, sO whether they had a lunch menu, an evening menu, or a night menu it was still their published menus. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich seconded that motion. PB Chair Blumetti asked Attorney Connolly if he could ask the Applicant and Attorney Connolly stated yes. Attorney Robinson stated the Applicants did not have any problem with putting the removal of the speakers in condition number three; and stated he liked the way PB Member Gannon proposed the, - 'As long as the kitchen was open whatever menu we. have available would be what would be served lunch, dinner, or late night." PB Chair Blumetti asked PB Member Salem if he was amenable to that and PB Member Salem stated yes. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated they were supposed to vote on the amendment before they voted on the motion itself. PB Chair Blumetti stated he understood that; and stated he wanted to make sure the person who made the motion was okay with the amendment. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated it did not matter and that they had to vote on it whether he was Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 11 of 31 okay with it or not; stated there was an amendment to the original motion on the: floor. PB Chair Blumetti asked if it was an amendment to the conditions. Discussion ensued regarding voting on amendments to the original motion. Attorney Connolly stated they could have a friendly amendment if the mover was in agreement to all of those amendments; stated he understood what they would be voting on was condition one was eliminated and not replaced with anything, condition number two was eliminated and replaced with "The kitchen shall remain open serving food items from its menu during operational hours.", / condition number three would be removed and replaced with a requirement to remove the speakers from the second floor outdoor patio area, and conditions four and five would remain as is. Discussion ensued. Attorney Robinson asked if the board would contemplate their ability to still apply for a Temporary Activity or Special Event Permit for use of the second floor after they had removed the speakers. PB Chair Blumetti stated he did not see a need to change that; stated it was only the temptation to turn on the speakers. Discussion ensued regarding the speakers on the 2nd floor and associated verbiage for condition number three. Attorney Connolly stated number three would now be, "No speakers shall be allowed on the second-floor outdoor patio area, except in conjunction with an approved temporary activity permit or special event permit. PB Member Morriss stated he did not agree with the motion and could not support it. PB Member Gannon asked PB Member Morriss to clarify what he could not support and discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she would not support the motion. PB Chair Blumetti stated he could not disagree more. PB Member Gannon stated he supported the motion with the changes made. PB Member Salem he made the motion because he supported it. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich called the question. Attorney Connolly explained the question; stated the motion that was: made by PB Member Salem and seconded by the Chair was to recommend approval with condition number one eliminated and then numbers two through five as written; stated further discussion significantly rewrote number two and number three; stated the first thing to vote on was whether to make those changes to number two and to number three and restated the changes; and stated the second vote would be on whatever motion remained after the first vote. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich moved to approve the changes to conditions two and three. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. The motion was approved with a vote of 4-1 (PB Member Morriss voted "No.") Attorney Connolly stated the next motion would be to recommend the approval of the Conditional Use and the Site Plan withoutnumber one, with two and three asjust changed, and with four and five as in the record. The motion was approved with a vote of 3-2 (PB Member Morriss and PB Vice Chair Ohlrich voted "No.") The Planning Board Took a 10-Minute Recess Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at: 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 12 of 31 2. Ringling College of Art and Design, Inc. Dining Facility (2736 Old Bradenton Road): Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 20-ZTA-04 is a request for Zoning Text Amendment approval to revise the Ringling College Overlay District and expand the boundaries by 8.58 acres +. Site Plan Application No. 20-SP-10, Rezone Application No. 20- RE-02, and Street Vacation Application No. 20-SV-02 are a request for Site Plan approval to construct a Dining Facility totaling approximately 28,500 sq. ft. on property zoned Office Regional District (ORD) and within the Ringling Overlay District (ROD). The Future Land Use classification is Community Office/Institutional. The property is generally located east of N. Tamiami Trail, west of Cocoanut Avenue, north of 22nd Street and south of Greensboro Lane, with a street address of 2736 Old Bradenton Road. The application also requests Rezone approval to rezone specific properties within the area from North Trail (NT) and Residential Multiple Family (RMF-3) to the ORD zone and to expand the boundary if the ROD north to Patterson Drive. The applicant also requests approval to vacate a segment of North Riverside Drive and a segment of West Street in exchange for a substitute right-of-way parallel to North Riverside Drive. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long Range Planning) (Chris Brown, Development Review Senior Planner) (Megan Lui, Transportation Planner) PB Members disclosed their ex-parte communications as follows: PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she had conversation with staff on these applications. PB Member Gannon stated he had a site visit with staff and a phone conversation with Mr. Smith on the ZTA; and PB Chair Blumetti had a site visit with staff and a meeting with staff. Attorney Connolly stated this would be conducted as a quasi-judicial public hearing; noted were four applications, two of which were legislative and two of which were quasi-judicial; pointed out after the public hearing there will be four separate votes and recommended the order of the votes; recommended the first vote be on the Zoning Text Amendment and the second vote be on the Street Vacation application; noted those two votes would be first because those were the two legislative applications; and stated the third vote would be on the Site Plan, and fourth vote would be on the Rezone. Affected Persons Status: Attorney Connolly called the names of citizens who have filed applications for Affected Person status. Sarah Baldwin was in the audience, and Attorney Connolly recommended that she be granted Affected Person status. PB Members agreed by consensus. Applicant's Presentation: Tracy Wagner, Vice President for Finance and Administration at Ringling College of Art and Design, introduced herself and confirmed she and her team were sworn for the record; stated Dennis Lynch would be giving the presentation and introduced her team; stated the college was requesting Planning Board approval for four separate items, including Zoning Text Amendment, a Site Plan for a new dining facility on the campus, Rezoning of campus- owned and vacated property to ORD within the ROD to enable campus development pursuant to that ROD expansion, and the vacation of a portion of North Riverside Drive and concurrent conveyance of property to relocate a portion of this street to align with Greensboro Lane to create a normal intersection; presented a graphic showing the location Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 13 of 31 of the proposed campus expansions; discussed the proposed dining facility and parking demand; discussed the proposed street vacation including pedestrian safety and preserving grand trees; stated they held a campus meeting for neighbors who they felt would be most directly affected by plans to expand the Overlay District; stated feedback was collected at the meeting and then follow-up calls and emails were made; stated packets of materials were left for neighbors at their homes who couldn't attend the meeting sO they could contact them with their comments; stated a Community Workshop was held where neighbors asked a number of questions and voiced concerns, which the College has addressed; and stated neighbors appeared to be in support of the rezoning efforts. Attorney Connolly swore Mr. Viron Lynch in. Dennis Lynch, Architect at Ayers Saint Gross, introduced himself and confirmed he was sworn for the record; stated he had been working with Ringling for quite a number of years now on this project; and discussed the design for the dining facility. Viron Lynch discussed the Site Plan in more detail including dumpsters, deliveries, and improved pedestrian walkways. Bobbi Claybrooke with AM Engineering introduced herself and confirmed she was sworn for the record; stated the proposed sidewalk would continue in the east direction to connect to the existing pedestrian bridge that crossed Whitaker Bayou; stated that walkway would connect to the other side of the campus that would keep student and pedestrian traffic off of Dr. Martin Luther KingJr. Way and keep them internal to campus; provided the site data detail and explained in detail the setbacks: noting there were no. side setbacks; and explained that it was one continuous parcel. Dennis Lynch stated he wanted to highlight the height of the building was approximately 32 feet to the highest point of the roof; provided an elevation mapi explained the glazing requirements; and discussed the preservation of grand trees. Viron Lynch provided a Staging Plan depicting the: route the construction traffic would use; stated large truck traffic would be eliminated on Riverside to South Riverside; and stated variable-speed exhaust fans would be installed to limit the odors that came out of the building from cooking. Phil Smith, Landscape Architect, introduced himself and confirmed he was sworn for the record; stated there were 23 total grand trees on the two sites; pointed out the main building was designed around one of the oldest trees on the campus; noted there were 16 grand trees that were preserved in the final design; stated seven were being removed based on being in poor condition; stated one tree was: in the West Place right ofway that would be removed; stated their findings were site verified; stated the tree removal criteria had been met; and said all mitigation was provided on-site and met the requirements of City Code. Dennis Lynch provided an aerial view of the design for the dining facility; and stated the scale and materials of the building were consistent with the scale and materials of other buildings on the Ringling College campus. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 14 of 31 Tracy Wagner stated that concluded the presentation and said they would be happy to answer any questions. PB Member Salem questioned if the two residential parcels on Gilford Lane that are not included in the expanded Overlay District were owned by Ringling College; and asked if the proposed rezoning was approved would that allow a height of 65' adjacent to those. Ms. Wagner stated those were privately-owned residences; stated they approached the neighbors asking if they were interested in providing their consent to have their properties included in the Ringling Overlay District; stated the neighbors did not oppose the College's plans, but they didn't want to be included in the Overlay District; pointed out they did own all the property on the north side of Gilford Lane; noted they felt the best option was to include Gilford Lane minus those two parcels at this time; stated although 65' high structures could potentially be built adjacent to the abutting residential structures, structurally to build something that size in those areas would be very difficult; and noted they currently had single-family homes that they purchased in the neighborhood and they use those for student housing. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned why all of the residential properties owned by Ringling College were not included in the overlay expansion; requested clarification of the email from Viron Lynch to David Smith regarding excluding two parcels sO an additional Community Workshop would not be required; requested the rationale for the administrative adjustment to allow for a reduction in the window area;and noted that she does not normally support street vacations however this particular street vacation actually improves the street grid. Ms. Wagner stated Ringling College was taking a conservative approach in implementing their Campus Master Plan; noted the campus has expanded significantly in the past thirteen years; and pointed out the surrounding residential property owners enjoy living adjacent to a College but wish to maintain private ownership of their parcels. Mr. Dennis Lynch discussed the administrative adjustment that reduced the window size stating the area is the back of house to the Dining Facility and as such a minimum amount of windows in appropriate; and noted substantial landscape buffering was proposed. PB Member Gannon asked if it was correct that the two parcels on Gilford Lane that are not included in the proposed overlay expansion are not owned by Ringling College; questioned the parking calculations and asked what percentage of students currently have parking passes and how many would be able to have cars under the expansion; and requested information as to what design changes had been made in order to save trees and how many trees were saved as a result. Ms. Wagner confirmed the two parcels that were not included are privately owned noting Ringling College owns all the other parcels on both the north and south side of Gilford Lane; said currently approximately 50% of second through fourth year students brought cars; and noted she did noth have the information needed to calculate the number of cars that would be allowed under the expansion. PB Member Gannon requested that information be provided prior to the end of the public hearing. Mr. Phil Smith stated on the Riverside Drive alignment, all of the trees were, saved except for the one that was on North Place that actually had pavement all around it sO there was just no way to save it; and stated, as far as the architectural design, they gave the Architects the data on the trees and their condition which resulted in a building that was molded all around the signature tree and then trees around the arched walk. Mr. Dennis Lynch added normally Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 15 of 31 dining facilities like to be all on one level; said they added a second story to accommodate the seating demand and an additional serving area which reduced the footprint of the building on the site; and stated that was driven primarily by preserving as many trees on the site as possible. PB Member Morriss discussed the "Section 8, Windows" portion of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment noting the amount of flexibility that has been built in; questioned how the walkways would be designed in order to keep those interesting, exciting and shaded; discussed the proposed Street Vacation noting the design was better however questioned if speeding issues would be created; and requested information as to how Daylight Plane provisions would be approached. Mr. Dennis Lynch addressed the language in the proposed ZTA relating to windows stating previous issues relating to window glazing while developing the Library led to the new language to give the College flexibility to deal with different programmatic elements that may front on some of the street frontages. Ms. Claybrooke discussed the potential for speeding issues noting there would be a four-way stop at Greensboro Lane and North Riverside Drive, and a three-way stop at West Place and North Riverside. Ms. Wagner discussed the Daylight Plane issue stating they were looking for consistency with development as they grew; stated because the two privately- owned houses were there they knew they would not be able to develop the projects as. long as they were there to that height, but it did not seem logical to carve out an entire side of a block to be a lesser height when in the long-term planning they knew that was what they wanted to preserve in that area; stated it would limit development but that it was consistent with what the long-term intent of the college was; stated, in the interim, they would use property that surrounded those private residences probably for parking lots and lower- density projects; and stated it made sense to them to reflect what the long-term plan would be for that land use. PB Chair Blumetti discussed the campus improvements thathave been made over the years noting the high level of architecture and design; pointed out those improvements, combined with the community outreach programs at the College, have resulted in the unintended consequence of attracting community visitors to the campus, and asked how the parking calculations took that into account; suggested the proposed design standards be eliminated due to the uniqueness of the campus; and questioned the number of proposed bike racks noting he felt there were too few. Ms. Wagner stated the parking calculations reflect the fact that activities are not scheduled when they knew that the campus was in heavy demand for an academic purpose, noted the College uses a lot of valet parking; pointed out the acquisition of additional parcels provides flexibility with the provision of visitor parking; and said the number of bike racks is based on anticipated student demand. PB Member Salem stated he liked the project, particularly the Street Vacation; expressed concerns with the stress being placed on the two private property owners on Gilford Lane; questioned why Gilford Lane could not be included in a future expansion; and pointed out that a zoning enclave was being created by singling out those two parcels. Ms. Wagner stated the College wished to develop the campus in a unified manner; acknowledged constructing a 65' building adjacent to those two single family residences was of concern; pointed out the College has worked closely with its neighbors, noting the Dining Facility has been relocated from a previous proposed location on the campus as a result of discussions with the neighbors; said the College was open to redoing the boundaries to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 16 of 31 exclude Gilford Lane SO those two parcels would not be surrounded; and noted both property owners had expressed a desire to stay in their homes for a period of time. PB Member Gannon questioned if the northward expansion was necessary in order to construct the dining facility and make the improvements related to the Street Vacation; asked why the parcel facing N. Tamiami Trail, south of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, was not part of the Overlay District, and requested information on the development at East Tamiami Circle. Ms. Wagner stated to do the dining site they needed the Ringling Overlay District expanded and the property rezoned north of the existing North Riverside Drive; stated they would not need the expansion in the area outlined in red, which was what she believed he was referring to on East Tamiami Circle up to the Gilford area; pointed out there was a Shell Gas Station located on the parcel facing N. Tamiami Trail, south of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way; noted that parcel was purchased after this process started and they didn'ty want to go back and add that at this time; and said the property at East Tamiami Circle was zoned residential and could potentially be rezoned in the future to alllow for additional campus parking. Attorney Dan Bailey introduced himself for the record and confirmed he was sworn; stated what Tracy was talking about was the portion of the dining facility that abutted where North Riverside Drive was going to be vacated; stated, once that occurred, it would put a portion of the Dining Hall into the current RMF-3 Zone District because they had a zone district boundary in the middle of the street; stated, when you moved that a little bit north, you would get a little bit into the RMF-3 District and stated for at least that part of that they would need rezoning. PB Member Gannon stated he knew questions had arisen as to the properties that were currently outside the ROD that were owned by Ringling College and asked if that was on one of the maps. Ms. Wagner stated that was on one of the images and pulled that image up. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss stated he got the sense this had been a very thoughtfully arrived at plan; stated he was always concerned about the backstop and gave the example that if there was anything of any consequence that was going to be built next to those two residential parcels that they would have to show up back here anyway; and stated that was a safety net for any real concerns for the adjacent neighborhood. PBC Chair Blumetti stated he wanted to correct the record. He stated enclave and he meant campus. Staff Presentation: David Smith, AICP, Manager of Long Range Planning, introduced himself for the record; shared a Power Point presentation on the Zoning Text Amendment for the Ringling Overlay District; discussed the proposed Standards for Review;noted the Ringling Overlay District was originally adopted in December of 2007; stated Ringling College has since acquired several properties and wishes to expand the Overlay District by approximately 8.58 acres; pointed out that where the Standards for Review conflict with the standards for the underlying zone district, the provisions in the Ringling Overlay District would be applicable; discussed the proposed parking standards stating currently one space is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 17 of 31 required for every 500 sq. ft. of non-residential and the proposed change is to one parking space for every 1.725 full time equivalent student; noted available parking on parcels owned by Ringling College that are within 14 mile of the ROD boundaries can be used to meet the overall parking requirements; said 2 parking spaces per underlying parcel that is zoned residential can be counted as well; discussed the standards for street walls; and stated staff recommend the Zoning Text Amendment be approved. Chris Brown, Development Review Senior Planner, discussed the parking for the Dining Facility noting there are twelve existing spaces on the Dining Facility site; reiterated the parking calculations include all parcels in the ROD and those that are within 44 mile of the ROD and are owned by Ringling College; noted ten bicycle parking spaces are required and twelve are being provided; stated the Site Plan analysis was based on the proposed Street Vacation being approved; discussed the improvements to the pedestrian paths; pointed out the five recommendations contained in the traffic analysis have been incorporated into the plans; said six grand trees were being removed as well as a number of other trees; noted the tree mitigation requirements have been exceeded; stated the properties proposed for rezoning are an existing zoning enclave and rezoning those properties will remedy that; said no other development is proposed at this time; stated the Site Plan and Rezone analysis was based on the most intensive potential use; pointed out any future development would have to go through the public hearing process; said two conditions in addition to the standard conditions were proposed, one being Site Plan approval is conditioned on the approval of the Zoning Text Amendment, and the other being public access easements for the bus shelter and on-site sidewalk must be recorded in the Official Records prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and stated staff recommended approval of the Site Plan and Rezone applications with the proposed conditions as written. Megan Lui, Transportation Planner, introduced herself for the record; stated the vacation of two segments of right-of-way were being proposed, the southern portion of West Place and the western portion of North Riverside Drive; said the area proposed for vacation encompasses approximately 20,000 sq. ft.;1 noted all abutting parcels are owned by Ringling College, pointed out a rededicated right-of-way consisting of approximately 16,000 sq. ft. was being proposed north of and parallel to the existing North Riverside Drive and will align with Greensboro Lane; said the improvements will include the replacement of utilities, a sidewalk on the north side, and replanting of some trees; stated a Community Workshop was held in November 2019; said the application was reviewed by the DRC and received signoff on August 5, 2020; stated the application was reviewed by staff using the Standards for Review for Right-of-Way Vacations pursuant to section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code, and staff determined that it did comply with the standards; and stated staff recommended approval of the petition subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. PB Member Salem stated he had no questions. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated emails were included where concern was expressed by staff regarding the text for the height being included in the ZTA and questioned if removing the text from the ZTA and relying on the land use map instead of the text alleviated those concerns. Manager Smith noted there was text in the existing ROD and after discussion staff decided it best to rely on the map. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned if the five recommendations madel by Kimley Horn had been included in the Site Plan. Senior Planner Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 18 of 31 Brown reiterated those have been incorporated into the plans. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she already addressed the Street Vacation that it improved the street grid and did no damage in her opinion. PB Member Gannon questioned what the allowable zone districts were in the COI Future Land Use category; asked if rezoning the parcels would actually remove the existing zoning enclave; and suggested hedges could be included as an allowable type of street wall. Manager Smith stated there were four implementing zone districts, including ORD; said the other three were OCD, OND, and G; stated the street wall standards could be written with hedges as an option; and noted the text was drafted in order to be similar to what was in the Downtown Zone Districts. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss referenced pages 36-40 and asked what purpose it served to have the multicolor markup in the package because he had to read it again to make sure it was the same or different or how it worked; and asked if there was a purpose that he did not know or understand for this. Manager Smith stated it was backup material that Ringling College had submitted. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich noted that she brought up the same issue when she had a telephone conversation with Manager Smith; stated it was rather confusing to have multiple iterations and changed documents included in their packet; stated it might help in the future to have a single page; and went into detail about this. Manager Smith stated he would note that and try to remember to do sO. Public Input: General Manager Chapdelain stated there were two attendees that had signed up to provide public comment; and noted one confirmed he was just observing. Ms. Monica Cancellieri, the other attendee, had technical problems and could not be heard, however was able to type a message stating she felt the 65' building height was too tall. Applicant Rebuttal: Ms. Wagner stated they were open to any modifications to the Street Wall language that was acceptable; stated she wanted to follow up on the parking comments, noting she was able to find some statistics; stated, in fall 2019, 41% of all of their students applied for and had a parking permit and that was about the ratio they wanted to try to maintain;and stated that meant they would limit first-year student parking to only being able to bring cars to campus if there was an exception for a health reason or something like that. PB Member Salem stated he thought the applicant stated that they did not have any opposition from the two people that live on Gilford Lane and noted Monica Cancellieri lived on Gilford Lane; asked if they had talked to her; and asked if they knew she felt like the building height of 65 feet was too tall. Ms. Wagner stated they had spoken on a number of occasions and her understanding was that Ms. Cancellieri did not want to consent to the Ringling Overlay District being over her property and that she had concerns about development close to her private house; noted Ms. Cancellieri attended the Community Workshop and asked what the intent was to develop in that area; pointed out that until they acquired those two parcels and had control of the entire block; said development would be really limited there because there wasn't enough space to efficiently build a six- Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 19 of 31 story building when you do not own those two parcels; stated the most likely use of that property was, going to be something that was: more like a parking lot or something very less dense; said Ringling College would continue to use the single-family homes they owned in the area for student housing; and pointed out that that was. her response at the Community Workshop. PB Member Salem noted the key word was "likely". Attorney Connolly stated it was important to realize that what the Planning Board was being asked to do right now on this particular issue wasj just on page 12 of 119 of the staff report that dealt with the Zoning Text Amendment and the proposed new map; stated the new: map of the Ringling Overlay District would come right up to the two "bare teeth" that were on Gilford Lane; stated the new map would then mean that it was legally possible to have a 65 foot development in that hatched area; and noted any future development would require Site Plan approval and the Planning Board would need to have a public hearing to approve the Site Plan. Staff Rebuttal: Manager Smith stated, regarding the street wall question, he was able to pull up the Zoning Code; stated the Zoning Code stated under changes to site plans, minor modifications, "A minor revision is one which does not result in any material modification or cancelation of any condition placed upon the site plan that is originally approved. ", said his interpretation of ' material modification" would be if there was a street wall put in, and during construction they felt there was a need to change that to be more environmentally sensitive, to just go with a hedge that the language as drafted and presented today allowed the Development Services Director to approve that modification; and stated based on that he thought the language should remain as is. PB Chair Blumetti closed the public hearing. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to find 20-ZTA-04 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan 2030 and that it satisfied the Standards for Review of the Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she would speak to the motion and stated generally she was not supportive of Zoning Text Amendments that she considered being done piece meal because she did not think they were in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and over time that they actually weaken the Comprehensive Plan when done that way; and stated this Zoning Text Amendment she did support because it provided a new definition to the Ringling Overlay District and did not do damage to the Comprehensive Plan. PB Morriss stated he definitely thought it was such a unique beast that trying to have the client do everything city-wide was kind of pointless but that they had done a phenomenal job and thanked them and staff for the nice clear package. PB Chair Blumetti agreed with PB Morriss. The motion was approved 4-1 (PB Member Gannon voted "No.") Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 20 of 31 PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to find Street Vacation 20-SV-02 consistent with Section TV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to conditions one through five as written. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she wishes the Zoning Code had a definition for street relocation in addition to Street Vacation; and said she believes this vacation improves the street grid and she supports it. PB Member Morris stated it was an equally beneficial situation and he thought it served everyone and created a safer condition. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to find Site Plan 20-SP-10 consistent with Section IV- 506 oft the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the Site Plan subject to conditions one through four as written. PB Morriss seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated the building being proposed by Ringling College was going to be beautiful. PB Member Morriss stated this was just another piece of their exemplary product and stated they did an amazing job. PB Chair Blumetti stated he thought what they were creating here was really a high level of architecture and a destination for Sarasota, not only as a campus for Ringling but also for the: residents of Sarasota; and said the way they wrapped that building around the tree was quite impressive. PB Member Gannon stated he thought it was a beautiful design and he supported it. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich made a motion to find Rezone 20-RE-02 consistent with Section IV- 1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to condition one as written. PB Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-1 (PB Member Salem voted "No.") The Planning Board Took a 10-Minute Recess 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 none. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 27, 2020 Code: deletions are StFICkeH-HHFOHgH; additions are underlined Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 21 of 31 PB Vice Chair Ohlrich requested the following revisions/review of the August 27, 2020 minutes: a. Page 3 at 1:44:42 - 4th paragraph, 3rd line should read as follows: a . HAHage Manager. 1 b. Page 9 of 17 at 3:25:40 at the end after Blumetti closed the public hearing, a motion was made, motion was seconded, and then we took a break; stated an action was probably an action taken that was not in the minutes; and noted it is more than a one word edit, there was a section missing as to what the vote was and the: resolution. Ms. Grassett stated she was sure it was just an error and that she would fix it and resubmit it with the next package. The corrected August 27, 2020, minutes will be placed on next week's meeting agenda. 2. September 9, 2020 Code: deletions are stFieken-threngh; additions are underlined PB Vice Chair Ohlrich requested the following revisions/review of the September 9, 2020 minutes: a. Page 11 of 13 - 2nd paragraph should read as follows: "PB-Memberslate, PB Member Morriss stated. b. Page 12, last paragraph at the bottom should read: "PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she had retiere-reviewed. " C. Page 13, last paragraph, it was our discussion about the infrequent times when the Planning Board and City Staff have differences of opinion and what to do about that when something goes forward to the City Commission; stated she thought the Planning Board had agreed that issues would not go forward until the Planning Board had had the opportunity to approve its minutes; and stated she didn't see that conveyed in this paragraph. The corrected September 9, 2020, minutes will be placed on next week's meeting agenda. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY CITY 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. Stevie Freeman Montes, Interim Economic Development Manager, Office of Economic Development, introduced herself for the record; stated the Office of Economic Development had been working on the updated Plan for a year and a half at least; said it was a big milestone for their planning process; noted she was in an interim role in the Economic Development office and had been there since June; noted she had been with the City for five years working as the Sustainability Manager in the City Manager's Office; stated she did not have a deep level of knowledge leading the project sO Ms. Onya Bates has joined on Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 22 of 31 the call who is the Redevelopment Manager that oversaw a lot of the Newtown CRA projects; and stated Chris Brown and Adriane Esteban who were their consultants from RMA who had really led the process from the beginning and facilitated a lot of the public input were also on the line. Mr. Chris Brown, Consultant, introduced himself as one of the principals of the firm called RMA, Redevelopment Management Associates; reviewed the Firm's history managing CRAs in Florida; pointed out both his and Ms. Esteban's credentials; noted State Statutes require the Plan be found consistent with the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan and approved by the Local Planning Agency; stated the goal was to help fortify the tax base to create growth, to build infrastructure, and to make improvements in the community that the citizens could enjoy, and to attract businesses and retail and other kinds of tenants in the Redevelopment District; said they consultants had met with Planning Department staff that had provided input; presented a map of the Newtown CRA; stated it had a term of 40 years and the previous CRA plan was approved in 2008; pointed out the most significant thing about Newtown was that it was the second oldest African-American community in Sarasota; noted Newtown is a historic community that was established in 1914; and said one of the projects that Ms. Bates was working on was to designate the area an Historic District. Adriane Esteban with RMA introduced herself; reviewed some of the projects that have been accomplished since the CRA was created, stated about 80% of the projects in the previous plan have been completed; discussed the significant community input outreach that had been done which included 13 stakeholder interviews, an online survey that was open from September 13th through the end of the year last year where 16 responses were received, two Community Workshops in September and October where about 50 people had attended between the two sessions; stated they also had been to the CRA Advisory Board four times, two during the process and then two once they had the draft of the plan available; stated the purpose the CRA Plan was to identify and initiate new programs and projects that would take the CRA District into a new phase of redevelopment and ensure the preservation of the historic Newtown community; stated the main sections of the Newtown CRA Plan of 2020 included economic development, branding, marketing tours and communications, housing, land use and zoning, infrastructure, transportation, connectivity, quality of life, and administration in governments; noted projects that were not identified in the Plan would not be undertaken; pointed out the Plan was divided into two subsections, one being recommendations for existing programs, and the other regarding land acquisition, helping to identify some of those main targets especially along MLK Way; and discussed the recommended new projects noting there was an opportunity to clean up the existing industrial area, improve the streetscape, create a Newtown Cultural History Center at the Leonard Reid House site, establish a Newtown Arts District, and using social media resources for community engagement and collaboration. Mr. Brown discussed the importance of housing to the community stating improved housing opportunities was a way to attract new residents and to move existing residents into new and better housing; stated the Newtown CRA had done an excellent job of working with the Housing Authority building tax-credit housing; noted future opportunities for tax credit housing was Artist Housing; said the housing needed to be on MLK and it needed to be urban housing; stated MLK needed to be the Main Street of this Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 23 of 31 community where everybody hung out, walked, shopped, and played; stated housing over the next 20 years was going to be a very important function fori those who implemented the plan for the CRA; and stated another one was zoning, pointing out the need to create more density and to allow events like green markets. Ms. Esteban discussed the infrastructure, transportation, and connectivity components of the Plan; noted the CRA completed a comprehensive streetscape project for MLK Way; said new projects like gateways, including roundabouts and markers in the important areas like US 301 and US 41, improvements to the secondary streets like Orange Avenue, and then the Legacy Trail expansion creating a phase three are recommended; pointed out the need to look at mass transit, ridesharing, mobility, and the street grid connection; and provided a Concept Plan of the recommendations for the streets and stated they suggested putting in sidewalks, putting in tree openings and other landscape areas. Mr. Brown stated there was nothing walkable about 301 and stated that was obvious; stated the slide they presented was their idea of the European solution where they used service roads on the side as small almost like neighborhood streets and then the center was the big DOT roadway where you get as many cars through there as you possibly could but with mass transit. Ms. Esteban discussed quality of life considerations stating the need to work with partners in the community regarding education and community health; noted the recommended concept of having parklets, which were actually becoming quite popular now during the pandemic as well as dealing with sustainability and safety issues; and stated crime had actually decreased 41% since the CRA between 2006 and 2018. Mr. Brown stated the consultants recommend expanding the Newtown CRA to include an area to the west of Newtown; presented a map showing the proposed expansion area; said he discussed the proposal with the Sarasota Airport personnel and were open to being in the CRA; noted this would include putting property that had great potential in with the most blighted property, which was the Newtown CRA; and discussed the impact of climate change on housing affordability. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes thanked Mr. Brown and Ms. Esteban; stated staff heard from the community members how important the foundation of the Plan was, the struggles of doing redevelopment and having potential adverse impacts to make the area unaffordable as it related to redevelopment, and how to balance those types of outcomes;: noted the very first paragraph of the opening of this Plan tried to address that head on; and pointed out housing affordability and cultural preservation were two main strategies of the Plan. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated the Plan had recommendations for projects going 20 years out and stated they had been told that if it was not in the Plan they couldn't do it; asked if there was a way to change something once this was approved. Mr. Brown stated it is common for plans to be revised from time to time. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated the current CRA was 838 acres and they were reserving the right to add almost 3000 acres in two phases and stated she understood now that if that did happen they would rewrite the CRA to include projects in the newly-added areas; stated her concern was that the newly-added areas would get the projects and the current CRA, which was Newtown, would not get projects Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 24 of 31 and asked how would they ensure that Newtown got at least got 50% or more of the projects if additional land was added to the CRA. Mr. Brown stated the additional funding derived from the expansion should be at least a 50/50, if not more. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes asked Mr. Brown if it would be fair to say that, if that really was to become a reality and at that time were that detailed expansion come forward, those types of very specific stipulations could be revisited in the amendment process at that time. Mr. Brown stated yes, if that area was annexed into the Newtown CRA; stated he would not change the name Newtown because he thoughtit was a historic and revered name and it meant something to a lot of residents; noted the TIF could be spent in Newtown as that was where it needed to be spent; stated private development would not be attracted to Newtown unless milllions and millions of infrastructure were invested in; pointed out the idea is to save Newtown without displacement; noted new housing is very important; and said if the area was a walkable, livable, bikeable community people will flock there. PB Member Gannon stated that the report is excellent and comprehensive; discussed the infrastructure component stating he wished to highlight that inclusion of shade trees to create walkable streets, as was discussed, and part of economic development along MLKis connectivity; questioned how that was being addressed in terms of the outreach and connectivity; said he wants to understand how Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes is bringing that together; and questioned how staff was reaching out to Ringling College. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes wanted to confirm she understand the question and asked PB Member Gannon if he means the connectivity as in their outreach to the College and the students or does he mean connectivity in a physical sense in terms of streetscape and sidewalks and that sort of thing. PB Member Gannon responded both, one leads to the other; stated that it must be understood what is needed so that can be built sO that they will come; questioned how many of the Ringling students cross and use MLK Park; pointed out there is a note regarding pop-up events there and asked what is being done to create these events for the Ringling students; and stated he's talking about the infrastructure as well as the discussions and activities. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes stated that is an outcome that staff wants to see through the recommendations in the plan; noted when talking about the Arts District and Artist Housing, there is a lot of desire to have better connectivity with the College; said there are current efforts to support further activation of MLK Park, but that is also a desired outcome through the Plan's implementation; pointed out that in terms of physical connectivity, the sidewalk and streetscape improvements play into the MLK Corridor, which is a physical connectivity goal; and for information about direct engagement with Ringling, she referred the discussion to Redevelopment Manager Bates or someone from RMA. Redevelopment Manager Bates stated staff had met with Ringling College staff and Dr. Thompson and asked what they need and were told they have everything they need there. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 25 of 31 PB Member Gannon stated that he understands the questions and answering, but the loss of educated College students to jobs elsewhere has been a concern for years and with the focus on art and design at Ringling College, having an artist community for those who want to practice art locally would have an area to do that; stated focusing on Artist Housing seems like a win because those discussions have been had over the last five to ten years and he found that piece lacking; said it would be helpful to overlay boundaries on the Neighborhood Association map that the Cityl has because it would show that there are: more neighborhoods than just Amaryllis Park, which is the largest one there; pointed out North Trail, Bayou Oaks, and Central Coconut are affected as they fall in that boundary; and noted those areas are not mentioned in the writeup. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes stated that Central Coconut was engaged through the public input, but Bayou Oaks was. not meeting at the time; noted there were some people from Bayou Oaks that were attending the Amaryllis Park meetings SO there was a little overlap; and acknowledged that it is recognized that there are three strong Neighborhood Associations that needed to be consulted. PB Member Gannon asked if it would be appropriate to add a map that shows the Neighborhood Association boundaries with the CRA boundaries superimposed. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes stated that would be easy to do and will make note to incorporate that information before going to City Commission. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich listed the items that she thought were key: Newtown job training program; internships and job coaches, including culinary arts in the job training program; encouraging the Collard Green Festival and activities that bring people in to share the cultural pride of the neighborhood; updating the MLK and Orange Avenue Master Plans; and adding pedestrian lighting on neighborhood streets. PB Member Salem stated he likes the Plan; said he was disturbed that when Ringling was asked what they need, they said they have everything; pointed out that means they have everything onsite and don'tneed businesses outside to support their students; noted that stance is not neighborly nor would it help the area to sustain itself; said he envisioned the MLK Corridor being a great service to Ringling, noting Ringling has a diverse student population and shops all along the MLK Corridor could service them; stated he's been on record saying Newtown could be turned into a College town; said on the way to any major university in the State of Florida, there are many shops catering to that university and if the university shut down, the City would die; pointed out Ringling College has a major opportunity to open and play a role in the development of the Newtown community as it will create jobs and a safe place for students; stated he is appreciative of Mr. Brown's proposal of building housing on top of commercial buildings; stressed there should not be any residential units on the. first floor, the ground level, on the MLK Corridor; stated people of the community need a sustainable tag space, and the MLK Corridor can do that because there is much traffic through there, but traffic doesn't stop because there are no businesses they are interested in; noted the MLK Corridor is a quick and safe route for traffic; stated developing the Corridor will produce the tax revenue to pay for the streetlights in the community; said annexing to the north on the other side of Myrtle Street is a great idea because it is an environmental hazard for the community because iti is dusty and demolition material is recycled in the open air; and reiterated he is very much in favor of this Plan. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 26 of 31 PB Member Morriss inquired if the Plan would be administered by staff and governed by a CRA Board; asked how the CRA Board is assembled, is it one small group in one part of town or comprised of all the different stakeholders within the CRA. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes pointed out there is a CRA Advisory Board which has representatives that meet specific criteria and individuals are appointed by the City Commission, similar to the Planning Board process; noted all projects expending funds have to go through the CRA Advisory Board and also the CRA Board; pointed out the City Commission sits as the CRA Board; and stated there are two layers of formal interaction, the Advisory Board and the City Commission sitting as the CRA. PB Member Morriss stated he noticed the 1.2 multiplier was used to identify affordable housing and asked if Citywide income levels were used versus income levels within the zone. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes stated she is not familiar with that conversation or issue; and said staff was open to feedback on that but she's not up tos speed on that. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss suggested working backwards from a teacher's salary or a policeman's salary or a fireman's salary to define affordable rather than an artificial multiplier; stated his opinion is that the 1.2: multiplier isn't realistic; and said hei is interested in expanding boundaries at least to the North Trail Overlay, which would include the west side of 41 because it's uneven otherwise. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes stated she made a note for the affordability issue to be discussed. Mr. Brown stated he understood Mr. Morriss' question and explained the difference in the tax credit housing program and income limits to qualify for affordable housing; explained that the Federal Government has been changing the rules to allow teachers, police and firemen to access tax credit housing and stated the whole concept of affordable housing is beginning to change. PB Member Morriss stated he should have explained the context better; pointed out there are benefits for people who build affordable housing such as density increases and parking relief noted using 1.2 has been the standard that has been applied; and suggested that the same percentage may need to be reviewed. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Blumetti stated this is the first CRA he has had the opportunity to read; asked what programs have been implemented to teach current residents about homeownership mortgages versus renting over the period of 20 years and acquiring equity in their house; stated he thinks that's necessary as homeownership keeps people from being displaced from an area; and asked if that has been implemented; noted HUD seems to be the biggest property owner in the area and questioned if HUD was acquiring properties and renting them, or selling them and helping people obtain long-term housing and become homeowners. Redevelopment Manager Bates stated there is a partnership with Manatee Federal Credit Union and they offer classes for residents of Newtown; residents can open a bank account and participate in financial literacy classes that will help them get into their own home; noted there is a free title clearance program that is offered to the residents of Newtown because many homes are owned by multiple family members, and in order for anything to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 27 of 31 be done, there has to be a clear title. PB Chair Blumetti stated he thought that was a great program; asked about the acquisition of property, stating he believes HUD owns a lot of rentals; and asked if their intent was to sell them. Mr. Brown pointed out that those were all tax credit housing facilities that are all rentals. PB Chair Blumetti stated he does not see the long-term benefit of that; noted the importance of understanding the implications of renting for 20 years rather than owning a home and what that does to equity in that house; and questioned how is the CRA helping to do that. Mr. Brown stated the CRA and the City should discuss that with the Housing Authority. PB Chair Blumetti stated he could not agree more and he agrees density, which is at 25 units per acre, in some areas 15 units per acre; should be increase; and asked if a density recommendation should be added. Mr. Brown stated that they were asked to defer a recommendation to the administration of the CRA to negotiate with the City because it would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. PB Chair Blumetti stated that it appeared as though retail, restaurant, and light industrial was the most occupied space in the area and asked if the intent was to expand that idea in the arts community and furniture building. Mr. Brown confirmed that was the intent; noted there is a movement to convert old industrial properties into craft properties and art galleries and event galleries; and pointed out the southeast portion of Newtown has an industrial section that would be perfect for converting. PB Chair Blumetti thanked Mr. Brown and asked if there were any other questions from the Planning Board. PB Member Salem asked Mr. Brown what density he would suggest for the area, and if there was a height limit as well. Mr. Brown stated the suggested density is 60 units per acre. Ms. Esteban stated three to four stories would be the: maximum height however that would be higher on US 41 and US31. Discussion ensued regarding the size of units in high density developments. PB Member Salem stated he's a property owner and has noticed there is a huge demand for one bedroom units but the problem is it's not advantageous for a developer to develop a one bedroom unit if he can only develop 25 units per acre; said a higher density will make: it possible to get one bedroom and two bedroom units; stated one bedroom units are: necessary because old housing is being torn down and people are going to other areas and leaving the immediate area when they don't want to; noted if there is higher density, there will be a higher number of people in the district soit becomes political at that point; stated he sees how increased density could cause problems but it would help meet the housing need in this area; and thanked Mr. Brown for sharing his density recommendation. Mr. Brown stated there is a big density of students in college towns that support the retail. PB Member Gannon stated that Ms. Freeman-Montess: memo stated the Plan should go to the Planning Board for recommendations and then on to the City Commission; and asked if based on comments made here, were there any recommendations that would be editing the Plan and therefore the Plan would have to go back to the CRA Advisory Board before going to the City Commission. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes stated she would have to go back through notes and consider the impact of the feedback heard today; said there have been a few things identified that staff wants to incorporate; stated staff may go straight to the City Commission and then update the CRA Advisory Board; and noted she definitely thinks changes will be made. PB Member Gannon stated the Neighborhood Chapter is a justification for more expansion on the outreach, and not just a one-time outreach; and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 28 of 31 pointed out to achieve anything in the Plan, it's an ongoing process that may require changes to the make-up of the CRA Advisory Board to achieve the broad purpose. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes: stated she understands that any implementation of the major strategies identified would require ongoing outreach; and said some feedback she heard was to do another map with the Neighborhood Associations shown along with the CRA boundaries. PB Member Salem asked Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes if she was part of the density issue decisions or if those decisions were made prior to her arrival. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes stated she did not have any direct input on the density issue; stated she understands it is a contentious issue and a big conversation; and noted similar to the expansion, they reserve the right to have a detailed conversation on it, but the level of detail for a recommendation is not included at this point. PB Member Salem asked if the recommendation was from City staff or citizens. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes stated both conversations with Planning staff and community input were considered. PB Chair Blumetti thanked Ms. Freeman-Montes and wished her luck on the next phase. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes stated she wanted to pause if a motion is necessary. Attorney Connolly stated a motion that the Planning Board finds the plan is consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommend to the City Commission approval was appropriate and stated that can be done in one motion instead of two. PB Chair Blumetti stated he was unaware a motion was: necessary and asked for a motion. PB Member Salem made a motion that the plan is consistent with the City's Plan. Attorney Connolly asked if the motion included recommending the City Commission approve the Plan. PB Member Salem added he recommends that the City Commission approve the plan. PB Chair Blumetti asked for a second. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion but stated there is a component of the affordable housing thresholds that he is not comfortable with. PB Member Gannon stated he would not approve the Plan as-is; stated there are some recommendations that he believed need to be incorporated related to the Neighborhood Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan that should be addressed; and stated the Plan as it stands now does not address that. PB Chair Blumetti stated he felt the report is thorough and anything that needs to be done beyond giving the Planning Board's S recommendations can be done in an amendment; said he thinks it is important that this Plan be amended in the future as things change and ideas emerge or develop; stated they would have to go back through their process for what he believes to be relatively minor, maybe not the income issue, but the other things mentioned, issues; and called on Vice Chair Ohlrich for comment. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated Mr. Morriss seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss asked if there was a way to phrase it generally compatible with the Comprehensive Plan so they could leave room for modifications to it. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 29 of 31 Attorney Connolly stated City staff uses the term on-balance when presenting before the Planning Board because it's impossible for everything to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and noted the motion can be rephrased to say that on balance you find the proposed amendment to the Newtown Community Redevelopment Area Master Plan is consistent with the Sarasota City Plan 2030. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated Mr. Salem made the motion and in order for a change to be made, he has to agree to the change. Attorney Connolly stated there could be two ways; it could be an amendment to the motion where Mr. Salem says yes, I agree with that, then we go on from here; or if Mr. Salem does not agree with that, then there would be a motion to amend the motion. PB Chair Blumetti stated he agreed with on balance. PB Member Salem agreed with the amendment to his motion to add "on-balance". PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she was not aware that there would be a motion on this Plan this evening; stated it wasn't clear to her in the materials SO she did not study it in terms of making a motion; pointed out she has concerns about the AMI, as PB Member Morriss mentioned, and about lack of specificity regarding the Neighborhood Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan; and stated the change of wording to on balance makes it okay. PB Chair Blumetti stated he didn't think there would be a motion made tonight and agreed with that statement. PB Member Gannon stated it was placed under Presentation of Topics by Staff" with the first words informational only, no action taken; stated for the same reason PB Vice Chair Ohlrich was stating, he did not look for Standards of Review for that recommendation but he agreed a recommendation to the City Commission as on balance with clear indication that the Economic Development staff, potentially the CRA Advisory Board, will take into consideration the recommendation, the comments, some of which were quite vital. Discussion ensued regarding the ability of the public to provide input. Attorney Connolly recommended making a motion because one of the things that was discussed was the Statute, 163.360 Subsection 4 and the particular sentences, "Prior to its consideration of a Community Redevelopment Plan, the Community Redevelopment Agency shall submit such plan to the Local Planning Agency of the County or Municipality for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the Comprehensive Plan to development or the County or Municipality as a whole; said Ms. Freeman-Montes had that particular sentence in bold in her cover memo; said he does think a motion should be made; PB Chair Blumetti stated there is a motion and a second and a vote should be taken. The amended motion that on-balance the plan is consistent with the City's Plan was approved with a vote of 5-0. PB Member Salem asked PB Secretary Cover when the Plan will go before the City Commission. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 30 of 31 PB Secretary Cover stated it will be after the new City Commission is seated; noted it could be the second meeting in November or the first meeting in December; and deferred to Ms. Freeman-Montes. Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes had left the meeting. PB Chair Blumetti noted the language "items presented are informational only, no action taken," that is on the agenda; said he thinks that is misleading especially since the Planning Board was asked to take action on it and given a recommendation to the City Commission; stated it was unclear what the purpose of this discussion was; and noted the Planning Board was told it should be reviewed against the Comprehensive Plan, but he didn't know that it needed a formal motion and second. Attorney Connolly stated he understood the point; noted the language that is on the agenda is the preprinted form of the agenda because topics by staff or by the Planning Board are just discussion items; stated he did not notice that discrepancy; pointed out the memo from Interim Economic Development Director Freeman-Montes referred to the Statute, and review and recommendation for conformity; acknowledged it could be unclear; noted they have done both; stated if the meeting were in the Commission Chambers and there were people sitting in the room, they could come down and talk. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated that's true but in reading the agenda online, someone may see for informational purposes only and nothing will be done sO they don'tcome to a meeting. Attorney Connolly stated he understood and restated there are A and B and both are supportable. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich stated she is comfortable because the on balance was added. PB Chair Blumetti stated he doesn't think the outcome would have changed except that someone may have wanted to speak on it. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD PB Vice Chair Ohlrich asked PB Secretary Cover if it is possible to have a lead contact name on every proposal or application received; stated when they get Zoning Text Amendments there's no staff name on it; stated it's usually David Smith but could be someone else; and asked ifiti is possible to: receive a list of phone numbers of staff, extension numbers or direct lines. PB Secretary Cover stated both can be done. PB Chair Blumetti asked for anything else. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich asked about the 500-foot distance for mailing to people, if that can be discussed and include the distance or buildings with large populations of people. PB Chair Blumetti stated it's S probably been there for a long time. Attorney Connolly stated he understood the problem staff would've had because they have to apply the Code, and the Code says 500 feet; said he doesn't know how to carve a rule that is an exception to the 500-foot rule; pointed out if you change it to within 1000 feet, then those just outside of that want included since they are just on the other side of the boundary; and said if PB Vice Chair Ohlrich wanted to put it on the agenda some ideas Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 31 of 31 could be discussed but he didn't know what could be decided that can be objectively applied by staff because it has to be objective. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Blumetti noted considering the impacts of a project on a new development that was not approved yet when was a new one he had never heard before and was an interesting argument. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich asked when they would get packet for the following Wednesday's meeting on the 11 Zoning Text Amendments. Staff responded the materials were ready for production and should be available by tomorrow morning. PB Member Salem asked how many Zoning Text Amendments there were. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich answered 11. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:58 PM - Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Damien Blumetti, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]