CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE. PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board David Morriss, Chair Members Present: Patrick Gannon, Vice Chair Members Robert Lindsay, Chris Gallagher, Eileen Normile Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, AICP, General Manager, Neighborhood & Development Services John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLI MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Morriss callled the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were none. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly established the time limits for all who plan to speak this evening, and noted that he is the applicant and the City for the following Non-Quasi-judiclal Public Hearing. B. Non-Quasi-ludicin! Public Hearings 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 17-5201: An Ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida amending the Zoning Code of the City of Sarasota, Article IV, Development Review Procedures; Division 15, Development Agreements; Section IV-1502, Application Requirements to provide that an application for approval of a Development Agreement may be accompanied by a General Development Plan in place of a Site Plan under certain circumstances as more fully specified herein; providing for reading by title only; and providing for an effective date. (Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 11 Attorney Connolly stated that this evening the Planning Board is to make a recommendation on Proposed Ordinance 17-5201, amending the Zoning Code of the City of Sarasota; noted that currently, Section IV-1502 of the Zoning Code, has the requirements for a Development Agreement, and currently a Development Agreement application requires that it be accompanied by a site plan; pointed out that a site plan is a defined term in the Zoning Code, and it is very detailed and specific as far as the overall development that will occur on the property; stated that last February, 2016 Quay Venture LLC. filed a request with regard to the Quay Property, they proposed a General Development Plan, City staff was in agreement with that concept, and therefore the administrative regulations of the City were modified, SO that the General Development Plan would fit within the criteria of the Site Plan; pointed out that the City Attorney advised the City Commission in December 2016 that the City should amend the Zoning Code, SO as to assure that future applicants have the same opportunities as the Quay application did, and that is what is before the Planning Board this evening; added that in the December 2016 meeting the City Commission also waived the requirement for a formal Zoning Text Amendment application, and the requirements for a staff report and development review comments, and that is the reason for the small packet for this public hearing; stated that the proposed Ordinance does one thing: right now the Site Plan has to be submitted with the Development Agreement application if the property is 7 acres or greater, the applicant would have the option, instead of submitting a Site Plan, to submit a General Development Plan, that this is the only change; noted that the General Development Plan is discussed on page 9 of 12 of the materials in the Planning Board packet; noted that the General Development Plan has to establish the density and intensity of the proposed development, the location of the uses, the building scale and massing, transition points, as well as interior blocks, streets and alleys; and concluded by stating that the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office is for the Planning Board to recommend to the City Commission approval of proposed Ordinance 17-5201. PB Chair Morriss asked what will happen next with development approvals by the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated that it is discussed on page 9 of 12 in the packet, explained that there is still a requirement for Site Plan approval, and depending upon the particular zones, there may be a requirement for a Planning Board public hearing, if it is in "G" Zone, then it would require a City Commission public hearing, or if it is in a Downtown District there may be a possibility for Administrative Review; noted that the Quay is also in the Downtown, but because of the negotiations on the Quay Development Agreement, the subsequent Site Plan approvals would be at a public hearing before the Planning Board. PB Member Lindsay, stated that considering this property's example, if they are going to build five buildings, you can have detailed approvals for five different site plans in a period of ten years or more. Attorney Connolly agreed. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 11 PB Member Gallagher asked what happens when a General Development Plan is approved, then they come back to build a building and instead of administrative review a public hearing is now required; and asked if a publichearing would be required every time they come in to make a small modification. Attorney Connolly explained that if the new addition required a change in the Development Agreement, that constitutes an amendment to the Development Agreement, which is a lengthy and public process; and added that if the change is a minor change under the criteria according to the Zoning Code Section IV- 509, that can be done administratively. PB Member Gallagher said that the site plan has the development approval attached to it, and if something changes, we go back to major/minor criteria to determine if there will be a public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated that if there is a change to the Development Agreement, then in his opinion, immediately it should go through the public hearing process; added that any changes to the site plan would require site plan approval, and then it would have to be determined, based on the Zoning Code criteria, if it is a major change, which requires a public hearing, or if it is a minor change, which would be handled administratively. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if the subsequent site plans must go through the public process automatically. Attorney Connolly stated that the proposed Ordinance is saying that subsequent site plans must be approved according to the criteria of the Zoning Code; explained that if the site plan were located in a downtown zone district, then it would be allowed to proceed with administrative review; and added that in the case of the Quay, the City negotiated that all subsequent plans go through the public hearing process for approval. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that the Quay is a unique situation, and asked if future Development Agreements would have the same criteria, and go automatically through the public hearing process. Attorney Connolly stated that iti is not required automatically, however it is possible. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked who would negotiate that, the staff or the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated that ultimately that would be negotiated by the City Commission, based upon staff recommendation. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if there are other large developments in the City. General Manager Smith stated that most of the other developments are smaller, and noted the City is built out. Attorney Connolly mentioned the following examples: Town and Country Shopping Center at the NW corner Fruitville and Beneva, and the Westfield South Gate Shopping Center; and stated the Ringling Shopping Center property was just under 10 acres. PB Member Lindsay stated that if the Zoning Code changes this could apply to other areas around the City. Attorney Connolly agreed. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 11 PB Chair Morriss asked if this has to be proffered or if the City could compel the developer to do it as a condition for approval, even if the proposal is located within a downtown district? Attorney Connolly stated that one cannot compel it, unless if the Zoning Code compels it, and the Zoning Code in the downtown zone districts does not compel it. PB Chair Morriss noted that it was a condition for the Development Agreement for the Quay. Attorney Connolly stated that in a way it can be considered a condition, but the Quay was changing the way City does business, and maybe they were more likely to agree to the public hearing process. PB Chair Morriss asked if this was negotiated prior to the processing of the Development Agreement. Attorney Connolly stated that negotiations take place when a Development Agreement is in the pipelines, sO that the Development Agreement reflects things that are acceptable to both the City and the developer. PB Member Normile asked if it is possible that this Zoning Text Amendment can require that there is a public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated that it is possible. PB Member Normile asked about traffic studies; noted that a traffic study at the General Development Plan stage is a guestimate, because the developers have nothing to base it on; pointed out that any development over seven acres can request a General Development Plan, which has a ten year life, and they freeze their vested trips based on a Concurrency Traffic Study; added that according to the Zoning Ordinance's Appendix A, the vested trips in a Concurrency Traffic Study basically dissipate over time, if you have demolished the building; added that the Quay got 60% percent of the vested trips, which was 503 trips, out of their approximately 900 trips, sO those trips will be gone by the time they actually build the building; stated that she would oppose the ability to freeze vested trips, unless if somewhere in the Code it says something different; noted that if you have six acres and you request a General Development Plan you cannot get it, and your trip interests are disappearing; and asked how can one equate the two, or how can one allow a person with seven acres to receive a substantial monetary benefit and not others? Attorney Connolly stated that he does not see any difference, because the General Development Plan does not impact whether the trips are vested or not, but the Development Agreement may. PB Member Normile asked if a person who asks for a Development Agreement freezes their vested trips. Attorney Connolly explained that the Zoning Code offers various credits, depending on whether the property is demolished or not, but they do not have anything to do with Development Agreements or the General Development Plan, they are based on the concurrency criteria found in Appendix " A" of the Zoning Code, and in Section IV-2.03 of the Zoning Code. PB Member Normile stated that based on her understanding, in order to get approval for that Development Agreement you have to do a traffic concurrency study, and that study is good for the term of the Development Agreement, SO if Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 11 the concurrency study is done on year one, and the Development Agreement is for ten years, you have effectively frozen your credits or vested trips, which is a benefit that other people do not have; and asked how that could be justified? Attorney Connolly stated that what is before the Planning Board this evening does not increase the ability of anyone to receive more credits; added that when someone receives site plan approval, then they will vest whatever their credits are, and that will be in effect for as long as the site plan approval is in effect, 2 -4 years; noted that the Development Agreement is not what vests credits for transportation concurrency; explained that trips are vested in some cases with State law, and in some cases it happens through the development approval process, and in some cases it happens with extensions of development approvals. PB Member Normile asked if the length of time that traffic studies are good for varies, depending on the different development approval processes. Attorney Connelly stated that the length of the different development approval varies. PB Member Normile pointed out that since you do not have to repeat a concurrency study during a Development Agreement of ten years, that would give you ten years on one concurrency study. Attorney Connolly responded that this is the reason a developer applicant would want a Development Agreement, but when you get a Development Agreement as opposed to Site Plan approval, you are going through a significantly different approval process. PB Member Normile pointed out that there is a monetary difference. General Manager Smith added that they are not only getting trip credits, they are looking at water, sewer, and other infrastructure, as well and noted this is a way for developers of big projects to have some assurance that the infrastructure will be available to serve them. Attorney Connolly noted that Development Agreements are specifically authorized by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and they were not created by the City of Sarasota as a vehicle to extend development approvals; it is something that is required by State Iaw. PB Chair Morriss asked for clarification, stating that General Development Plans are more like a basket, these individual Site Plan approvals will occur within the basket, and trip credits are established at the Site Plan approval stage. Attorney Connolly stated that when you have a Development Agreement, the credits are vested at the time of the approval of the Development Agreement. PB Chair Morriss asked if the erosion of traffic value happens when the building gets demolished, wouldn't this then encourage substandard buildings to stay in place longer? PB Member Normile stated that one could make this argument, but that could be fixed trough other zoning, but they have the ability to pay less taxes if the building is not on the property. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 11 PB Member Lindsay stated that the City gets something back as well, the City knows what the build out of the property will be, and can plan on it, because if we get a rigid interpretation we will never get large projects, rather we will get piece meal development of large parcels, or they will be sold off piece meal, and that is not to the advantage of the City, sO we have to have a mechanism sO that people who are willing to take a risk on a ten year build out, they have some reasonable financial certainty that the plan they have today will be valid in years hence; added that it is very different to take a condo and say if I can just get it through the city process and past the bank, in two years I will have it done and I can get out of here with my profit in my pocket, and I am done; noted that it is different when you are trying to develop a project like this; pointed out that an integrated development like that can be a benefit to the City; concluded that the City has to have a mechanism that makes those types of projects economically feasible, and maybe create an incentive for this type of development rather than piece meal development. PB Chair Morriss stated that the basic question here is the erosion of credits of the property as time passes; noted that the Quay had a certain number of trips, why should it go to zero. Attorney Connelly explained that according to the Zoning Code, a property with an empty structure retains 100% of the trips vested to the property based on the last lawful use of the structure; added that if the structure is demolished, then the property retains 100% percent of the credit for the first five years, and, in years 6 through 10, the property loses 20 % percent of that credit each year; pointed out that based on these calculations, the Quay got sixty percent of the vested credits. PB Member Normile agreed with PB Member Lindsay's earlier statements, and understands that these types of agreements appear good for the City, but stated that she is trying to determine if the effect upon other portions of the Zoning Code can be improved SO that the City benefits in other ways as well; added that there may be other impacts on the City that the Planning Board should look at, but the one that came to mind was the traffic impact; pointed out that part of the problem is that the way concurrency is written is not functional, and does not bring income to the City, which the City needs; and stated that the reason for the Development Agreements is sO that the infrastructure is in place when the project comes to fruition, but if the City does not have the income for the transportation part, it makes it that much harder. PB Member Lindsay stated that if the building is in line with what was there before, then the developer paid for transportation concurrency. PB Member Normile asked when do inducements become property rights, do they ever? Discussion ensued. PB Chair Morriss asked PB Member Normile if she wants to make a motion. She stated that she was seeking clarification on how things work. Attorney Connolly Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 11 stated that the proposed Ordinance before the Planning Board this evening deals with a simple question, do you want to allow a property owner who has seven or more acres of land, at the time of submitting a Development Agreement application, to submit a General Development Plan instead of a Site Plan; noted that the issues raised by PB Member Normile are very appropriate for Planning Board discussion, but in his opinion, they related to modifications to the credits in Zoning Code, Section IV-2.03 and the concurrency methodology in Appendix - A," of the Zoning Code; added that while the credit discussion is appropriate, it should take place after it has been noticed on the agenda, because anyone reading today's notice would not know that there would be a discussion on credits; and concluded that PB Member Normile's point is a valid discussion point, it does not however fit into this evening's discussion. Responding to PB Member Gannon' 's question, Attorney Connolly stated that future discussions to address these concerns would be discussions about credits; added that General Development Plans are described in the PB packet, starting on page 9 of 12; noted this is already incorporated in the Administrative Regulations; added that if the Planning Board would like to see modifications on that, he recommends the issue be put on an agenda; and pointed out that the discussion about credits and the discussion on General Development Plans are two different things that could be two separate items on an agenda, but they could be discussed together. PB Chair Morriss stated that the mechanism to address these issues is through an Ordinance. Attorney Connolly stated that this is a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, and the Planning Board has the ability to initiate Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. PB Member Gallagher asked what is the reason for the 7-acre threshold. Attorney Connolly stated that this came from the Urban Design Studio, it is something in the new Code called Urban Village. General Manager Smith stated that the Urban Design Studio is contemplating a new land use classification called Urban Village. PB Chair Morriss asked how many parcels of this size are in Sarasota. Attorney Connolly stated that there are not many of these parcels. PB: Member Normile asked if the change that was initiated by staff and was incorporated in the Administrative Code was considered a policy change; added that it seems to her that the Planning Board is approving something, or is putting the Text Amendment in the Zoning Code now, but that should have happened before the Quay was presented to the Planning Board and the City Commission. Attorney Connolly stated that Mr. Fournier had this discussion with the City Commission twice, one of them very early in the process, and the City Commission was comfortable with this; also, he referred to the existing Section IV-5.02, found on page 8 of 12 in the packet, which talks about site plan applications, and states that "an application for site plan approval shall be accompanied by the information and documentation required by administrative regulation," added that this is the vehicle by which the administrative regulation Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 11 set forth the General Development Plan; and pointed out that it is within the parameters of the Planning Board, if they SO choose, to have input or change that wording, they just need to first have adequate public notice. PB Chair Morriss asked for a motion. PB Vice Chair Gannon moved to find proposed Ordinance No. 17-5201 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Section IV-1206 and recommend that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 17-5201, thereby amending Section IV-1502, Zoning Code (2002 edition). PB Member Gallagher seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that the PB has discussed it and realized that the other adjustments the PB members may want to do will be taken up separately, and this codifies what is a reasonable approach of moving forward. PB Member Normile asked if the Planning Board could add that site plans that come under this new text amendment could not to be the subject of administrative approval; and added that it was not on the agenda today, SO that would not be able to be discussed at this point. Attorney Connolly stated that it would be appropriate to address this change with the administrative regulation definition of General Development Plans. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that these could be addressed at a later time, concurrency in one section and then additional requirements under Development Agreements would address what PB Member Normile just described for General Development Plans. Attorney Connolly pointed out that on page 9: in the packet, in the administrative regulation of a General Development Plan, there is a sentence stating that "the General Development Plan is intended to be followed by later applications for Administrative Site Plan or Site Plan Review, as it may be established by Zoning Code, or specific Development Agreement. # Attorney Connolly stated that this is the sentence that PB Members may want to change, in order to address Ms. Normile's concerns; noted that the wording is not in the Zoning Code or in the proposed Ordinance that is before the Planning Board this evening; and concluded that it is a reasonable discussion for the Planning Board to request that change to the administrative regulation definition of the General Development Plan. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m, in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 11 PB Chair Morriss asked if that should be a second agenda item, separate from the credits. Attorney Connolly stated that it would be a better idea to discuss them separately on the same night, because there is overlap. PB Chair Morriss stated that when they first heard about this, it seemed like a sensible approach to a large development, for example had the Quay started construction just before the crash, the City would have a mess, where these guys are phasing out their development, they do not know what they want to do yet, but it gives them the opportunity to phase it out and if something goes wrong they have the opportunity to stop. Discussion ensued. The motion passed with a vote of 5/0. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: ATTHIS TIME CITIZENS MAY ADDRESS THE. PLANNING BOARDON' TOPICS OF CONCERN. ITEMS WHICH HAVEI BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. ATI PUBLIC HEARINGS MAY NOT BE. ADDRESSED. ATTHIS TIME. (A MAXIMUM 5-MINUTE TIME: LIMIT.) There was no citizen's input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 11, 2017 PB Members, by consensus, approved the January 11, 2017 minutes. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issuej presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by staff. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be plaçed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Lindsay stated that at the last PB meeting, he was selected to represent the Planning Board on one of the Committees who will have input in selecting the new Planning Director; noted that in reviewing the information he received, he found out that there will be at least three panels to interview the candidates; added the panels will get a briefing at the beginning of the process, then the panels will be working independently, and finally one person from each panel will present a summary in the final session; and stated it appears that it would be safe if another PB member is interested to also participate, sO long as they are not in the same panel and do not both report. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 11 Attorney Connolly expressed concerns about two PB members participating in the panels, because the subpanels make one overall panel for the exact same function; noted that there is no problem with all PB members appearing, however they are not to speak with each other, and no one knows the direction of the conversations; explained that the City Manager decided to have four panels, as follows: one with representatives: of advisory boards, one with CCNA and other citizens, one with director-level City employees, and one with non-director-level City employees, sO the two Planning Board members would be on the same panel. PB Member Lindsay agreed with Attorney Connolly that it would not work. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Morriss asked if a motion is necessary in order to put something on the Agenda. Attorney Connolly stated that consensus is enough. PB Member Lindsay stated that at some point the Planning Board needs to get permission from the City Commission, if: it is going to involve staff time. Attorney Connolly stated he was referring to a Planning Board discussion to determine if PB members want to go to the City Commission. PB Member Lindsay stated that PB: members need some staff support to explain to them how it is done, and whether they need to compile a report. Attorney Connolly agreed, and stated that for the concurrency items, PB: members need to work with the City Engineer, and for the General Development Plan definitions and current processes they would need to work with Mr. Litchet or Ms. Schneider. PB Chair Morriss stated that it would be better to wait until after the next meeting, SO that PB Members can come up with the issues they want to explore, sO staff can make a reasonable estimate of the resources needed to take it to the next level. PB Member Gallagher stated that he would like to see how much the big projects pay. PB Vice Chair Gannon and PB Member Normile stated that it is difficult to obtain this information by project, they could only get information by year from the Finance Department. General Manager Smith stated the PB needs to prepare a Planning Board Report that will include general discussion and recommendations, then submit the report to the City Commission and ask if they would consider the PB recommendations. PB Member Lindsay suggested that PB members can identify the topics they want to discuss at the next meeting, SO that they can be appropriately advertised. PB Member Normile noted that the City Commission is going to be looking at multi- modal fees on February 21st. PB Vice Chair Gannon suggested that PB members inform the City Commission that they want to review certain items, list the items, and request City Commission authorization for staff to be available to assist the PB: members, and suggested the PB members develop recommendations for the City Commission. Attorney Connolly stated that this is not a public hearing, we just need enough information to put together a notice of what we are going to talk about, sO as to satisfy the requirements of the Sunshine Law, and if anyone is interested they can come and be heard as well; explained that in the last four years, the Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 11 requirements of the Sunshine Law have changed, and now, prior to taking action on a proposition, there must be a notice, minutes have to be taken, the meeting must be open to the public, and the public must be allowed to talk. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if they could identify the two sections PB members want to address. Attorney Connolly stated that they are as follows: Transportation Credits: Zoning Code - Section IV-203 (f), and Zoning Code - Appendix A, Section B-7 Definition of the General Development Plan PB Chair Morriss asked for a motion: PB Member Normile moved that the Planning Board, at a future meeting, consider the wisdom of modifications to the transportation concurrency credits found in Section IV-203 (f), as well as Appendix A, Subsection B-7 of the Zoning Code, and modifications to the definition of the General Development Plan sO as to delete the possibility of Administrative Site Plan Review. PB Vice Chair Gannon seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. VIII. ADJOURMMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:53PM. - L Auncl - Sir Dvn David Smith, General Manager David Morriss Chajf Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Lgcal Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]