CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Eileen Normile, Chair Members Present: Damien Blumetti, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney John Shamsey, Assistant City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Lucia Panica, Manager, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Development Review Planner, Development Services Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner, Planning Department Dr. Clifford E. Smith, Jr. RPA, Senior Planner, Planning Department John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLMEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 6:00:53 P.M. PB Chair Normile called the meeting to order. Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll call. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY 6:01:08 P.M. Attorney Connolly reminded the Planning Board that he needs to leave early this evening, and they can change the order of agenda items should they want him to be present for certain public hearings this evening; and noted that Attorney John Shamsey will attend the remainder of the meeting in his place. There was discussion about moving the Quasi-judicial Public Hearing on Site Plan Application No. 19-SP-01, Humane Society of Sarasota County, up on the agenda. The PB agreed by consensus to hold the hearing on Site Plan Application No. 19-SP-01 at such time all the parties were present. 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.) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 24 A. Reading ofthe Pledge of Conduct 6:02:26 P.M. Responding to PB Chair Normile's question, Director Cover read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for the presentations. PB Chair Normile noted PB consensus for the time limits. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all who intended to speak during the following public hearings; and noted that no applications for Affected Person status have been filed for this evening's Quasi-judicial public hearing. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. The Auteur (Portion of 1000 Blvd of the Arts): Street Vacation Application No. 19-SV-01 is a request for approval of street/right-ok-way vacation consisting of multiple right- of- way segments making up an existing alley to allow for development of a future condominium project at 1000 Boulevard of the. Arts, to bel known as Auteur and including a proposed public access and utility easement over the subject right-of-way areas. Applicant is requesting four separate vacations making up the existing alley as follows: two portions of a platted 18 foot wide alley between Boulevard of the Arts and 4th Street not previously vacated, a 2 foot strip of land on the east side of the alley which was previously dedicated to the City for right-of-way purposes and a 2 foot strip of right-of- way on the west side of the alley which was previously conveyed to the City. (Lucia Panica, Manager of Development Services) 6:03:49 P.M. PB Chair Normile opened the public hearing. Staff Presentation: Manager Panica, Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer, and Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner came before the Planning Board. Manager Panica referred to the Aerial Location Map in the PB packet and identified the location and size of the subject right-of-way to be vacated; noted the purpose of the vacation is to allow construction on a portion of the alley, leaving a 15. ft vertical clearance; said that there are two owners and one contract purchaser, each of whom will receive the adjacent half of the right of way; stated that this application includes conditions that require all owners to grant easements to the City to maintain access for vehicles and pedestrians, and to accommodate existing utilities; referred to the Multi-Use Recreational Trail (MURT) Plan (Exhibit "B" in the packet) and pointed to the location and alignment of the MURT in this area; noted that the taff-recommended conditions will allow for continuous pedestrian and bicycle access through the Quay site to the Boulevard of the Arts; stated that a recommended condition requires an easement to the City of Sarasota until the existing utilities are removed and capped at the water main; added that the staff- recommended conditions also address easements to FPL and COMCASTnoted the dates Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 24 of the public workshops; and concluded that staff recommends approval of Street Vacation Application No. 19-SV-01 with conditions. 6:09:49 P.M. Responding to PB Member Ohlrich, who asked if any Planning Board Members have been involved in preparing the staff recommended motion fora approval, Manager Panica stated that the conditions were created by staff, but the Planning Board has the right to accept, add, or revise the staff-recommended motion as they wish. PB Member Ohlrich asked why the conditions ask for a temporary easement over the existing sidewalks along the west and north sides of Blocks 7 and 8 as identified in the Quay Sarasota Site Plan. Manager Panica explained that the easements, now called covenants, since the conditions were revised, are intended to be removed after the corresponding Site Plans and Building Permits are approved and new easements are proposed. Responding to PB Member Ohlrich, who asked if there are any other ways to improve pedestrian connectivity without the vacation of the right-of-way, Manager Panica said that this is the best way to improve pedestrian connectivity as it relates to this application. 6:12:59 P.M. Responding to PB Member Gannon, who asked who is responsible for the casements/Covenants over the sidewalks on Blocks 7 and 8, Manager Panica stated that the easements are on Hyatt property, not the Auteur property, and they will have to be in place prior to the second reading of the Ordinance for the right-of-way vacation. Responding to PB Member Gannon, who asked why conditions #4 and #5 state that the easements are for pedestrian traffic and do not include bicycle traffic, Manager Panica stated that the term pedestrian traffic" means non- automobile traffic. PB Member Gannon expressed concerns about the current width of the extension of the MURT, located along the north edge of Block 8, stating that it is hazardous to bicycle traffic. 6:17:27 P.M. Manager Panica agreed with PB Vice Chair Blumetti's observation that the vacation of the right-of-way allows the applicant to build a bridge over the right-of-way, otherwise there would be two buildings. Responding to PB Vice Chair Blumetti's question about the 22 4" 'width of the vacated right-of-way at its south end, as shown on Plan A2.10, and the narrow area left for a sidewalk, Manager Panica clarified that there will be no sidewalk there, this will be a shared roadway for both pedestrians and vehicles. Discussion ensued. 6:21:22 P.M. PB Chair Normile stated that the alley to be vacated is a service road for the existing buildings; and expressed concerns about it being a shared roadway. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 24 6:24:46 P.M. Director Cover pointed out that when the Quay comes in with their development, staff will require pedestrian access and connectivity on that site, SO eventually all will be connected. 6:25:21 P.M. Responding to PB Member Morriss who asked about the current access on Driveway "C," Manager Panica stated that it currently provides access for construction purposes, as well as access to the garage and open parking lot. PB Member Gannon pointed out that it is used temporarily for the MURT. Assistant Engineer Ornstein disagreed, and noted that the temporary MURT is indicated in blue on Exhibit "B." Discussion ensued. 6:30:23 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich expressed concerns about the lack of sidewalk and wheelchair access in the alley. 6:32:19 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Jay Tallman, BOTA Development Holdings, LLC, stated that they have used the input they received in the public workshops to plan their project which, on the whole, was well received by the stakeholders. Andy Dorr, Project Manager, BOTA Development Holdings, LLC pointed out that the Quay does not own the dirt of the first 10 ft. along the west edge of the parking lot, it is owned by the Hyatt, who is not part of the Development Agreement, and has no responsibility to participate in the MURT agreement, or do anything that relates to pedestrian connections on the applicant's land; stated the City and Quay Venture have specific language in the Development Agreement on how the continuation of the MURT will happen in the future, and they have agreed to vacate a number of alleys and streets; added that 4th Street will be gone in a couple of weeks, and it will be replaced by Driveway "E," which is almost fully constructed, has sidewalks and wheelchair access, goes around the southern edge of the property and continues along the eastern edge of the property up to the Boulevard of the Arts, which is the proper pedestrian connection, and it is in addition to the temporary MURT. Mr. Dorr further stated that the alley is considered as a service roadway, and the pedestrian connection is Driveway "E;" added that the alley's current condition is very poor; pointed out that the portion of the alley south of its intersection with Driveway "E" will be torn out; and noted that the remaining north portion of the alley will be replaced by a new alley with proper stormwater facilities, paving, and increased width from 18 ft. to 22: ft. and up to 27 ft. 6:40:52. P.M. Matt Brockway, Land Use Attorney, Icard & Merrill, stated that the City is not losing use of the alley rather it is gaining improvements to the alley, new stormwater infrastructure, and the applicants will assume maintenance of the alley; pointed out that this is the only Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 24 part of the alleys in this area that has not been vacated; discussed how the application meets the five review criteria for a right-of-way vacation; noted that the applicants accept all of staff's recommended conditions with the exception of Condition #4 based on the uncertainty surrounding the MURT, because they do not know what will happen with Blocks #7, #8 and #9 of Quay Sarasota; stated that the condition requiring maintaining sidewalks in the interim is unreasonable, because Blocks #7 and #8, where these alleyways are located, are not part of this application or the Administrative Site Plan petition; and added that there is no nexus between the alley vacation and the pedestrian connection at this time. 6:47:29 P.M. Responding to PB Vice Chair Blumetti regarding the requirements of staff recommended Condition #4, Mr. Brockway stated that they do not agree to provide pedestrian access north of the Scenic MURT because they have an obligation to cooperate with Quay Venture, they only own part of the parcel, and do not know what will go there; said the ultimate pedestrian connectivity should be determined when they know what will go on Blocks #7 and #8; and pointed out that currently this is a parking lot with no plans to change. PB Member Ohlrich, asked if the applicants have considered other designs that would not require vacation of the alley. Mr. Dorr said that they have had several iterations of the design; explained that the benefit of vacating the alley is that it will be one building instead of two, which means fewer loading docks and other such features; said that it would detract from what they are trying to do on the Boulevard of the Arts, which is to bring the streetscape together; and pointed out that the applicants are asking for the alley vacation in exchange for substantially improving the alley, providing sustainability features, and accepting its future maintenance. PB Member Ohlrich asked why the applicants would not be able to provide an improved pedestrian route on Boulevard of the Arts without the alley vacation. Attorney Brockway stated that there would not be a companion Administrative Site Plan and therefore no project to create the improved pedestrian environment on Boulevard of the Arts. 6:52:12 P.M. Chris Cianfaglione, Kimley-Horn, pointed out that the vacation of the alley allows the applicant to provide additional setbacks which in turn allow for a very wide pedestrian path; added that the proposed building over the vacated area is 15 ft and upi and noted otherwise they are improving the alley's condition, and by building over the alley they are able to provide the building orientation and configuration and all other things the community has asked for. PB Member Morriss said that PB Members need some guidance from staff as to how the continuation of the Scenic MURT can be accomplished. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss suggested that staff and the applicant work on the language of Condition #4 sO that the goal of continuity is accomplished without the applicant being responsible for Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 24 things they cannot control. Attorney Connolly responded that this has already being done and the compromise is the revised Condition #4; and suggested that the Planning Board hear from the Quay representatives. 6:59:16 P.M. Responding to PB Member Gannon's question, Mr. Dorr outlined the major steps in the process that follows the alley vacation approval and prior to the issuance of a building permit; and said that if all goes well, he anticipates breaking ground in the beginning of 2020, and the earliest time the alley would be closed is November 2019. PB Member Gannon stated that one of the public benefits when one walks or rides on the alley is the smell of honeysuckle, and asked if the applicants can replace the honeysuckle when the shrubs are removed. Chris Cianfaglione described the landscape plans, and noted the plans are focused on the Boulevard of the Arts and the alley will function as an alley. 7:05:15 P.M. Responding to PB Vice Chair Blumetti's question, Mr. Dorr stated that the north side of the building from the intersection to the alley is not a blank wall; and added that the applicants are making improvements, per staff's request, to add decorative tiles, green wall features and planters, which they have submitted in their latest update to their site plan. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked how the applicant meets the requirement of habitable space on the ground floor. Mr. Dorr stated that they are providing two workforce housing units for the restaurant they are proposing, then there is a restaurant after the alley and then shops on the west end; and noted staff has found these to meet the habitable ground floor requirements of the Code. Discussion ensued. 7:12:55 P.M. Responding to PB Member Gannon's s question, Mr. Cianfaglione explained and illustrated on architectural renderings that a person walking by the workforce affordable units will be looking at specialty façade treatments, decorative mosaic tiles, stand-alone planters, and built in concrete planters with plants, as well as stepped back building facades, not empty walls. PB Member Morriss pointed out that the applicants have gone above and beyond the requirements. 7:18:23 P.M. Responding to PB Member Ohlrich, who asked if they are proffering the affordability of the housing units, Mr. Dorr said they are proffering the affordability of the units for at least ten years. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 24 PB Member Ohlrich asked if the applicants are feeling that they came to the Planning Board prematurely, since they have repeatedly stated that there are SO many unknowns. Mr. Dorr responded, "Not in the least" and stated that this project adds to the new downtown neighborhood, and the unknowns relate to properties the applicants do not own. PB Member Ohlrich asked the applicants to state what is the benefit to the public from this right-of-way vacation. Attorney Brockway stated that the applicants will improve the alley, will install drainage and stormwater infrastructure because they do not exist currently, will take over the alley's maintenance going forward in perpetuity; and concluded that the vacation allows the project to provide this vastly enhanced streetscape on Boulevard of the Arts. 7:21:31 P.M. PB Vice Chair Blumetti pointed out that the workforce housing is not a public benefit because it only benefits a few rather than all citizens; and noted for 100 ft the façade of the building has no relationship to the park. Mr. Dorr noted that an additional public benefit is the eastern connections for future MURT pedestrian connectivity; stated that the applicants are donating private land to widen the area along their east boundary, adding 12f ft. to 18: ft. of width to what the Quay has, and they are agreeing to cooperate in the future to extend the Scenic MURT or other pedestrian connectivity features, which will also be on the applicant's private property against their waterfront; and pointed out that the Hyatt Hotel, which has been in Sarasota since 1970 is suffering from sea level rise issues, and one of the things this project allows the applicant to do is to rebuild all of the essential infrastructure and placing it above base flood elevation; stated that the applicants will spend six to seven million dollars to do that, and this represents an additional public benefit, because it will allow the Hyatt to continue being usable; added that when the applicants first purchased this parcel, they had a flood from water coming in from the Quay basin into the lower level, putting at risk the hotel and the infrastructure; and concluded that this is the only project that is willing to spend serious money to address sea level rise in an area of the City which is subject to flooding. PB Chair Normile asked Mr. Charles Bailey, representative of the Quay Venture, LLC to speak. 7:24:44 P.M. Attorney Connolly administered the oath for all that intend to speak this evening but had not yet been sworn. 7:25:08 P.M. Attorney Charles Bailey, of Williams and Parker, came before the Planning Board; noted that he and his co-counsel for Quay Venture, LLC wrote a letter of support for the proposed application for right-of-way vacation, however they strongly oppose staff- recommended Condition #4, which requires additional pedestrian connections beyond what is in the Quay's Development Agreement, and the Quay's MURT Agreement; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 24 referred to the Site Plan for Quay Sarasota, and pointed out that they agreed to do the regular MURT along US 41, and a Scenic MURT (colored green), which is not a requirement, buti rather it is a carryover from the Bayside Project; explained that the Scenic MURT according to the Development Agreement with the City of Sarasota will be constructed along the south and western property boundary of the Quay Venture property, adjacent to Blocks #6, #10, #7, and #8, as these blocks are being developed; said that they are contractually obligated to also provide a second east-west connection (colored yellow) from the MURT to the Scenic MURT, this connection is located along the north boundary of Block #10, and extends east to meet the roundabout at US 41; and repeated that they are supportive of the right-of-way vacation, but they are opposing the requirement of providing another east-west connection on the Quay Venture property. 7:33:16 P.M. PB Member Gannon asked when will the Scenic MURT be completed, noting that the goal is to maintain continuity to pedestrian and bicycle access through the Quay property during all the phases of construction on the Quay property. Attorney Bailey said that they want pedestrians to have uninterrupted use of the Bayfront MURT (colored blue) while the Scenic MURT (colored green) and the roundabout are being constructed. PB Member Gannon asked when will the blue line (Bayfront MURT) be completed. Brett Blank, Quay Ventures, Green Point, came before the Planning Board; stated that they are currently constructing the portion of the Bayfront MURT going south from the Boulevard of the Arts to connect to Driveway "E;" said that when it is complete, 4th Street will go out of service; noted that they will also construct the roundabout on US 41 in partnership with the City of Sarasota, which will include a Bayfront MURT segment that will stay in place until the entire blue segment is completed; added that they will have a Bypass MURT (colored red near the roundabout) that goes along the MOT and the entire roundabout; said that when Quay Commons is constructed to the south to meet the roundabout, then the Bypass MURT will move to meet the Bayfront MURT (blue line). Discussion ensued. Mr. Blank said that the entire blue line will be completed by the fourth quarter of 2019. PB Member Gannon asked if the blue segment will be open before the vacation of the alley. Mr. Blank responded that there will be uninterrupted pedestrian and bicycle access through the Quay Property, as they intend to provide an additional north-south path through their property for temporary use. Attorney Bailey pointed out that they are required to maintain a north-south Bayfront MURT throughout the construction of the infrastructure and the roundabout. PB Member Morriss asked if they can count on connectivity between the Scenic MURT and Boulevard of the Arts. Attorney Bailey said that they will know that when Quay Blocks # 7 and #8 are developed. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 24 Attorney Bailey said that staff reviewed the application against the five criteria for review, and did not mention in the staff report that in order to mitigate the vacation it would be necessary to have additional circulation across property that is not subject to this application; and stated the Quay team has a problem with that. 7:40:04 P.M. Manager Panica, Assistant City Engineer Daniel Ohrenstein, and Chief Transportation Planner Colleen McGue, came before the Planning Board. PB Chair Normile asked staff to explain the yellow line as it relates to the vacation. Manager Panica provided background information and listed the events that led to staff- recommended Condition #4. 7:44:06 P.M. PB Member Gannon asked why the City does not have a covenant stating that they will guarantee that bicycles will be able to transit through all this construction, that there will be a path that is a minimum of 8-12ft., and that the City will not issue permits to construct or deconstruct something until this path in in place. Attorney Connolly noted that the revised Condition #4 intends to do that; added that it says that the yellow lines along Blocks # 7 and #8 are status quo and will remain until two things happen: (a) a public hearing before the Planning Board with regards to the Site Plan application for Blocks # 7 and #8, and (b) when the site plans are approved the building permits will be issued; noted that it is unknown what the future holds, but what is known about Blocks #7 and #8 is the they are divided between the air rights and the ground rights, one party owns the ground and the first 10 ft and the other party owns air rights starting at 10 ft.; suggested that Blocks #7 and #8 may become a garage someday, which means the yellow line is not the best location for a permanent MURT; added that he suspects this is the reason Attorney Bailey on his illustration shows the yellow line further south, along the Quay's open area; and repeated that staff recommended revised Condition #4 says to maintain the status quo until such time as Blocks #7 and #8 are approved. PB Member Gannon stated that he knows that the path around the northwest corner of Block #8 is hazardous to bicycle traffic and cannot support it; asked how the City will ensure that bicycle access continues during construction; stated that the ability to: maintain public good is at risk; and asked staff what can be done to guarantee that the public good will be maintained across all these properties. Manager Panica clarified that Condition #4 is not a rerouting of the MURT, as the path around the northwest corner of Block #8 is an alternative route; pointed out that most bicycle riders, especially the higher speed bicycles, will use the Bayfront MURT during construction; and added that city staff, as they review the staging plans, are looking for circulation and continuous connectivity to ensure that there are no closures. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 24 Manager Panica stated that City staff has not received a Site Plan for Block #10 sO they do not know what will go there. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon continued to ask for a timeline plan showing that the public good of pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity will be maintained. Manager Panica pointed out that the Development Agreement between the City and the Quay addresses the continuity of pedestrian and bicycle access, and that is the reason for the Bayfront MURT. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss noted that the applicant has no control over the Quay Development Agreement, however the City does, and it should be policed accordingly to ensure continuous pedestrian and bicycle access. 1:59:19 P.M. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss made a motion to find Street Vacation 19-SV-01 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the staff report conditions, except Condition #4, and added that the City of Sarasota will maintain, honor, and police the continuous access requirements. The motion died due lack of a second. PB Chair Normile asked for another motion. 8:00:19 P.M. PB Chair Normile handed the gavel to PB Vice Chair Blumetti and made a motion, seconded by PB Member Morriss, to find Street Vacation 19-SV-01 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the staff recommended conditions. Responding to PB Member Ohlrich, PB Chair Normile clarified that she refers to the revised staff recommended Conditions for Approval that were distributed to the Planning Board on July 10, 2019. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he will not support the motion, expressing concerns about applicant's commitments to continuous access through the property, and the ground floor habitable space. PB Member Morriss, PB Member Ohlrich and PB Chair Normile spoke in support of the application. Attorney Connolly referred to the five review criteria and discussed how they relate to the application. 8:06:36 P.M. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 24 PB Chair Normile asked for a vote to find Street Vacation 19-SV-01 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the revised staff recommended Conditions. The motion passed with a vote 3 to 2 (PB Member Gannon and PB Vice Chair Blumetti voted "No.") 8:07:33 P.M. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to the members of the audience who had not yet been sworn. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing 2. Humane Society of Sarasota County: Site Plan Application No. 19-SP-01 is a request for Site Plan approval to allow for the expansion of the Humane Society of Sarasota County on property located in the Industrial General District (IGD) Zone District with a street address of 2331 15th Street. Proposed plans include demolition of a portion of the existing building area, renovation of the existing kennels and clinic and construction of a new welcome center, cat housing and multi-purpose rooms. (Dan Greenberg, Development Review Planner) 8:08:26 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Planning Consultant for the Humane Society of Sarasota County, Christen Benson, Executive Director of the Humane Society of Sarasota County, and Jedd Heap, Architect, Leader Design Studio came before the Planning Board. Mr. Freedman stated that the application is for approval of a site plan that relates to the renovation and expansion of the Humane Society's building on 15th Street; and added that the site consists of two parcels one of which they purchased from the City in 2018. Ms. Benson stated that they need the expansion, because the additional capacity will enable the Humane Society to care for more animals, expand their community outreach programs, and increase their impact in this community and beyond. Mr. Freedman noted the site's Future Land Use designation and zoning and stated that they plan to tear down part of the outdated existing buildings and replace them with more efficient facilities. Mr. Heap compared the existing buildings to the future buildings; stated that the future buildings will include increased parking area, a large welcome center with cat adoption area and visitation rooms, a receiving and euthanasia space, a multipurpose space for educational uses, a new kennel for isolation, and a liner building in the back; and added that they worked around several large trees most notably the grand oak located at the northeast corner of the site, and thel hammock in the center of the site, behind the proposed buildings, in an effort to minimize the impact on the environment. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 24 Mr. Freedman stated that the application has met all site plan review requirements and is consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance, as indicated in the staff report; said that the applicants are: in total agreement with the staff recommended conditions; and thanked staff for their cooperation and assistance through the application process. 8:15:02 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich requested clarification relating to the Administrative Adjustment the applicants have received for the ground floor windows. Mr. Heap explained that while the welcome center is light-filled and has a lot of windows to bring in the natural light, the area subject to the Administrative Adjustment is the euthanasia area, where looking in through the windows is not the best choice; and said they selected therefore to provide high windows, and use a decorative wallcovering according to the Code's requirements. Responding to PB Member Morriss' question, Mr. Heap described the sound attenuation system and the animal waste management system of the facility. Ms. Benson stated that they only take cats and dogs. 8:19:15 P.M. PB Chair Normile asked if any of the PB Members had ex-parte communications; and disclosed that she had visited the site with staff. Staff Presentation: Development Review Planner Greenberg came before the Planning Board; discussed the site's location, future land use designation, current zoning, surrounding uses, the areas that are part of the building expansion, the square footage of the expansion and the total area of the building, automobile and bicycle parking, trees and tree preservation, and traffic analysis; and concluded that staff has found the application meets all review standards for site plans and recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. 8:23:09 PM Responding to PB Member Ohlrich's question, Planner Greenberg stated that the Planning Board was not involved in the development of the conditions for this application's approval, and that they are staff- recommended conditions. 8:24: 27 P.M. Responding to PB Member Morriss' question, Planner Greenberg explained how staff comes up with conditions for approval, and noted that staff takes into consideration pubic feedback and applicant's suggestions. 8:25:41 P.M. Responding to PB Member Gannon's request, Planner Greenberg described how staff determined the Administrative Adjustment for the ground floor glass reduction, based on Section VII-2003, which allows for relief from the requirement. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 24 8:28:08 P.M. Attorney Connolly stated that there were no applications for affected person's status. Public Input: There was none. 8:28:33 P.M. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion, seconded by PB Vice Chair Blumetti, to find Site Plan No 19-SP-01 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the petition subject to the staff-recommended conditions. There was no further discussion The motion to find Site Plan No 19-SP-01 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the petition subject to the staff- recommended conditions carried with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Board took a Ten Minutes Recess 8:30:00 P.M. The Planning Board Meeting reconvened. John Shamsey, Assistant City Attorney, replaces City Attorney Connolly. B. Legislative Public Hearings (Continued) 2. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 19-ZTA-04: The North Trail Overlay District (NTOD) is an optional set of zoning standards intended to voluntarily encourage new development and redevelopment projects that are ofhuman scale and will supporthuman activity on the street and shift from an auto-centric land use pattern to one that emphasizes a variety of modal choices - including walking, biking and transit. In addition, the standards encourage new development and redevelopment projects to function in a sensitive manner that preserves the integrity and long-term viability of the surrounding neighborhoods. Additional voluntary incentives are proposed to enhance the NTOD while also preserving the character of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. These incentives and standards include pedestrian space and landscape planting areas, measurement of height in stories, setbacks, parking standards and stormwater mitigation. (Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager) 8:30:52 P.M. Staff Presentation: General Manager Chapdelain came before the Planning Board; stated that the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD) was approved by the City Commission in 2013 with a sunset Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 24 date of 2018; noted that when the City Commission extended the sunset date to 2023 they directed staff to look for ways to enhance the NTOD; and described the enhancements as follows: a) building height - measured in number of stories of maximum story height of 14 ft, to allow for design flexibility b) daylight plane provision - to enhance compatibility between residential and non- residential uses, and promote building scale, c) pedestrian space - wider sidewalks with green space and shade to promote walkability d) front balconies - above the first story to extend 5 ft. over the front yard setback; e) parking relief for affordable housing, and f) parking abutting residentially zoned properties within the NTOD may be used for parking and/or stormwater management to provide flexibility for redevelopment. General Manager Chapdelain requested that the PB adopt a motion for approval to allow the location of marquees and awnings above the ground floor to extend 5 ft. into the front yard setback to allow consistency with the NT Zoning District; pointed out minor language edits on pages 23 and 33 to provide internal document consistency; stated that the documents have been reviewed by the NTRP and the neighborhood associations, and staff has incorporated their comments, including removal of two parcels from the NTOD. 8:46:20 P.M. Responding to PB Member Ohlrich, who asked who determines the feasibility of the width of the green space of the pedestrian space, General Manager Chapdelain stated that this will be determined at the DRC review SO as to allow flexibility for utilities. Responding to PB Member Ohlrich, who asked about the monitoring and enforcement of the restrictions relating to what may or may not be done on parking lots in NTOD, General Manager Chapdelain stated that there will be conditions on the proposed Site Plan, and enforcement will be complaint driven. 8:49:08 P.M. PB Member Morriss provided background information about the evolution of the NTOD; stated that the public hearings would benefit from a mandatory community workshop, and asked to include those in the process. 8:53:09 P.M. PB Member Gannon pointed to a minor editorial correction on page 29 of the staff report. 8:54:28 P.M. General Manager Chapdelain agreed to PB Vice Chair Blumetti's suggestion to include reference to the 14 ft. maximum story height in the support material, for clarity and to provide consistency with what is required for the downtown. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 24 PB Vice Chair Blumetti referred to the barrier between the pedestrian and a building in a project reviewed by the Planning Board in June 2019, and expressed concerns relating to the connection between the street and a building in the NTOD. General Manager Chapdelain stated thatcurrently there is nothing in the Zoning Code to address maximum differential for site elevation VS. sidewalk elevation and ground level connectivity, and stated this can be addressed in the DRC review. Responding to PB Vice Chair Blumetti, who asked if there is a way to increase the bicycle rack requirements because of the reduced parking requirements, General Manger Chapdelain stated that they can increase the bicycle parking requirement to 20% of the total required automobile parking. 8:59:47 P.M. PB Chair Normile noted that the FDOT: is giving new designations to the streets and asked if the proposed setback requirements for landscaped strips in the NTOD are consistent with the new FDOT street designations. Discussion ensued regarding the design speed of US 41, the width of the landscape strip, and the trees to be planted in the green space. Responding to PB Chair Normile's question regarding the setbacks, General Manager Chapdelain explained that the 10 ft setback requirement can be reduced to 5 ft if the site meets the pedestrian space standards to allow flexibility to those lots that have greater amount of right-of-way. Discussion ensued. 9:09:09 P.M. Public Input: 1. Mike Lache, Bicycle/Pedestrian Advocates - retracted his last e-mail to the Planning Board; referred to and recommended compliance with national standards; recommended the creation of furnishing zones VS. a landscaping zones, 50% of which be paved pedestrian space. 2. Michael Halflants, Architect and USF Planning Professor - agreed with the previous speaker, supported the 14.5 ft. width, and suggested no 5 ft. limit to the depth of the balconies. 3. Melinda Delpech, Tahiti Park Homeowner's Association - the earlier mentioned lots that are to be excluded from the NTOD are in their neighborhood, and they wish to keep them out of the NTOD. General Manager Chapdelain returned to the table. PB Member Morriss stated he supported the idea of a furnishing zone and asked how it can be called that and at the same time provide shade which is much needed on the North Trail. General Manager Chapdelain said that it requires a delicate balance, but staff will Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 24 work with the language and will incorporate the concepts that have been presented by the speakers. 9:22:38 P.M. PB Vice Chair Blumetti suggested allowing the balcony to extend of 6 ft. over the setback. General Manager Chapdelain agreed and stated that marquis should remain at 5 ft. to be consistent with the NP Zoning District. 9:34:08 P.M. PB Chair Normile asked if there are requirements as to what goes in the landscape strip, and who decides what goes there. General Manager Chapdelain responded that they need to coordinate with the FDOT, because it is FDOT right-of-way; and added that the abutting property owner must include the landscape stirp in their landscape plan. Discussion ensued regarding consistency in landscaping quality as it affects multiple parcels and different owners. 9:35: 15 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich asked if staff will present to the Planning Board a revised edition of the text amendment, one thatincorporates all the changes discussed this evening. General Manager Chapdelain said that he would prefer a motion this evening. 9:35:45 P.M. PB Vice Chair Blumetti made a motion, seconded by PB Member Morriss, to find 19-ZTA- 04, as revised, consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206, and recommend approval to the City Commission. General Manger Chapdelain listed all revisions. The motion to find 19-ZTA-04, as revised, consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206, and recommend approval to the City Commission passes with a vote of 5 to 0. 3. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 19-ZTA-06: A proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code (2002 Edition) to allow for residential uses to be developed on Commercial General District (CGD) zone district properties of more than five acres and to allow for a maximum height increase to 65 feet provided the additional height over 45 feet is used exclusively for residential, hotel and motel accommodation uses within structures or portions of structures set back 100 feet or greater from single-family residential zoned properties. (Dr. Clifford E. Smith, Jr. RPA, Senior Planner) 9:43:35 P.M. Mr. Joel Freedman, Mr. Gavin Meshad, and Dr. Clifford E. Smith, Senior Planner, came before the Planning Board. Applicant Presentation: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 24 Mr. Freedman stated that this a privately initiated text amendment to the Commercial General District (CGD) zone district to upgrade it to a mixed use district, allowing for additional height to be used for residential uses; provided background information as to the origins of this application; said that they are recommending a 5 acre site minimum, noted this relates directly to Midtown Plaza, the site they are working on; and stated that they are. focusing on the vacant grocery store frontage as well as working with the hospital regarding the provision of attainable housing. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Smith stated that staff has found the application consistent with the review standards and with the future goals, objectives and strategies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and recommends a motion for approval. 9:48:47 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich noted that the City Commission directed staff to work with the applicants on this Zoning Text Amendment hoping for affordable housing; and commented that previous efforts, like the Rosemary Overlay District (RROD), promised affordable housing but it did not happen. Discussion ensued regarding the definitions of affordable housing in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Zoning Code. Senior Planner Smith noted that this application uses the attainable housing definition included in the Comprehensive Plan. 9:51:54 P.M. PB Member Gannon asked what is specifically proposed to make the development more aesthetically pleasing to pedestrians. Mr. Freedman responded that during the redevelopment of the old shopping centers the facilities, such as landscaping, sidewalks, etc., are upgraded to current codes. Mr. Meshad pointed out that this text amendment will incentivize people to redevelop the old shopping centers, and during redevelopment the sites will be upgraded to meet current codes. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated he is in favor of adding residential to the CDG zoning district; and suggested that the minimum size of the properties be 1 acre, instead of the 5 acres minimum mentioned in the report. Mr. Meshad agreed with the suggestion. 9:57:13 P.M. Senior Planner Smith discussed all CDG parcels in the city that would be impacted by the proposed zoning amendment. PB Vice Chair Blumetti suggested that increased densities would bring about affordable housing and recommended that the density be increased to 30 u/ac.; added that this would address the affordable. housing and help the neighborhoods. Mr. Freedman agreed. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 24 10:02:13 P.M. Responding to PB Chair Normile's question, Senior Planner Smith stated that the maximum height in the GCD district is 45 ft., the proposed amendment will increase that to 65 ft., and the difference is intended to be used for residential. Mr. Freedman noted that this is modeled after the current CRD district. 10:03:01 P.M. PB Member Morriss expressed concerns about parking on a 1-acre parcel with high density; and asked if parking would be located above the ground floor, and the housing units above the parking. Mr. Freedman agreed; and noted that parking requirements are changing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 24 10:03:34 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich expressed support for the proposed amendment and the concept of mixed-use developments; and stated that density alone will not bring about affordable housing. Discussion ensued regarding affordable housing. 10:08:27 P.M. PB Chair Normile stated that she would support this amendment with the reduced parcel size; and recommended that the Planning Department look into what the City would receive in return for increased density. Discussion ensued. 10:09:53 P.M. Director Cover suggested that staff can provide additional language to incorporate performance standards to the text amendment prior to its transmittal to the City Commission. Mr. Freedman agreed. Senior Planner Smith confirmed that PB Chair Normile's intent is to have a motion in support of what is being proposed, with a change in the size of the acreage down, and with a further recommendation that staff considers increasing the density based on specific performance standards for attainable housing. Planning Board Members agreed with this language. Responding to PB Member Gannon's comment, Senior Planner Smith entered into the record the list of sites that are affected by the proposed zoning text amendment. PB Member Gannon stated that he would support a minimum size of 3 acres as opposed to 1 acre, because he would rather see higher densities on a larger property; and suggested that some of the lots on the list could be combined. Discussion ensued. 10:14:35 P.M. Public Input: 1. Bill Merrill, of the Icard Merrill Law Firm, representing Sarasota Holdings Group, LLC, and Saba Investments Co., spoke in favor of the proposed zoning text amendment; and suggested the minimum acreage be reduced to 1 acre or greater; and suggested the acreage requirement could be eliminated altogether. 10:18:33 P.M. PB Vice Chair Blumetti made a motion, seconded by PB Member Morriss, to find 19-ZTA- 06 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval to the City Commission, with the reduction of the minimum zoning lot to one acre, and that staff considers increasing the density based on specific performance standards for attainable housing. The motion passed with a vote of 4 to 1 (PB Member Gannon voted "No.") Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 24 4. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 19-ZTA-05: An Ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida amending Article VII, Division 7 of the Zoning Code of the City of Sarasota to expand the City of Sarasota Public Art Program to a Citywide program to apply throughout the City; to provide a definition for the word 'project" as used in the ordinance; to provide that there shall be no Public Art requirement for a building or portion of a building thatincludes dwelling units designated for households with incomes at or below 120 percent of the area median income; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for reading by title only; and providing for an effective date. (Dr. Clifford E. Smith, Jr. RPA, Senior Planner) 10:20:27 P.M. Senior Planner Clifford E. Smith stated that on February 19, 2019 the City Commission recommended that staff provide the Commission with an Ordinance and a recommendation about expanding the Public Art Program citywide; and noted that a draft Ordinance and recommendations were presented to the City Commission on May 6, 2019, when the City Commission authorized staff to proceed with the necessary Zoning Text Amendment. Senior Planner Smith noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically speak about public art; and referred to the portions of the Comprehensive Plan that relate to Public Art, including Neighborhood Chapter Objective 7- Neighborhood Aesthetics and Identity of Individual Neighborhoods, and Action Strategy 7.5 about using public art to enhance public spaces, as well Recreation and Open Space Action Strategy 5.2. Senior Planner Smith explained that currently the Public Art Program addresses public art in the Downtown Area, but the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan objectives and action strategies call for a citywide program; pointed out that a citywide Public Art Program would require a Public Art Master Plan; noted that currently the City Commission's direction is for public art in the roundabouts; gave examples of the potential of such a citywide program; said the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is straight forward; and suggested that affordable attainable housing developments could be exempt from public art requirements. 10:26:01 P.M. In response to PB Member Ohlrich's comment relating to potential changes to the Recreation and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive Pan, Action Strategy 3.5, which requires developers, whose developments are in select zoning districts, to contribute either public art or funds to the public art fund, Senior Planner Smith responded that he will refer that to the City Attorney's Office. 10:27:43 P.M. In response to PB Vice Chair Blumetti's question, Senior Planner Smith stated that non- profit organizations are not exempt from public art requirements, because the Zoning Code does not provide for it, but it could be a recommendation to the City Commission. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 24 In response to PB Vice Chair Blumetti's question about the term "base square footage" in Zoning Code Section VII-701.2(c), Senior Planner Smith explained how the public art requirements are calculated. In response to PB Vice Chair Blumetti's question about the cap of $250,000 dollars, Senior Planner Smith stated that the cap is established by the Zoning Code. PB Vice Chair Blumetti expressed concern about the cap, because the building construction values are increasing, and the City is losing public art funds. PB Vice Chair Blumetti recommended that the cap of $250,000 dollars be eliminated, and the fee of a 0.5% of the value applies to all construction; added that the minimum fee should also be eliminated; and suggested that construction values up to $1 million dollars be exempt from the public arts fee, and the 0.5% fee apply to all other construction, regardless of the construction value. Discussion ensued about relevant text revisions to Zoning Code Section VII-701. Responding to PB Vice Chair Blumetti's question, Director Cover spoke in support of the recommended use of the percentage, as opposed to the $250,000 dollars cap, for the calculation of the public art fee. 10:39:27 P.M. Attorney Shamsey pointed out that the requirement that the construction value of the contributing projects exceeds $1 million dollars reduces the number of contributing projects; noted that it also decreases the geographic areas in the city where one could do this; and added that the large projects could claim that they are unfairly treated. Public Input: 1. Virginia Hoffman - spoke in support of expanding the program; suggested that the program should be reviewed and revised where necessary, as part of this effort; pointed out the concepts of the proposal that she does not support; and asked if the Public Art Advisory Board will provide any input on this proposal. 10:46:59 P.M. Responding to PB Chair Normile's question, Senior Planner Smith explained that the Pubic Art Advisory Board was not involved because staff was directed by the City Commission to work on this Zoning Text Amendment; said that he agrees with what was said, but he thinks that the Public Art Advisory Board should be involved during the rewrite process that will follow, as the City will be developing a much larger program, and the Public Art Master Plan. 10:48:54 P.M. PB Member Morriss asked about the possibility of the proposed amendment not being adopted and losing the opportunity to address Ms. Hoffman's concerns. Senior Planner Smith stated that there is a good chance of the proposed text amendment being approved because staff was directed by the City Commission to do this. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 24 PBI Morriss expressed concern about public art funds paying for staff; and asked when the proposed text would be revised to make sure that the comments they received are integrated. 10:49:54 P.M. Director Cover stated that staff is working on an Ordinance independent of this application to address some other issues in the pubic art criteria, and they can try to incorporate the comments and address concerns then; and added that they will include the Public Art Committee in the process then. 10:50:32 P.M. PB Member Gannon expressed concern about increasing the floor from $250,000 dollars to $1 million dollars, because this would eliminate a lot of projects which could bring art to the other parts of the community. Discussion ensued relating to the floor of the construction of value of contributing projects. 10:56:33 P.M. 2. Allison Ficker- spoke in support of citywide public art, and said she supports offering choices to the developers in providing their support for public art. PB Member Morriss asked how the value is determined relative to what the cash value would have been in a fee, when people propose to provide a piece of art on their property. Senior Planner Smith described the process. PB Member Morriss asked if anyone gets audited about these expenses. Senior Planner Smith said "No," and explained the payment process. 11:03:22 P.M. PB Member Gannon suggested the preparation of a staff analysis showing the economic impact of the proposed changes on the public art funds that will be collected by the City. Director Cover stated that if the Planning Board moved forward with PB Vice Chair Blumetti's recommendation, staff would have to prepare such an economic impact analysis prior to going to the City Commission. Discussion ensued. A motion was made by PB Member Ohlrich, and seconded by PB Vice Chair Blumetti, to find 19-ZTA-05 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval to the City Commission, with the recommendations to change threshold from $250,000 dollars to $1 million dollars, and to remove the cap of $50 million dollars. The motion carried with a vote of 5 to 0. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 24 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. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 11:08:24 P.M. Director Cover [Planning Board Secretaryl asked the Planning Board Members if they want the first of the Selby Gardens hearing, scheduled for September 18, 2019, to start at 1:30 P.M. versus 6:00 P.M. because there may be a possibility to get done in one day. Discussion ensued. The Planning Board declined this suggestion. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 11:10:56 P.M. 1. Planning Board Rules of Procedure PB Chair Normile asked if the Planning Board Members want to discuss the Planning Board Rules of Procedure at another meeting and not at this late hour this evening. PB Member Ohlrich stated that this was put on this evening's agenda at her request, but she thinks it would better if it were discussed at another time. PB Chair Normile asked that this item be included on the agenda for the September Planning Board meeting. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Normile asked if the Planning Board Members had any comments to share. 11:14:11 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich commented on the presentation of the Planning Board Report to the City Commission on July 1, 2019; her statement is attached. PB. Member Morriss referred to his letter regarding the presentation of the Planning Board Report to the City Commission on July 1, 2019 City Commission Meeting, and he read the letter into the record (a copy of which is attached hereto). PB Member Gannon referred to the presentation of the Planning Board Report to the City Commission on July 1, 2019; stated his disappointment about the fact that the concerns that were raised were ignored, while the persons who brought them forward were Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting July 10, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 24 attacked; and expressed concerns about the City's ability to function in a continuous improvement mode. PB Vice Chair Blumetti expressed respect for his fellow Planning Board Members; and suggested that they put the events of the July 1, 2019 City Commission meeting behind them and move forward. PB Chair Normile said the she also wrote a letter regarding the presentation of the Planning Board Report to the City Commission on July 1, 2019, which she submitted to the record for this evening's PB Meeting (a copy of which is attached hereto); read a statement into the record (a copy of which is attached hereto); noted the Planning Board will not meet again until September; said in the meantime she will review her notes and video tapes of discussions relating to the subject matter discussed on July 1st; and said she will keep all PB Members updated about her findings. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P. M. Aermla Steven R. Cover, Planning Director EILEEN W. NORMILE, CHAIR Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board] Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Statement Read during Board Member Comments July 10, 2019 First of all, I'd like to thank the other members of the PB. I know how much preparation you do in advance of our meetings; I know, that you take our job seriously and weigh decisions based on the authority granted the PB by the Sarasota City Plan and the Zoning Code, not on politics. I'm honored to sit at this table with you. - don't really know what to say about what happened at the CC meeting last week. We were led to believe we had found common ground regarding avenues to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of code enforcement to suggest to the CC. At the CC meeting the PB was audaciously ambushed. I know that in the many years I have been involved in government and governance at the local, state, and national levels, have never before been ambushed. I also know that had I been able to remain at the meeting to the end of our agenda item, I would have offered to tender my resignation. After careful consideration, I know that is not my path. I will not resign. I have lost trust in and respect for those who orchestrated and perpetrated the ambush and for those commissioners who issued uninformed and unwarranted criticisms of our Board. As we go forward, will continue to work with them but I'I keep my eyes wide open. I will continue to prepare and participate to the best of my ability, and continue to make decisions based on authority granted the PB by The City Plan and the Zoning Code, never based on politics. morciss READ at July 10th, 2019 meeting It's clear that much of the controversy and dissatisfaction has come from thin staffing and the failing of the code itself: vague language, absent standards and other flaws in the process itself, particularly inadequately addressed compatibility standards- all of which is lawsuit food. Without a clear strong code that reflects what we as an ENTIRE community want, one that includes lessons learned from past mistakes, an additional public process is an exercise in divisiveness and futility. Sensible, inclusive, predictable process with standards that preserve the walkability and ground- level experience of Sarasota's citizens and visitors while enhancing Sarasota's skyline for her admirers. Sounds simple, huh? Between the five year long aborted form-based code process ( that massive waste of millions of dollars and thousands of man hours) and the continuing serious damage to any degree of trust between parties, how can these reasonable goals be reached? Certainly not by extremists or by divisive foaming masquerading as leadership discourse. The community is looking to the City Commission and advisory boards for leadership. When members of the City Commission confuse insults and innuendo with leadership, there's no chance the real thing can take root. Solving any of these problems will require strong, inclusive leadership to bring all the parties together for a common purpose- to find that middle ground... find that common ground where people share the realization that Sarasota is a multifaceted jewel and walk as smart line between profit, progress and preservation. Our job is to do the best possible version of a city... and that's where the focus should be. Mocriss, The notion of the Planning Board currently being directly involved in monitoring code enforcement was crushed and ground into the dirt by Counsel using the zoning ordinance list of the Planning Board's duties, responsibilities and power clearly outlined. However, the reality still remains that, on several occasions, public testimony has exposed conçerns that the proffers conditioning approval will not be fully or properly enforced and whether construction safety measures will be observed and enforced. If the Planning Board approves a project over such objections, it follows that the Planning Board does indeed have a stake in monitoring both categories of code enforcement. This is a request to the City Commission to empower a process to answer those concerns and thereby allow the Planning Board to confidently assert in the affirmative when such questions arise. It would be useful to ask these questions of ourselves: What is the level of code enforcement the community wants and where are the lines between maintaining community standards and harassment? Is staffing adequate in these categories to both maintain community standards and, more importantly, community safety? Wherel who are the chronic offenders? Are the fines and penalties reasonable and if so, are they high enough, particularly for chronic offenders? Are other fees and assessments high enough to assure the highest efficiency and urgency when it comes to public right of ways being closed or compromised? What is the cost to the community for unkempt properties? What is the role of the special magistrate and where is the line between fair treatment and laxity detrimental to the community? Are there problematic relationships between staff and offenders? Arriving at answers to these questions alone would consume a tremendous amount of time; we recommend an advisory panel be empowered assembled to thoroughly review and answer these and other questions. We further recommend that the panel be comprised of City police, city staff, neighborhood representatives, citizens, other advisory board representatives (Nuisance abatement, Planning Board, perhaps Board of Adjustment) and business owners. And, most important, that the entire process happen over the next six months. July 5, 2019 Dear Commissioners: I felt it was incumbent on me to speak directly to you after Monday's meeting but for days I found myself without words. Ispeak only for myself but I do SO with great sadness for what you have done to my fellow board members for whom I have the utmost respect. The following comments are not aimed at Vice Mayor Jen Ahearn- Koch or Commissioner Willie Shaw. This week the Planning Board was an unwilling participant in the theater of the absurd-ambushed by staff members, verbally abused by Hagen Brody and lectured by the Mayor. Iti is beyond comprehension how anyone could stand by and watch Mr. Brody's tirade without stopping him. The fact that you are sitting behind the dais, whether you hold the gavel or not, does not excuse you from normal civility or from demanding that the code of conduct be enforced. In factyou, as city leaders, should hold yourselves to a higher standard. But you don't. At City Commission meetings the code of conduct appears to be selectively enforced to favor friends and political allies. Perhaps you are all becoming immune to Mr. Brody's abusive conduct. Itis frequently on display. Abusive behavior does not confer authority. Neither does authority give license for such behavior--either in front ofthe camera or behind the scenes. His comments would almost be funny ifthey were not SO misguided and delivered with such venom. In just one example on Monday, Mr. Brody proudly built his case for Planning Board incompetence on the number of"proffers" (i.e. conditions) that the board places on conditional use approvals. He characterized these conditions as "not based on evidence, impulsive, quasi-political and without proper restraint. a Well, Mr. Brody, those conditions are not generated by the Planning Board. They are written and recommended by City planning staff after extensive discussions with the applicant. I'm sure staff will be happy to hear your suggestions for better management of conditional uses but I suggest you actually understand the procedure before trying to manage it. It is hard for me to comprehend how our elected officials could simply dismiss suggestions brought to them by one of their most important advisory boards- possibly the only advisory board mandated by state law. It was not for ourselves that we initiated a request to improve code enforcement. We were bringing to you citizen concerns that we have heard for several years. You have now dismissed those concerns out of! hand. And insulted the messenger. Good job. Which brings me to staff's performance in Monday's theatrical production. Both Mr. Litchet's and Mr. Connolly's orchestrated appearances were impressive. The Planning Board has suffered through Mr. Connolly's dramatic reading of Planning Board duties once before but Mr. Litchet's use of his staff as props was a new low. In addition, Mr. Litchet's responses to Commissioner questions ran contrary to prior statements he has made both privately and publicly. The story changed with the audience. Rather than embracing the offer of more assistance for his overworked department or discussing other potential improvements to the code enforcement process, Mr. Litchet chose to play the part of victim of a nonexistent insult. Iti is a great tactic to change the subject. linvite anyone to watch the Planning Board hearings ofthe past 61 months. You will NEVER see a single unkind word about the Code Enforcement staff. It would be a good idea for Commissioners to have all the facts before buying into the drama. As the Chair ofthis board, I could not be more proud oft the way we have conducted ourselves (sometimes in the face of repeated loudly delivered harangues by Mr. Connolly). Every decision we make comports with the Standards of Review in the zoning code. Every member of this board studies the thick binders of complicated material before each meeting. Every member ofthis group--volunteers: all--has made significant personal sacrifices in order to serve on this time-consuming board. We take the work ofthe "local planning agency" very seriously. As I told the Commission on Monday, "The Planning Board is prepared, professional and productive. We treat each other and everyone else in attendance with respect." That's the way it's supposed to be done. The next Planning Board meeting is this Wednesday, July 10th. I am not looking forward to interacting with the staff that colluded in an attempt to publicly humiliate this board. But it is with the utmost confidence that I can say that the five Planning Board members will still be professional in our demeanor and prepared for the tasks assigned to us. It is for that reason and for the solidarity I feel with my fellow board members that I will not be resigning at this time. Very truly yours, Eileen Walsh Normile Normile Statement to the Planning Board 7/10/19 Thank you all for your comments. Ithink your outrage is entirely justified. As you know I also wrote a letter to the City Commissioners expressing my disgust about the way the July 1st City Commission meeting was handled but instead of reading it, I would like to place it into the record in writing SO that it appears online with the background documents where anyone had access to it. First I'd like to say how proud I am to work with this Board. I've been on many a committee and it's a rare occurrence that a group of people jell the way this one has. I don't mean that we all vote the same-we don't. What I mean is that every person has a particular expertise that compliments everyone else's. We respect each other and we all work with the common goal of doing what is right FOR THE CITY. It'sa bit ofa dream- team in my estimation. I think we were all taken by surprise on July 1st. I don't think any of us are SO thin skinned that we cannot handle a difference of opinion but this was not that. The drama was almost funny ifit weren't SO unprofessional. It was unworthy of senior staff. Orany staff. Then we were subjected to the City Commission itself. Several members were able to feed offt the faux fury coming from staff. Hagen Brody was especially delighted to share his thoughts with us. So I'll share my thoughts. Mr. Brody is abusive. He is consistently abusive - to other City Commission members, to people who appear before him, to people who meet with him in private. Ofcourse, the fact that he attempted to destroy the credibility oft this board was the worst ofit. He was not successtul in that. I think we were all a bit confused by Mr. Litchet's change of story from what he told us at our PB meetings to what he told the City Commission. He told us about his need for more staff, for more expertise for update ofthe codes. This is Mr. Litchet verbatim from the July 1 meeting with the City Commission. (See #1-7/1/19) I hope you have all had an opportunity to view the video oft the City Commission's: July 8th budget hearings at which he requested one additional planner and no other additional staff. (See #2-7/8/19). Is it any wonder everyone's confused. In that same budget workshop, City Manager Tom Barwin committed to have quote "a full robust conversation" with the Chair of the PB about our perceptions and with Mr. Litchet to get his perceptions. He committed to the Commission to do that within 30 days. Since we will not be meeting again until September, I will commit to you to go back over our discussions regarding code enforcement of the past months and to bring your suggestions to Mr. Barwin. And I will make every attempt to keep you updated possibly by writing a short report that can be sent by email to the board. I want to thank you again. It's been an exciting 7 months and we all deserve some vacation time. See you in September.