CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY June 12, 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 Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Normile called the order to meeting. Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department [Acting Planning Board Secretary] and conducted the roll call. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY PB Chair Normile passed the gavel, and made a motion requesting that the order of this evening's agenda be changed sO that the scheduling of the Selby issue is discussed first. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. General Manager Chapdelain stated that staff has heard from city residents about the Special PB Meeting regarding Selby in July;added that it was challenging to find a date that is good for the Selby team, City staff, the Planning Board, attorneys, and the venue because iti is summer time, but they have shifted some things, and they will be able to hold the Selby meeting on the date of the Regular Planning Board Meeting, on July 10, 2019, when they can have the full Planning Board at that meeting; noted that there are two more: items scheduled on that meeting, the Humane Society Site Plan and the Auteur Street Vacation; said that he spoke to both agents and the applicants for those projects and both oft them have no problem rescheduling their presentation to the afternoon of July 10, 2019 in a Special PB meeting or going to the Special PB Meeting on July 22, 2019; noted that there are three other City initiated items, three Zoning Text Amendments, that will be moved to the July 22, 2019 meeting; and concluded that Selby will be held on July 10, 2019 at the Regular PB Meeting. PB Chair Normile took the gavel and asked if anyone had any comments about taking on the Selby issue in July. Attorney Connolly stated that he had expressed to Director Cover several times that he has to leave at 9:00 PM on July 10, 2019; added that he doubts the PB Meeting will adjourn prior to 9:00 PM, particularly if Selby is on the agenda; explained that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 46 both he and Attorney Fournier will go the Florida Municipal Attorneys' Association Meeting because they have to keep certified; added that it starts on Thursday morning, July 11, 2019, in Palm Beach; said Mr. Fournier is going over on Wednesday night, and he will go on Thursday morning, but he cannot drive across SR 70 without some sleep the night before; said that Mr. John Shamsey could come and take over at 9:00 PM, and asked if the Planning Board would want to do the Selby public hearing with Mr. Shamsey. PB Chair Normile stated that she would not want that and asked the other PB Members if they have any comments on that. PB Member Morriss stated that he did not want that either; added that the emails that were sent out expressed concerns about having such a significant meeting in July when half of the population is gone, and there are hurricanes and issues like that; pointed out that they prefer it took place later, when more people are in town; and asked what is the possibility of that. General Manager Chapdelain stated that Selby is not interested in going beyond July; explained that July would be their regular meeting per the development application schedule, and they want to hold the meeting in July, whether it is on July 10th or July 22nd, they want the meeting in July to keep track of their schedule. PB Member Ohlrich asked what happens if they do not follow their schedule; and asked if their application expires ori is itj just their wish to hold the meeting in July. General Manager Chapdelain stated that according to the development application schedule, the applicants are with the understanding that their meeting before the Planning Board will be held in July. PB Member Ohlrich recalled the time when the very important matter of the Form Based Code was to be discussed by the City, the residents, and all kinds of organizations and committees, and they delayed, and delayed, and delayed those meetings, sO that more people could participate in the discussions; and added that she does not think it is a good idea to hold the meeting on such a consequential project during the summer months. General Manager Chapdelain noted that the difference is that this is a privately initiated application, unlike the Form Based Code, which was a public initiated application. PB Member Morris stated that he is also uncomfortable not having the Planning Board's regular representation available; and explained that it is a big deal, and the Planning Board needs someone who is familiar with the Planning Board, and whom the Planning Board trusts to be here. PB Chair Normile noted that she had a conversation via e-mail with Attorney Connolly, and, as it turns out, it is the Planning Board that decides when the meetings are scheduled, not the staff or the applicants. PB Chair Normile passed the gavel, and she withdrew her earlier motion. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked what the problem with July 22 is; noting that one of the PBN Members is not available that evening, however there is a quorum. PBMember Gannon stated that he wants his voice to be heard. PB Chair Normile stated that she does not think that a meeting on an issue such as this, of this consequence, should take place without all five PB Members present; and added that PB Member Blumetti is expecting a baby, and he may not be available that evening as well. All PB Members concurred. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 46 PB Chair Normile moved to have the meeting on Selby scheduled only on the days that all five PB: Members can be in attendance. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there are other dates in July. PB Chair Normile stated that she was told no other dates were available. General Manager Chapdelain asked for the dates when all five PB Members would be available; and pointed out that in addition to the Planning Board he also has to consider the availability of staff, the venue, and the Selby team's availability. PB Chair Normile said that the Planning Board has worked around staff vacations and other responsibilities, Selby's vacations and other responsibilities, and not the Planning Board; added that they are doing four meetings in the month of June, on an extremely complicated and consequential appeal, and to roll immediately into another consequential issue, she thinks it is not doing it justice. PB Member Morriss suggested that a date in September be considered; added that it may not go over very well, but this will make sure that all PB Members can be in attendance. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if all possible dates in July have been looked at. PB Member Gannon noted that staff called him to find out when he is available, and he gave several dates, but then either the Commission Chambers or other parties were not available. Discussion ensued about potential meeting dates in July. PB Chair Normile said she would rather push the meeting to September; added that the Planning Board is coming off this appeal, the third date of the appeal is June 18, she is not convinced that it will be the last day of the appeal, sO it could go into the next week or later in that week, and then the Planning Board is in the month of July; and concluded that she would rather have the meeting in September. PB Member Gannon agreed. PB Chair Normile moved to have staff look to schedule the Selby meeting in September or later. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said he still thinks that it should happen in July as he would rather get it over with; and noted that is the applicant's wish. PB Member Morriss said that they do not call it. PB Chair Normile concurred. The motion passes, with a vote of 4 to 1. PB Members considered various dates in September for the Selby meeting. Discussion ensued, PB Members considered dates in September for the Selby meeting. Discussion ensued, and by consensus the PB agreed to September 18, with a secondary date of September 25, 2019 for the Selby meetings. PB Chair thanked all and explained that this does not favor anyone, rather it is giving everyone due process. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TOTHE 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 June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 46 A. Reading of the Pledge of Conduct General Manager Chapdelain [Acting Planning Board Secretary] read the Pledge of Conduct. PB Chair Normile requested everyone silences their cell phones and stated that the Pledge of Conduct applies to all present on both sides of the table. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for the presentations time limits and administered the oath to all present who intended to testify this evening. B. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. Sarasota Hope House (1872 18th Street): Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 18-ROA-02, Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-17 and Minor Conditional Use Application No. 18-MCU-03 are a request for approval of a Rezone Ordinance Amendment to modify previously approved Ordinance No. 03-4491 for property located at 1872 18th Street, known as Sarasota Hope House, by removing the proffered site plan which was approved as part of the Ordinance approval. Applicant is requesting approval of a new Site Plan (18-SP-17) to enclose an existing covered patio for use as a sanctuary and Minor Conditional Use approval to expand the operation of a religious institution. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Attorney Connolly noted that there are no applications for affected person status relating to this application. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Don Neu introduced himself for the record; noted that the Planning Board members have before them an existing site, a revised ordinance, and a Minor Conditional Use for al house of worship; stated that it is on 18th Street, the property is known as the Sarasota Hope House, Inc.; added that the project site is approximately 1.4 acres, and currently there is a church on the site; noted that the existing land use is Religious Institution, and the application is for a Conditional Use and Site Plan Approval for minor modifications to the site; pointed out on the aerial map the site location on Gillespie Avenue between 17th and 18th Streets; stated that there is an existing facility, existing parking lot, and existing stormwater system; added that everything is already there, they arej just making some minor changes; said that the existing land uses include social services, some industrial uses, and some houses of worship, in accordance with the zoning category; showed pictures of the existing structure; said that they plan to improve on the existing landscaping; showed a picture of the structure from Gillespie Avenue, and pointed out the breezeway they are planning to enclose; noted that this started a couple years ago, when the applicants came for a building permit to enclose the breezeway, and they were told that the zoning is for social services, and they need a Conditional Use approval if they are, going to use the site for a house of worship; pointed out that the parking is code compliant, and they are refreshing it with a code compliant landscape plan; noted that Mr. Smith is the landscape architect; showed the building and the location of the breezeway to be enclosed; said that Mr. Anderson is the architect; showed a floor plan Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 46 of the area to be used for worship; summarized they intend to enclose the breezeway, improve the landscaping, and bring the zoning into compliance. for a House of Worship; and noted that both the Architect and the Landscape Architect are in the audience to respond to questions. PBMember Ohlrich asked if the white fence with the ramp for handicapped accessibility will remain. Mr. Neu said, "Yes." PBMember Gannon referred to page 30 of the materials, the Hope House Use Statement; noted that the hours of using the facility are different than the hours of the previously approved use for the site; referred to the last sentence of the statement that reads as follows: - Please note that the activities mentioned are intended for internal use only, this facility will not be rented or used for commercial purposes to outside entities... and asked if this precludes any outside entities that are not a member of the church. Mr. Neu explained that staff asked if the offices will be for internal use or they will be rented out to other entities for commercial purposes, sO they have included that statement for clarification; and added that the offices are an auxiliary use to the church, and will not be rented to other organizations. PB Member Gannon stated that in terms of many religious facilities, and having served on the Board of Trustees of one them, often times facilities are rented out to neighborhood associations, or the rooms are made available for free, as a donation, to anonymous organizations, such as AA, as a good neighborhood facility, and he asked if such activities will be precluded. Mr. Neu stated that regular activities for a house of worship or a religious institution for the neighborhood will take place; explained that the statement refers to renting those square footages out to other organizations; and noted the information was: necessary for the calculation of the parking, etc. Staff Presentation: Planner Dan Greenberg introduced himself for the record; stated that the applicant is requesting the approval of a Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 18-ROA- 02, Minor Conditional Use Application No. 18-MCU-03, and Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-17; said the property is in the (ORD) Zone District, and has a land use classification of Community Office/Institutional: pointed out that on the south side of the building there is an existing patio, which was used by the prior community service facility; stated that the applicants are proposing to enclose the outdoor covered area SO that they can convert it into a sanctuary; noted that site plan approval is requested to increase the building area by 2,137 sq. ft., up to a total of 5,529 sq. ft., however the existing building footprint will remain unchanged; added that the Minor Conditional Use approval is requested as required pursuant Section VI - 402 Zoning Code, to allow Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 46 the religious institution in the ORD Zone District; pointed out that the applicant has requested to amend prior Rezone Ordinance No. 03-4491 to eliminate the previously approved religious facility use, to remove the prior conditions of approval that were associated with that prior use, and to supersede the prior site plan that was proffered as part of that Rezone Ordinance; stated that the proposed development complies with all applicable development standards for the ORD District; said that landscaping is to be provided along each of the property boundaries as well as in the interior parking lot, pursuant to Section VII-204 of the Zoning Code; pointed out that the three trees that are proposed for removal are either dead or are decaying; noted that a total of 24 trees and three palms are proposed to be planted; stated that there are three grand trees on the site, none of which are proposed to be removed; noted that staff has reviewed the proposed petitions against all applicable development standards for review for rezones, conditional uses and site plans and has found them to comply with all the applicable standards; and concluded that staff is recommending approval of the petitions subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. PB Member Gannon referred to the last paragraph on page one of staff's report, to the sentence beginning with "A community workshop zuas held on July 18, 2018 however there were no members from the community in attendance. "and asked who else was in attendance at that meeting. Planner Greenberg stated that the applicant and City staff were present at the meeting. PB Member Gannon noted that the workshop was held in City Hall instead of a location closer to the site. Planner Greenberg concurred. General Manager Chapdelain explained that workshops need to take place in City Hall because they need to be recorded using the Granicus system that is in place there. PB Member Gannon asked if that is required by the Code for community workshops. General Manager Chapdelain said that working with the Clerk's Office is the requirement, it is recorded, it is posted on the website and anyone can have access to the recording and listen to the meeting. PB Member Gannon stated that he understands that, but the questions do not get asked if the public are not present; added that his comments are not specific to this petition, but it is not the first time this has occurred, and he is sure that staff, others, and the applicants do not like to plan, spend time, sit there, and nobody shows up; requested that staff look into this and the reasons for which it continues to happen, and asked if is it the location; added that if there is a need for recording, he thinks in this high-tech era, there is a way to record stuff, and may do that in a facility that can capture that recording; repeated that he would like staff to look into that, sO that the community has the opportunity to provide input, and there is no waste of staff and applicant time; expressed appreciation for the way staff has packaged this application, the way the background information was organized, and the way the other considerations were presented; and concluded that staff did an excellent job on that. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there are any signage requirements for this site. Planner Greenberg said that there are no signage requirements, and explained that there are signage review standards, which will apply when they file for a permit; and added that there are sign requirements for the ORD District to be applied at a later time. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 46 PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there should be a notice on the property about tonight's meeting. General Manager Chapdelain stated that there is a sign on the property. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he visited the site the night before this meeting and he did not see it. PB Chair Normile asked the Planning Board members to disclose any ex-parte communications. PB Vice Chair Blumetti disclosed he visited the site by himself, and that he spoke with staff. PB Chair Normile disclosed a site visit with staff; referred to the bottom of page 5 of the staff analysis, where it states: 1 the community service facility will be prohibited, which means community service use is no longer necessary.. "and asked what community service uses would not be allowed any longer. Planner Greenberg stated that the agent described the use as social services, however the City's terminology is community service facility, noting they are the same thing. PB Chair Normile said that churches do social services. Planner Greenberg confirmed that the churches can do community outreach. Attorney Connolly noted that the applicant in 2003 was Gifts from God, their primary responsibility was to feed the homeless, this was the location where they were distributing food, and that was the community service use that was approved back 2003. PB Chair Normile asked if this is required when the church reaches out in the community. Planner Greenberg explained that what they are proposing is something that would comply with the definition of an accessory use; noted thati it is not something that would be a principal use of the property which would need conditional use approval; explained that it is similar to an office in the back of a restaurant, you do not need approval for that small office space, it is part of the restaurant; added that if the applicant chooses to do "community outreach, for lack of better term, and it is not something that would be considered an accessory to the use as defined in the Zoning Code, it would then be considered to be a principal use, and, in order to CO-locate a principal use, one needs conditional use approval; said this has to do with the size, the operation being subordinate to the principal use, and things like that; added that if what the applicants are doing is allowing the office space for the use of an occasional AA meeting, that is not a principal use for a community service facility. Public Input: There was none. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss moved to adopt a motion to find Rezone Ordinance Amendment 18-ROA-02 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and proffered Site Plan 18-SP-17 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions subject to the following conditions: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 46 1. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. The site plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed structure and site layout shall be in compliance with those labeled Hope House, received by the Development Services Department on April 29, 2019. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. PB Vice Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PB Member Ohlrich moved to adopt a motion to find Minor Conditional Use 18-MCU- 03 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code and approve the petition subject to the following condition: 1. Approval of Minor Conditional Use Application 18-MCU-03 is contingent upon the approval by the City Commission of applications 18-ROA-02 and 18-SP- 17. The effective date of the approval of Application 18-MCU-03 will be the date of adoption on second reading of the ordinance which approves Applications 18- ROA-02 and 18-SP-17. PB Vice Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. North Trail Apartments (2413 & 2344 N. Tamiami Trail): Site Plan Application No. 18- SP-20 is a request for Site Plan approval to construct a 4-story, 47 unit multi-family development on an approximately 1.4 acre parcel located on the northwest corner of North Tamiami Trail and 24th Street with street addresses of 2413 & 2433 N Tamiami Trail in the North Trail (NT) zone district and the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD). (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Attorney Connolly stated that there are five applications for affected person' status; called the following names: John Olenski, Laura Campbell, Karen Stack, Peter Schelhorn, and recommended that they be granted affected person's status, because they meet the criteria; Attorney Connolly also called Mr. Donald Farr; explained that Mr. Farr had submitted to be the designated representative for his Homeowner's Association; pointed out that the notice requires, and it is written in all bold and all caps, that one must have written authorization signed by the person in the association one represents; noted that there was no such written authorization, and therefore Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 46 recommended that the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Association not be granted affected person's status; and summarized that the fouri individuals be granted "affected person's" status, but not the neighborhood association. PB Member Morriss stated that he understands the procedural situation, but Mr. Farr should at least be allowed to speak. Attorney Connolly agreed, and explained that he only recommended not granting Mr. Farr affected person's status. The recommendations were accepted by the Planning Board members by consensus. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Bruce Franklin, Agent for the owner Tempo Enterprises, LLC, introduced himself for the record, and introduced Mr. Parker, the Architect; stated that this property was the location of the old Monterey Hotel, which had approximately 12-15 rooms, and there was a two story wood frame house that was converted to a Kayak rental business; said that all of those have been demolished; referred to the Location Aerial Map and pointed out that the property is bound to the east by US 41, on the west by the Indian Hills Sapphire Shores neighborhood, across the street on US 41 is the Ringling School of Art, on the north there is a Starbucks under construction, and on the south is 24th Street; and added that the subject parcel is at the northeast quadrant of US 41 and 24th Street, and is currently vacant, as the buildings have been demolished. Mr. Parker added that a single-family home is still there, but it will be removed as part of this process. Mr. Franklin noted that the property is zoned North Trail (NT), and it is in the Community Commercial land use classification oft the Comprehensive Plan; pointed out that across the street on US 41 the properties are Zoned ORD, and it is the location of the Ringling College of Art and Design; added that on the west the land use classification is Multi-Family, Medium Density, zoned RSF-3, it is the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores (IBSS) neighborhood; stated that originally this application was filed for 46 apartments, the property is 1.36 acres, at 35 du/acre, under the NT District it can have 47 units, they were going to keep the house and build 46 units, but because of site design issues, primarily to save six grand trees on site, and trying to work on site circulation particularly related to waste removal and waste truck circulation, it was decided to demolish the house and build 47 apartments which is the density permitted in the NT District; noted that they are utilizing the North Trail Overlay District section of the Code, which permits increased building height and reduced parking requirements allowing for only one parking space per unit; noted that the applicants exceed that, and they are providing 1.5 parking spaces per unit; said that the units are oriented towards 24th Street and one of them is oriented towards US 41; said that the setback is 135 ft. from the residential area to the west; pointed to the building oriented towards 24th Street, and stated that it is a double loaded corridor building; pointed to the location of pedestrian access both to N. Tamiami Trail and to 24th Street; said that there is a swimming pool, and restrooms; noted that this is intended as a residential rental apartment project; indicated on the site plan the location oft the dumpster; pointed to the location of the six grand trees to be saved and said that they raised the sidewalk to a boardwalk to work around two of the grand trees and to protect the root system of the trees at the southeast corner of the property on 24th Street. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 46 Mr. Parker spoke about the building; stated that the project is a four story apartment building, the potential residents are the students right across the street, and further up on the street where there are two more colleges; added that it is a nice location for some of the workforce downtown; noted that the grand trees along 24th Street are spectacular and they placed the boardwalk around them; said that Mr. Smith, the Landscape Architect, has done a masterful job; noted that the buildings are masonry buildings, unlike some of the more recent buildings around; said the exterior finish will be a very light color, with siding on one plane and stucco on the other to give it a little bit of a subtle relief, and the trim on the porches which face the front will be darker for contrast; said that all the air conditioning units are hidden inside the roof by a recessed wall; added that it is a pretty attractive building, with the landscaping; noted that the North Trail Overlay District requires celebration of the corners, which they did; and pointed out that there are two ways of pedestrian access for the students to come to the property. PB Chair Normile asked the PB Members if they had any ex-parte communications relative to this project. PB Member Morriss said that he is on the Board of the IBSS and he co-authored the North Trail Overlay; and added that he asked to be excluded from the conversation relative to the IBSS Board's position on this project, SO he has no idea what they are going to say. PB Chair Normile disclosed that she toured the site with staff, and PB Vice Chair Blumetti disclosed that he spoke with staff and toured the site on his own. Mr. Franklin stated that he was in touch with Ms. Johnson, who was the president of the IBSSA Board, the two had a conversation about the plans, he forwarded her everything and offered to meet with the Board or anybody up there, but they said they were not interested or it was not necessary; added that he also made a presentation to the North Trail Partnership, which was very well received; and concluded that the applicants are: in agreement with the five stipulations on page 4 of the staff report. PB Member Ohlrich asked about the building on North Tamiami Trail, just south of 25th Street, the white office building with a lot of glass, it is on the same block as the applicant's S project; and asked what it is. Mr. Parker said that there is a new Starbucks' being built, to compete with Dunkin Donuts across the street. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the street to the west of Tamiami Trail, noted that there are some single family residences which are set back from the street more than the other residences, putting them in closer proximity to the property line of this project, and asked if the applicant knew what she is describing. Mr. Franklin said that she may be referring to the house on the property that they will remove; and added that there is a substantial building setback west of the proposed buildings. PB Member Ohlrich asked about the proximity of the single-family building to the project line. Mr. Parker stated that the three lots immediately west of the project are 50-ftl lots, with a 30-ft wide house, leaving approximately 10-ft between the house and the project's property line. PB Member Ohlrich asked about the long lot immediately north of the three lots, noting that the residence on this lot is also set back. Mr. Franklin stated that this lot has a substantial buffer of its own and a lot of trees as well. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 46 PB Member Morriss stated that he is also affiliated with the North Trail Partnership; stated that the concept behind the North Trail Overlay was to find ways to incentivize positive development with some parking relief in exchange for a higher quality product;noted that thea applicants are showing siding on this rendering, and the concept was well received; said that Mr. Franklin has stated that the corner celebration was adequate and there may be a difference of opinion there; asked about the concept of using siding over block; and said he does not understand the rational about that, because when you have block you stucco. Mr. Parker stated that the client wanted mostly stucco, but he wanted to add some relief because stucco is too plain; added that there is a lot of movement in this building, and where there is an inset there will be some panels, maybe a 10 ft. section of siding that is white; and said it is like embossing the stationary. PB Member Morriss stated that the footprint sounds like it is set, and it is placed in the way the Overlay wanted to see it, close to the street, helps the flow of traffic, it is away from the neighborhood, etc., but the design does not look like it is fully set, and since design is part of the Overlay standards, he asked how does the Planning Board know what they are approving. Mr. Parker said that they have shown the design of the building, but they have not shown every material for finish; and asked if that is a stipulation. PB Member Morriss stated that it is part of the Overlay, talking about the general design being part of the approval, that is what the tradeoff was, to heighten design relative to the benefits that are provided. Mr. Franklin stated that he knows it is a standard for review under Division V,Site Plan Review of the Zoning Code, item #3, the response to which is on page 7 of the staff report, which talks about accurate descriptions of the use of the structures, density, location, etc., setbacks, architectural design, and performance characteristics. PB Member Morriss suggested to wait until staff has a chance to talk, because this will be processed by them; and said that it seems there will be a variation from what is shown and what will be built. Mr. Parker said that there will be some variation, where the balconies are shown, but to tell what color itis or what finish on the stucco, whether it is heavy-texture stucco, they did not provide that information because they did not understand it was necessary. General Manager Chapdelain noted that the Overlay is silent in terms of finish materials; and noted the applicant stated that they will use stucco accented with siding, and this does not speak to anything more than that. Mr. Parker said that this is what he also understood, otherwise he would come to the meeting with a color rendering. PB member Morriss said that they will be looking at this for a long time; said that he knows that both Mr. Parker and the neighborhood want to have a good project; added that he wants to know that they have taken it as far out as possible; and asked how this can be done. PB Member Gannon referred to invitations to interact with the neighborhood associations; said that there was no required community workshop; and noted that the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 46 applicants reached out to the neighborhood and another organization. Mr. Franklin said that he reached out to the North Trail Partnership, which is commercial property owners along the North Trail who are working to promote development, and his outreach with the community was that he asked Mr. Chapdelain for the name of a representative of the neighborhood association, and then Mr. Franklin personally called her, emailed her the plans, and offered to meet with them, but she never got back to him. PB Member Gannon referred to the drawings for the setbacks, Sheet VII-1.00, focusing at the intersection of 24th Street and US 41, and noted that the buildings have a 10 ft. setback from the property line. Mr. Parker stated that the minimum setl back is 10: ft. and the maximum is 20 ft. in the North Trail Overlay; added that the nominal dimension is the 10 ft. to the farthest piece of a porch or a projection; and added that the building is moving in and out, so the setback varies from 1 Oft., to 12 ft., to 15 ft. PB Member Gannon noted that this provides variety and one does not look at a solid wall as one is walking along the sidewalk. Mr. Parker stated that the landscape has little pockets; added on 24th Street a good portion of the side walk, which is a boardwalk to protect the root of the trees, is located on private property, because there was no way to put that on the public area without harming the trees; and noted there is a stipulation addressing easements at that location. PB Member Gannon stated that this is creative, and it is addressing the need to make it walkable; referred to the tree inventory, and the two sets of numbers of existing trees, one is on page 26 of the report provided by Mr. Smith, Landscape Architect, and the other is what is showing in the landscape drawings; added that the question primarily relates to the three live oaks #11, #12, and #13, also shown on Sheet L-01; pointed out that the two inventories are different; and asked if they could identify which is the correct one that they will be approving. Mr. Smith, Landscape Architect, identified himself for the record; stated that Sheet L-01 shows trees #11 and #12 to be removed but the photographic image shows tree #12 to be preserved, which is incorrect; added that the tree needs to be removed, because it is in the middle of the drive aisle, SO the plan is incorrect. PB Member Gannon pointed out that there are a lot of pictures of tree #11 demonstrating that it is diseased. Mr. Smith explained that tree #12 is in the center of the drive aisle working around the grand trees and the parking lot, SO the smaller tree was sacrificed to save the grand trees. PB Member Gannon noted that they are preserving five grand trees. Mr. Smith stated that they are preserving six trees, noting one tree is on public property and they are preserving that as well. PB Member Gannon referred to tree #22 on the tree inventory, and asked what the species of the tree is, because all ficus trees are not invasive. Mr. Smith stated that this is a Benjamin Fig, which is not a Class I Invasive Species; said it has quite bit of white fly damage and a very aggressive root system; and said typically when we go through the projects with the City if a tree like that is there we typically plant a new tree rather than trying to save the damaged tree. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he knows that the applicants have met the minimum requirement by providing 5 bike racks, however since most of the residents are going to be college students he suggested increasing the number of bike racks for the students; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 46 stated that he is confused about the elevations on the east facade of the building on Tamiami Trail; pointed out that the survey shows the existing sidewalk at 11 ft., but the architectural drawing shows it at 12ft., and the finished floor of the building is at 15 ft., and that is a big discrepancy. Mr. Parker stated that they have intentionally placed the building several feet above the sidewalk, SO that when you are: in the building you have a bit of privacy above the sidewalk; and added that those are stem walls, and sO is the porch. PB Vice Chair Blumetti pointed out that there is a difference between 3 ft. and 4 ft.; and suggested that the applicant has to establish what the existing sidewalk is, because you cannot bring the sidewalk up. Mr. Parker said that he is not bringing the sidewalk up and explained that the sidewalk varies between 11 ft. and 121 ft. depending on where you are. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that it is clearly 11 on the survey, and the architectural drawings show it a 12ft., and the finished floor of the building is at 15 ft., there is a 4 ft. difference. Mr. Parker stated that he wants the building to be at 3 ft. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that this goes against the purpose of the Overlay District which is connectivity of the buildings, because if you have a 4 ft wall between the sidewalk and the building, it can be potentially unsightly to somebody walking across the sidewalk there; added it is reasonable to raise it 18 inches, but4f ft. is a big difference. Mr. Parker concurred and stated that 3 ft. is ideal, allowing enough space to landscape that section and then when you are sitting in living room you do not feel as if you were sitting on the sidewalk; and added that if one were to look at the building that was just done on Fruitville Road and Lemon Avenue they have the same situation, they have several feet of free board there. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he also took a look at buildings along North US 41 and there are some situations where there may be a foot, then a little bit of a curb and then the building is set above: it, but 4 ft., is a lot. Mr. Parker agreed. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that there was a discrepancy on the Engineering drawings, similar to this, with the ramps coming down to the sidewalk, SO that needs to be resolved. Mr. Parker stated that as they are going through construction, they will do that and if the Planning Board wants to stipulate to something that the average grade of the sidewalk and the finished floor does not exceed 3 ft, he is comfortable with that. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he wants to talk with staff first about the intent ofthe Overlay District. Mr. Parker stated that he does not want to see them at the same level, but he does not want to see it at 4 ft. either, he thinks 30 inches to 33 inches is an ideal situation. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked how the finish floor elevation was established, was it a recovery elevation, noting iti is not in a flood zone. Mr. Parker said that one can set the elevation anywhere. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that the existing grade is at the level of the sidewalk, and obviously the building had to come up a little bit, SO it is not that the applicants had to bring the building up, it is only for architectural reason. PB Chair Normile asked if there is a target rental at this building. Mr. Franklin stated that they do not know yet. PB Chair Normile asked how many people can live in one apartment, noting that the applicants target students, but the building is not only for students. Mr. Parker agreed, and said that this is the reason there are two elevators in the building, recognizing that workforce, people who work downtown, may choose to live at this building, they are not students and they would appreciate an elevator; and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 46 said they do not want to limit their options. PB Chair Normile asked if there are hours for the pool, or anything like when they can have parties by the pool, because this is a neighborhood and the pool is outside. Mr. Franklin said that they have not addressed that because it is a management issue, but the point is well taken. PB Chair Normile said that her question about the boardwalk has been answered, it will be publicly accessible. Mr. Franklin stated that there is an easement granted for public access, the public will have to walk on that because it will become the sidewalk. PB Chair Normile referred to the landscape buffer, between the back of the building and the private homes; and asked what the applicants are putting in to mitigate car lights, because the parking is back there. Mr. Smith said that they are putting in everything that is required by City Code, a Type A buffer, including accent trees, canopy trees, shrubs that are spaced, it is not a continuous hedge, and they will cut down the headlights, and noted there is no fencing there. PB Member Ohlrich asked about the width of the boardwalk, and if it meets width requirements. Mr. Parker said iti is5 5ft., and if the grand trees were: not there they would put in an 8 ft. sidewalk; and added that after a lot of conversations with staff and the City Arborist they came up with this plan. PB Member Ohlrich said that she sees herself pushing a wheelchair coming one direction and some lady pushing a baby carriage coming from the other direction. Mr. Parker said that fortunately it is a very short distance, but he really does not want to kill those trees; it is about 100 ft. but they can create a little fat spot right in the middle. PB Member Gannon asked about the size of the units; noted they range between one bedroom and four-bedroom units; and asked what the range of the unit square footage is. Mr. Parker responded that there are 970 sq.ft. units that can be one-bedroom or two- bedroom apartments and there are 1030 sq. ft. units that can be two-bedroom, three- bedroom, or four-bedroom apartments. PB Member Morriss commended the applicants for preserving the grand trees, stating it is a big asset to the area; added that the Overlay District calls for 8 ft. walkable surface along US 41, but they were not really thinking about the side streets, but US 41 is a 10 ft. path, which is quite appropriate for that area, because it has to be more walkable with Starbucks in the area; asked about the landscaping adjacent to the building; noted that there are little palm trees in the little niches along US 41, and asked how can the tenant see out; and added that landscaping softens a bold building like this. Mr. Smith pointed out that the proposed palms are royal palms and are pretty dense, sO as they grow they will reach the point where you cannot see in. PB Vice Chair Blumetti referred to page L-03 that shows interior landscape circulation, and asked what the white spaces are. Mr. Smith said that they are trying to show that they are meeting minimum City Code, sO he calculated and showed the minimum, the rest will be grass or plant material. PB Vice Chair Blumetti referred to the connection of the building to the parking lot, the building on the north facing the parking lot, and asked if there will be anyl landscaping there; and noted some trees in front of the parking spaces. Mr. Smith stated that there will be a combination of grass, sod and trees there. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 46 Mr. Parker stated that along US 41, where they have the little porches, they have bushes wrapping around the base of the porches, because of the elevations, they have buffering and then the sidewalk. PB Member Gannon referred to the boardwalk stating it is very nice; noted it is curving into the private property and therefore there will need to be a sidewalk easement; and asked if the Planning Board will be approving that easement, or is that something the applicants will work out with staff. Mr. Parker pointed out that there is a stipulation in the proposed draft that there will be an easement created. PB Member Gannon asked if in doing that easement it would not be giving up any first amendment rights for public transit along there, sO students protesting the owner of the apartment can walk along the boardwalk to do SO. The applicants said yes they can. Staff Presentation: Planner Greenberg introduced himself for the record; stated that the applicants are requesting site plan approval for Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-20 to construct a 4- story multi-unit structure with 47 one, two, three, and four-bedroom dwelling units; said the property has a Future Land Use Classification of Community Commercial, iti is zoned North Trail, and they are in the North Trail Overlay District; pointed out that the applicant opted voluntarily to use those standards, which means that they have to comply with all of the North Trail Overlay District standards for the entire project, and, as indicated in the recommended conditions for approval, all future development will also have to comply with these standards, sO they are really taking a big commitment on with this property; noted that they have also provided sidewalks above and beyond the requirements, proposing an eight foot sidewalk fronting Tamiami Trail, two feet of that is on private property, as well as the five foot boardwalk that was discussed earlier, which is also on private property and the applicants will have to provide documentation that it will be available to the public before a building permit is issued; said that the project is oriented towards the southeast corner of Tamiami Trail and 24th Street, which is the best way to mitigate impacts on any adjacent residential to the west, sO they oriented the project as far to the east as they could, leaving at least 135 ft from the closest point of the structure to the closest point of a property line; pointed out that the applicant proposes to remove nine trees and twenty two palms; added that twenty five new trees and twenty five new palms are proposed; six grand trees are on site, of which one is off-site but the roots are on-site, but they are proposing to save all of them; explained that there is simply no way, given the small right-of-way width, to put the sidewalk in the right-of-way, sO theyhave done a good job bringing the sidewalk to the building on 24th Street and North Tamiami Trail, to preserve all the trees and to encourage pedestrian activity; and said staff has reviewed the site plan against the criteria in Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-20, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. PB Member Morriss stated that the North Trail Group recognizes that this brings feet on the street and helps the businesses on the Trail thrive, and he thinks the placement, the height, and basic configuration seem to be very much in compliance with what the Overlay District intension was, and again the design thing is going to come up; said that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 46 the question he has is the Overlay is sort of silent but, if you look into the language, the intent is that it has to be first class design, and that is very subjective as we all know; and asked how do they monitor that process to make sure that the design is going to be as good as possible without breaking their bank or changing the footprint. Planner Greenberg asked if by monitoring the process he means that at the time they submit for building permits staff reviews the permit plans against the site plan and ensures the finish materials they committed to at this public hearing are used; added that Attorney Connolly can confirm that the statements made by the applicant this evening, such as the brass finish on the railings they proposed, are binding and are what the plans will be reviewed against; said that if they have deviations to the site plan approved this evening, either minor or major, according to Section IV-508 of the Zoning Code, he will be reviewing against everything that is approved this evening; and noted obviously there will be minor changes, and gave the example of the final sidewalk. PB Member Gannon followed up on the question from Mr. Franklin on the sidewalk easement, which is part of what the Planning Board is approving this evening, the applicants will work with City staff to have one, the Planning Board does not specify the language for that, and Mr. Franklin said that they have no intentions to do away with any First Amendment Rights; and asked if staff will make sure that those rights will be in place. Planner Greenberg said that there is a number of ways to allow the public to use that space, the intent is very clear, this is a required sidewalk, it is required for the public to have, therefore the public will be granted access or staff will not be signing off on the building permits. PB Member Gannon noted that the City has given up these rights in other properties downtown, and itis important that the record shows that they will not go away. Planner Greenberg said that this is tied to the building permit. PB Member Gannon stated that the applicants are working out the design, he understands that it is not always easy when you are trying to save the trees and re-design the buildings, and he thinks that what has been proposed is very workable; noted that he would like to have eight-foot or ten-foot sidewalks everywhere, this combination shows the type of creativity that should be used; and added that as far as the elevation is concerned, the Arcos project on 4th Street had some elevation issues and it were able to work those out. PBI Member Morriss stated that when you look at the rendering it looks like the structure is right against the street and it is nothing like that, there is 20 ft. on average from the street to the buildings, sO there will be plenty of space for someone to walk. Planner Greenberg said that staff supports that, he did: not go into the landscape beyond the very factual matter, but they are providing a softer landscape against that corridor. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he has no issue with the building, or the connection to the street; noted that it is 11.6 on the south end of the site, but in the middle and the north of the site it is 11, and asked if the intent of the code is to have a 3 ft. or 4 ft. wall Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 46 along the property and the sidewalk. Planner Greenberg said that the code does not speak to that. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that this is setting up a precedent for the Overlay District, and he does not know if the intent is to have a 4 ft. walls all along, and the buildings 4 ft. above the road; added thatl he did not have to go too fari in the Overlay District document to see that the Vision, Intent and Purpose section (a) says 'pedestrian friendly streets designed to human scale with a proportionate relationship of the particular! rbuilding structure, streetscape element is intended to correspond with human form function and human scale;" added that staff has to make a decision on how they want that to look because it is pretty important; and repeated that he has no issue with the building, only with the connection between the building and the street and the sidewalk. Planner Greenberg noted that the connection is both vertical and horizontal, and the requirement in the Overlay Districtis a pedestrian connection at the two adjacent rights- of-way; noted that PB Vice Chair Blumetti refers to the architectural use of the word "connection," which is a visual connection. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that the existing grade is level with the sidewalk right now. Planner Greenberg stated that staff reviewed the application against a proposed 3: ft. increase; and staff is OK with that 3 ft. increase thati is proposed; and added that had they come in with a 4f ft., staff would have made a statement, similar to statements made in other applications, indicating that the height exceeds the allowable height. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there is a height limitation. Planner Greenberg said that there is no height limitation in the Overlay District, unlike the Downtown on primary streets, where there is minimum requirement for the first floor to be 24 inches above the adjacent sidewalk. PB. Member Morriss noted that the architect said that this is for the psychological comfort of the people. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he understands that, but there is a big difference between 4- ft,3-ft, 2.5 ft., it makes a big difference. PB Member Morriss asked if 3-ft would do. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said if that is the intent of the Code. PB Member Morriss responded that the Overlay District is silent on that too. General Manager Chapdelain stated that the Overlay District speaks to human scale, more pedestrian friendly VS. an auto-centric streetscape, 10-ft sidewalks, focused on aesthetics, visible storefronts, landscape, street furniture; noted that the applicants are doing the wider sidewalk, they are doing the street landscape; and added that if they were doing mixed use, one would not want that, but they are proposing residential, and he understands the concern. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that if they want to keep it to a maximum of 3 ft. or 30 inches, it would probably be better. Planner Greenberg said that they will be held to 3- ft., as proposed, and the Planning Board may want to confirm that with the applicant. PB Chair Normile said that for a person who is 5 ft 4 in., a 3 ft. wall, even with landscaping, is a lot; noted that this came up with The Boulevard, which is being built on US 41, and that war was lost; said that they are building something very tall, it has mostly a wall even though it has mixed use, and the glass does not come all the way down; added that iti is very important and she hopes staff will keep an eye on it; referred to the pool, and asked Mr. Connolly if the City includes in the stipulations hours for outdoor pools. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 46 Mr. Connolly stated that in his recollection, they have done something like that in approvals of a Conditional Use, because the use: is not of right, and you have to put some restrictions on the use to be compatible with the adjacent uses; added that this is a use of right, and he would not be comfortable with it, but understands the concern. PB Chair Normile noted that the pool is near the Starbucks and people from that establishment could stumble over to the pool, and if it became a nuisance, people could report it to the police; noted that it does not seem to be near residences, she is concerned about the residences and possible noise levels; and asked Attorney Connolly if there is a limit of how many people can live in an apartment. Mr. Connolly referred to the definition of family in the Zoning Code, four individuals, or four unrelated individuals which are the equivalent of a family, per dwelling unit. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss asked if that is enforced. Attorney Connolly said that it is enforced through Code Compliance. PB Member Gannon referred to the 10-ft. sidewalk shown on the drawing along the subject property; and asked if that is consistent all along the west side of US 41. Planner Greenberg said that it is not consistent, however staff hopes that the new development will be required to build that, based on the standards; and added that we will see that north of this property, because Starbucks has provided a wide sidewalk. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the number of people who can reside in a unit, noting the example given was four unrelated people living in a unit with four-bedrooms; pointed out that these are college students, and asked if the same rule applies to two, and one bedroom units. Attorney Connolly stated that it is four unrelated people per dwelling unit. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she can see four college students living in a four-bedroom apartment. Affected. Persons 1. John Olenski - new resident in the neighborhood; spoke in opposition; expressed concerns about the traffic and the parking impacts of this development on Ixora Street, which is a quiet road right now. 2. Laura Campbell - spoke in opposition; expressed concerns about parking; noted that there are 51 parking spaces to serve the potential 200 residents. 3. Peter Schelhorn - lives at the corner of 24th Street and Ixora Street; spoke in opposition; expressed concerns about the height of the corner towers, which are taller than the maximum allowable height in the Overlay District. 4. Karen Stack - lives at the corner of 24th Street and Ixora Street; spoke in opposition; stated that the proposal does not meet the intent of the Overlay District; expressed concerns about the traffic and parking impacts on the neighborhood, and for the small amenities provided for the anticipated number of residents. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 46 Public Input: 1. John Buetergerds - resident; expressed concerns about traffic impacts on Ixora Street; suggested the use of speed bumps or speed tables; recommended that the developers consider the possibility of a mixed-use development. 2. Johannes Werner - resident; supports the development; disappointed that the developer did not consider retail on the ground floor; expressed concerns about automobile traffic impacts on the neighborhood, safety of pedestrian traffic across US41, and affordability of units; encouraged low rents to avoid overcrowding. 3. Larry Grossman - resident; expressed concerns about parking and traffic impacts. 4. Henry Banshackrepresenting Indian Beach Sapphire Shores-expressed concerns about not being informed regarding changes to the plans from two-bedroom units to up to four-bedroom units; also concerned about parking and traffic impacts. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Franklin stated that the reason they are at this public hearing is because site plan approval is required in the Overlay District, and they are volunteering to meet the Overlay District requirements; pointed out that this property is already zoned North Trail, and they are working with a project that is elevated to the Overlay District standards; said this is not a dormitory, it is an apartment building; said with respect to traffic, he said it is true, and it is in the staff report that the traffic analysis shows that there is de mininis impact; added that if the neighborhood feels that there is impact not only from this project but from others as well, as North Trail redevelops, they have a choice; he said that he is responsible for the first speed hump in his neighborhood in Sarasota, but it is in the conscience of Sarasota now; added that neighbors organize themselves and request the city provide traffic calming solutions; said that the applicant will support that; added that he does not think the applicant can address traffic concerns as the North Trail redevelops, unless the neighborhood works with the City to provide traffic calming measures; pointed out that they do: not get a density bonus in the Overlay District, they get a height bonus and a reduction of parking bonus, and the first plan he submitted included the single family house that existed on the property, and that plan was for a total of47 units (46 apartment units and a single family house) and one parking space per unit; added they elected to demolish the house and increase the parking, because one parking space per unit, as the Overlay District allows, does not work from the marketable point of view; said that those are the real incentives for a developer to use the Overlay District; referred to the corner architecture, and said that it is an actual requirement of the North Trail, and Planner Greenberg can refer to the section of the Overlay District that suggests the corner architecture height exceed the building height sO as to celebrate the buildings at the corner of the street, SO the applicants are consistent with the Code on that; referred to the3-ft. differential between the sidewalk and the first living level, and said that if the Planning Board wants to add an additional stipulation to that effect, the applicant has no problem with that; added that if the Planning Board wants the applicant to provide a bulb-out and a sidewalk on 24th Street to help with people passing the applicant would be happy to do that as well. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 46 Mr. Parker agreed that a 4 ft. differential creates a wall; noted that his ideal number is 30 inches, but knowing that the sidewalk slopes, it will probably be 24 inches here and 32 inches there; added that if the Planning Board wants to stipulate a 3 ft. max, he is comfortable with it; said that spoke to his client about the pool and the client insisted the pool is open during daylight hours only, sO that resolves that issue; and noted that the Code requires that the corner architecture be celebrated, and even the example in the Zoning Code shows that that component is higher than the average part of the roof. PBI Member Ohlrich asked about lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Parker stated that there are very specific requirements in the Code for a certain number of foot-candles leaving the property, and the applicants have to submit a plan at the time of the building permit; noted that they briefly considered the retail at the ground floor, and quickly dismissed it because the additional traffic on the project was unacceptable; said what they are proposing is somewhat minimal in traffic; and said that the fact that the Starbucks, Mobile, and Dunkin Donuts are concentrated just north of the subject property, the applicants did not feel comfortable adding to the chaos. PB Member Gannon expressed appreciation to the applicants for addressing the traffic and the calming suggestions, and as the applicant suggested iti is up to the neighborhood to request that from the City; added that the other concern that was raised related to residents who happen to be students crossing the street to attend classes on the Ringling College campus located directly across the street on the east, and asked if there was any conversations with the Ringling College about students crossing US 41. Mr. Franklin stated that they had not had any direct conversations with Ringling College, and they are not part of the College or any other institution; noted that this will be privately managed; said that there is a landscaped median at that location in the middle of US 41, if you are a student and you want to try crossing, at least there is a refuge in the middle of the street. PB Member Gannon referred to the Aerial Location Map, and asked about the location of the nearest crosswalk. General Manager Chapdelain stated that the crosswalk is at the traffic light however there are plans for a roundabout at that intersection, and that will address the issue of safe crossing; and stated that it is a few years out but today the crossing is at the signal. Mr. Parker noted that at 24th Street there is an opening and one can turn north. PB Member Gannon clarified that he is referring to pedestrian crossing, and asked if the applicants are saying that the students will have to walk two blocks up to the traffic light to cross and walk down two blocks to go to class, as opposed to looking for traffic and then crossing the street instead; and asked if there was any discussions about some sort of a crosswalk, such as a crossing light. Mr. Franklin stated that there was discussion about that at the DRC meeting; said that you can argue this topic both ways, if you place a crosswalk there, you inviting people to use it, creating a conflict; or create something like further down on US 41 that stops traffic. PB Member Gannon stated that he is referring to the example on US 41 and First Street, it serves the purpose, pedestrians can Cross safely, and he asked if this is a consideration here; and concluded that he will discuss it further with staff. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 46 PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he agrees with the comments relating to parking on 24th Street, the speed bumps, and the crosswalk, however it is not up to the developer to ensure safe crossing for every apartment building up and down US 41; said as this redevelops, there will be some places where it is safe to Cross and others that it is not safe to cross; noted the students will have to be responsible adults and go to the safe crossing; and concluded that the applicants have answered his question regarding a mixed use development, it makes perfect sense now, it would be difficult to manage both the traffic and the parking. PB Chair Normile asked about who will be managing the building. Mr. Parker said that the owner has several apartment projects and they will be managing this property as well. PB Chair Normile asked for the name of the Management Company or the addresses of properties that are managed by the owner. Mr. Parker stated that he does not know, however he can inquire about it. Staff Rebuttal: Planner Greenberg identified himself for the record. PB Member Morris stated that the burning question is for the parking overflowing in the neighborhood and speed issues, and the idea of crossing US 41 is not the developer's issue, it is a US 41 issue, and the roundabout's plan willl help calm the traffic, and it may not be a bad idea to toss a couple hot plates on US 41 to help students, and asked if there is something that can be done to help the students. Planner Greenberg stated that there were many good comments from the public, and he will share them with staff; noted that the application was determined to be de minimis and had an insignificant traffic impact, but it does not mean that staff cannot take a common sense approach for improvements here, and staff would not have a problem looking at that. General Manager Chapdelain stated that with traffic calming, staff studies the behavior first and that justifies what needs to be done, for example they study what is the volume, speed, sidewalks etc.; added that considering the length from the access to the subject area to Ixora Street, and the length from 24th Street and Ixora Street, it is hard for cars to build up high speeds because the intersections are not far apart; said it is not just the volume it is the speed as well; and said the existing speed limit is 25 mph, and staff has to determine if there is a speeding problem. PB Member Morriss asked what options there are for keeping the parking from happening on the surrounding streets. General Manager Chapdelain stated that if there is parking on the street blocking driveways and mailboxes, staff can consider "No Parking" signage in those areas. Planner Greenberg stated that if there is a problem staff will look into it; talked about crossing US41; stated that across US 41 to the east, the campus has a very tall fence and nobody jumps the fence, SO there is no benefit for anyone to J-walk at that point, because Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 46 they cannot enter the campus, they are simply risking their lives crossing US 41, SO staff does not expect to see that; and noted there is a signalized crosswalk al block to the north. PB Vice Chair Blumetti expressed concerns about overflow parking and the solution is a "No Parking" sign, and asked if this is the requirement, with 200 hundred units. Planner Greenberg said that too many numbers are thrown around, and everyone needs to keep in mind that there are 47 units, there are not four students per dwelling unit. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that the reality is that overflow parking will occur and asked how does staff: mitigate that; and explained that he is asking a procedural question, and he is not expecting this to be resolved this evening because it is not the applicant's responsibility, it is the City's responsibility. General Manager Chapdelain stated that when a property owner requests a "No Parking" sign, 60% of the area property owners have to sign supporting the "No Parking" signage because it will also affect them when they have company; that is the process. PB. Member Morriss asked if permit parking could be established here. General Manager Chapdelain stated that it has been done in several places, noting Sarasota does not have a permit parking process in place today; and said it is an enforcement issue as well. PB Chair Normile noted that the Transportation Plan is currently being drafted, and asked General Manager Chapdelain to tell staff that as development occurs across from the Ringling School there will be conflict, students are going to be running across the street; and suggested that, rather than waiting for 18 months for the Transportation Plan to come out, maybe the Transportation Planners can look into this before there are casualties, and in the meantime a HAWK light which cost about $500,000 dollars, could be installed. General Manager Chapdelain stated that it is a FDOT road and they have to approve such an improvement; and said that the HAWK lights are not inexpensive. PB Chair Normile stated that they are doable; noted that this is a new issue as the North Trail sees improvements and redevelopment, SO let's S address the issue early on, because the area is attracting students; said that anywhere you put a Starbucks you are going to have people running toward it; and again asked General Manager Chapdelain to bring this message back to staff. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked for clarification about the intent of the Overlay District and asked if the 3 ft. foot wall is within the development standards for the redevelopment of the North Trail. Planner Greenberg stated that there is a fine line between an appropriate elevation to provide comfort and creating a wall because it is sO high up you can no longer see through it. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he wants to understand the intent of the Overlay District regarding human connectivity to the road. Planner Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 46 Greenberg stated that the intent is the connection at a human scale. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said he has no problems with the building, he just wants to know that it is within the boundaries of the intent of the Code. General Manager Chapdelain stated it was said that there is not a pedestrian connection on North Tamiami Trail, but there is, it is on the north end of the property. Planner Greenberg discussed the concerns about the boardwalk; and stated that the applicants initially came in with the minimum parking sO they have been able to provide additional parking beyond what the code requires. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss stated that he has not been involved with the North Trail Code for some time; pointed out that the traffic is an issue, but retail is not known to do well on the North Trail right now, and it would be a huge risk for somebody to do mixed use at some point, because it could possibly jeopardize the plan all together; noted that when they were talking about the Overlay, they were talking about more active kinds of uses, more public, and this is a private use, SO it makes sense to have a more private use to their layout; suggested that the City push the FDOT people to get their roundabouts done quicker, because they do a lot of things, they make crosswalks on US41, and they make the traffic calmer and slower, sO that even if you J-walk you may survive the effort; said that it is a kind of balance; pointed out that when they started the effort for the North Trail Overlay District, the North Trail was desolate, there were a lot of check- cashing places, and really bad stuff, sO they tried to incentivize as much as possible without jeopardizing the quality of the product, and he thinks they have gotten there. PB Member Morriss moved to adopt a motion to find Site Plan 18-SP-20 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the petition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit to arise out of Site Plan #18-SP-20, the applicant shall combine all zoning lots into one parcel. 2. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit to arise out of Site Plan #18-SP-20, the applicant shall submit to the City of Sarasota a copy of the North Trail Overlay District proviso as recorded in the official records for Sarasota County, to identify that all the NTOD standards are mandatory for all future development applications at the subject property. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit to arise out of Site Plan #18-SP-20, the applicant shall submit to the City of Sarasota the recorded public sidewalk easements, access easements or proof of dedication for the portions of the sidewalk as depicted on Site Plan #18-SP-20 that Cross into and over the subject property. 4. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 46 in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 5. The site plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed structure and site layout shall be in compliance with those labeled North Trail Apartments, received by the Development Services Department on May 7, 2019. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. 6. There will be a bulge at the boardwalk. 7. The maximum elevation is 36" relative to the sidewalk. PB Vice Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Board took a ten-minute break 3. South Shore Community Church (1899 S. Tuttle Avenue): Site Plan Application No. 19-SP-02 is a request for Site Plan approval to construct proposed additions and remodel South Shore Community Church located in the Residential Multiple Family = 1 (RMF-1) Zone District with a street address of 1899 S Tuttle Avenue. Proposed additions include a new foyer, restrooms and multi-purpose room. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Don Lawson, Principal of Lawson Group Architects, representing the South Shore Community Church, appeared and said there is a group from South Shore in the audience to support efforts and give him encouragement to get this done this evening, and asked those in attendance to raise their hand sO that the Planning Board can see them; thanked the City staff for their exemplary, thorough, excellent job in assisting the applicants in this process; added that he works in a lot of jurisdictions in Florida and the staff in Sarasota are doing a great job, and all should be proud of how hard they work and how diligent they are in representing the City; noted that the staff report was very thorough, he will be brief in his presentation, and will answer any questions the PB Members have; stated that the South Shore Church is located on Tuttle Avenue between Hillview Street and Arlington Street; noted that the building was originally built in 1956, and there were nominal improvements to the building internally since that time; added that the property is zoned RMF1; pointed out that the application encompasses a series of small additions to the church that total 2,900 sq. ft., and they include a modest lobby to be used as a place to gather as the people come to the facility, and three different restrooms; said the people in 1956 must not have used the restrooms as much as we do today because there are limited facilities, and those that exist do not meet handicapped accessibility standards and they want to rectify that situation; there are some multipurpose spaces where they are filling in some areas, and they are improving a trash collection area; referred the site plan and noted that other than the additions mentioned earlier, there are no other changes to the site plan; parking, access and landscaping are not changed; there are no changes to the lighting, this is a very modest and limited expansion to the footprint; pointed to the locations of the additions, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 46 including the lobby at the front of the church, men' S and women's restrooms on the east side of the church, and restrooms on the southeast section of the building; said they are enclosing a small open area on the east side of the building, which already has three exterior walls sO it is an economical addition for much needed space; noted that there are no other changes to the site; pointed out that there are no additional parking requirements because they are not changing the Sanctuary in terms of the seating capacity which dictates parking requirements; stated that staffs supports the application; said that the application complies with every applicable Code, every Ordinance, every condition that is applicable and governs this project; said the applicant is not asking for any special consideration; noted that the church is old and their goal is to modernize and update it, get some facilities that are much needed, and for interior space; and respectfully asked for the Planning Board's approval of the project. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the relocated storage shed; said that the people who live in the single family dwelling to the east of the current location of the storage sheds would be very happy that the storage sheds will be relocated; pointed out that they are quite close to the property line, but she believes there is a fence there; and asked to see the site plan because it seems to her that the area where they have been moved is the parking lot. Mr. Lawson stated that there is a shelled area on the north side of the building that has existed there for a long time, and the trash collection area is located in that spot, adjacent to the storage sheds; and noted that one of the requirements for the applicant is to improve the trash collection process, sO in addition to moving the sheds they are updating the trash collection process to meet current requirements. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the new location has any impacts on traffic, parking, or traffic circulation. Mr. Lawson stated that it does not have any impacts. PBI Member Morriss referred to Sheet A-1, and stated thatiti is a great graphic illustration of what is new and what is existing, and it was really a lot simpler to review with this sort of graphic; and suggested to staff to do this more often, because this is handy. Mr. Lawson said to thank Planner Greenberg for that. PB Member Gannon noted that in addition to the build outs, he noticed on the side facing Hillview a proposed garden area, and asked what is the purpose of the garden, is it a flower garden or to raise food for people to eat, for the church members or others. Mr. Lawson stated that they have done that in 250 churches, they have not yet done one that is a food garden; explained that what they see as a positive addition to the church is a place, an outdoor area, where, when the weather is nice, people can sit down and enjoy conversations with others, and have an area to enjoy being outside; noted that in this case there is limited space to do anything large, sO they have two small spaces on the side where people are coming into the church, or leaving the church, the intent, in his perspective, is to provide nice landscaping but also an area where groups and families will be able to sit either before or after services. PB Member Gannon asked if there is a walkway. Mr. Lawson pointed to the proposed lobby area on the west side of the building and noted the area immediately north of the lobby is the garden area; and said they will use some pavers or walkways that would lead to some sitting areas with nice landscaping and some trees to grow and provide some shade. PB Gannon asked if Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 46 the area is covered. Mr. Lawson stated that they usually use a shading device to block the sun. Staff Presentation: Planner Greenberg introduced himself for the record; stated that the applicant did a thorough job of clarifying the requested site plan approval to add restrooms in the multi-purpose room; said that there were: many additions to the church over a very long time; stated the property is in the Residential Multifamily District, has a Future Land Use classification of Multiple Family Moderate Density; noted that the 2,900 sq. ft. proposed addition to the building will increase the total area from 16, 786 sq. ft. to 19, 691 sq.ft.; said that a new sidewalk will also be constructed; pointed out that when staff asked for additional pedestrian connections to the right-of-way, the applicants were able to add one to the south; spoke about the new refuse and recycling storage area; said that this will be brought up into compliance with the Code and will be screened; added that they relocated the existing sheds away from the adjacent residential property; said that they are formalizing it to make it an appropriate location to pick up refuse and recycling; said there is no parking nearby, and there are no anticipated conflicts between vehicles in that area; noted that they are also relocating a voting area that was in their parking lot, that was approved in the last site plan, they are relocating it to the south, in a separate driveway, away from the general parking lot which will help if they have deliveries, for instance, and they will have a sign saying no entering the driveway when the people are voting; stated that they are not proposing to remove any trees and no additional landscaping is required; noted that there are 40 existing parking spaces, 62 are required; said that staff has reviewed the proposal against applicable standards for review of site plans according to Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and has found all the standards are satisfied, and recommend approval of the petition subject to the staff recommended conditions outlined in the staff report. PB Member Ohlrich noted that in several places it was mentioned that landscaping is not required or is not going to be part of this project, yet, when the applicant was at the table, he referred several times to a garden, a trellis, and an outdoor sitting area; and asked if these things have to be approved, and are they approved as a part of this plan. Planner Greenberg stated that they are asking for approval for them; and noted those are not required landscaping areas, it is simply part of the program, to create an outside seating area to congregate outside on a very nice day, it is not a required landscape buffer. PB Member Gannon referred to the first recommended staff condition, which reads: The internal cafés shall be limited as an accessory use to the religious institution and shall be for use by the members and employees only. and asked for the location of the internal café on the site plan. Planner Greenberg stated that the question came from a site visit, when he noticed the sign for the café, asked about it, and found out that it is signage for the location where the congregation can eat; pointed out thatitis customary for religious institutions tol have a little commissary Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 46 area, it is not a café for the general public to utilize; said that staff understands that but also wanted to include it in the conditions; and noted that this is an existing area, not part of the changes, and it is located near the kitchen on the site plan. PB Member Gannon stated that he wants to make sure the condition is clear, otherwise why have the condition. Planner Greenberg stated that staff did not ask them to remove the sign, they are not proposing a café on the plans, however it is pretty much understood that there will be food and drinks by the members of the church in that area next to the kitchen; added that it is not going to function as a café all the time, it is a multipurpose room, to allow a little flexibility there; and noted that staff will be OK with them eating in that area, the activity going on there is not a café, as defined by the Zoning Code. PB Member Gannon asked if the church will be inviting people to events there; said on the site plan it appears to be part of the gathering social area; and asked if the restriction that they are putting as a condition says it is to be used by the members of the church and employees, that is the intended use, never to be used by visitors of the church. Planner Greenberg said there will be guests. PB Member Gannon suggested the condition could be clarified to state - members, employees, and guests of the church." PB Member Morriss stated that this is an accessory use to the church and asked if the condition can be eliminated. PB Members concurred. Planner Greenberg stated that it was simply a way for the applicant to move along, and to make it clear that there was no café proposed, SO they could move on to what is proposed. PB Member Ohlrich asked if they will strike condition #1. All PB Members concurred. PB Chair Normile asked if there were any ex-parte communications. PB Chair Normile disclosed that she did a tour with City staff, and PB Vice Chair Blumetti disclosed that he spoke with City staff. PB Member Ohlrich moved to adopt a motion to find Site Plan 19-SP-02 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the petition, subject to the fellewing.conditions 2 and 3 now renumbered 1 and 2.: Pheinteraleaféshal-he-imiedasanacesry-usele-thereligiousiesinstitutien-and halbeferuseby-thechuehmemhranandempleyesenly 2.1. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 3. 2. The site plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed structure and site layout shall be in compliance with those labeled South Shore Community Church, received by the Development Services Department on April 26, 2019. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019. at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 46 PB Vice Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with a vote of 5 to 0. 4. Residence Inn and Residences (2153 & 2145 3rd Street, 2101 Fruitville Road and 2152 & 2134 4th Street): Adjustment Application No. 19-ADP-03 is a request for approval of an adjustment from the Standards listed on Map VI-1003, Zoning Code (2002 ED.) for property located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district with street addresses of 2153 & 2145 3rd Street, 2101 Fruitville Road and 2152 & 2134 4th Street, for a proposed mixed use development consisting of a hotel and two dwelling units to be known as Residence Inn and Residences. The applicant is requesting an adjustment from the requirement that residential frontage be located along the 4th Street property boundary. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Applicant Presentation: Joel Freedman, Agent, introduced himself for the record, and was sworn; introduced his client, Mr. Jeff Meehan, Principal in HG Acquisitions, LLC; stated that the applicant is proposing a four story mixed use building that would include 120 hotel rooms and two residential dwelling units; said that Residence Inn will be the flag for the facility; explained the Residence Inn is an extended stay hotel facility, where just under 50% of the guests stay longer than 13 nights. Mr. Meehan said that he and his partner have been building here for approximately twenty years, primarily building single family homes and townhouses as far north as Bradenton and as far south as Charlotte County; said that they work very quietly, they only do three or four projects at a time; noted that this project goes back about a year ago, when they were initially involved, and has gone through a couple of issues; first they changed the original format which was a Marriott product to a Town Place, which is a typical mid-range hotel, then they were invited by the Marriott to do a Residence Inn, which is a top-of-the-line product in the mid-range; said that they did that for six months and basically had to scrap everything and start all over again; stated that Mr. Freedman has put together a great team, it has worked well, staff has been great, they had a couple issues come up and they have been handled; said that they have worked before with Marriot and Hilton hotels; and added that they are also involved in apartment owner management situations in Southeast Florida, as well as in Tampa and Orlando, and he is glad they here this evening. Mr. Freedman stated that they are here to discuss an Adjustment in the Downtown Zoning District Regulations; said that specifically they are requesting an Adjustment from having to provide a residential frontage for the 4th Street frontage of the subject property as depicted on Map VI-1003; referred to an aerial map and pointed to the location of the subject property, which is bound by N. East Avenue on the west, Audubon Place on the east, 4th Street on the north and 3rd Street on the south, which used to go through before Fruitville Road was constructed; noted that the subject property is approximately 1.89 acres; pointed out that the site is very challenging for several reasons, one of which is that it fronts three primary streets, which require habitable space, you cannot have access, etc.; explained that N. East Avenue, Audubon Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 46 Place and 4th Street are primary streets, which means access has to come from the south, unless if the owners were to break the property up into multiple parcels, or try to develop each of those individual lots; said that each of the lots exceeds minimum lot size, and can be developed and have access on the primary streets; noted that by assembling the properties, it makes for a better situation because it requires that the property have access off the primary street on the south; said that they will discuss what they have done along 4th Street which requires the Adjustment; added that the other challenge is Fruitville Road, a very busy street, sO the noise impact and the situation created by Fruitville Road creates another challenge for the project; pointed out that to the east there is a very large office for Vengroff Williams and there is a storage facility south of the offices, between 3rd Street and Fruitville Road; noted that the site has Fruitville Road to the South, major commercial on the east, and a downtown neighborhood on the north; said the neighborhood is what the applicant wants to be careful of and mitigate impacts of the project, and that is the reason they are requesting the Adjustment; stated that this property has been listed for years and nothing has happened, and then these gentlemen approached us and offered a better solution with the Residence Inn and the two residential units; displayed the site plan, and pointed out 4th Street and the area where the Code requires residential frontage along the ground floor on 4th Street; stated thatt they are proposing to put a residential unit at the: northwest end of the site, and a another residential unit on the northeast corner of the site, and in between, there is a lobby, some hotel rooms and a minor entrance for the hotel from 4th Street; pointed out that they were able to meet all the primary street frontage requirements along the N. East Avenue and Audubon Place; explained that the purpose of the requirement for residential frontage on primary streets is to ensure, as much as possible, that the development on the south side of 4th Street, in this case, appeared similar to the development that could occur on the north side of 4th Street; noted that this encourages, and requires the developers to make sure that if they don't do all residential units along the frontage, then developers ensure that what they are proposing is something that looks and feels residential; pointed out that they are requesting only one Adjustment to the full ground floor requirement being all residential units; said that they are proposing a mixed use building of residential and commercial uses together; added that, by definition, a mixed use building is a residential structure type; explained that this is not a residential use but a residential structure type; noted that design techniques were applied to this to make it look like a residential multifamily development; showed architectural renderings of the building's side on 4th Street, and the frontage along 4th Street, demonstrating how they will make it look very pedestrian, very residential with the tree canopy, etc.; said that in his opinion the building looks like an apartment building; pointed out the other mitigation features that they are doing to ensure that the 4th Street frontage is not impacting the north side of the street, including no balconies on 4th Street, no signage on 4th Street, the residential units have stoops for the residential units to have access to the street, awnings are intermingled in there, and the pedestrian enhancements include a 6-ft. sidewalk with a 6-ft. planting as well as landscaping adjacent to the building; noted that he thinks this is the ideal residential feel to a street; said that eventually these canopy trees will completely cover the sidewalk; said that when they filed the application, the City notified everyone within 500 ft. that an application has been filed; pointed out that they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 46 also have done an extensive outreach program, they did their own radius of 500 ft., they sent out 65 letters to the people within 500 ft., 19 people called to request additional information, and all the responses were positive; noted that they had a 29.9% return on the letters they sent out, people were very excited, even the people across the street were fine with this; and stated that the Planning Board has criteria for reviewing an Adjustment in Section IV-1903: a. granting approval for Iapplications that] equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation being adjusted - Mr. Freedman said that the purpose of the residential frontage requirement is specifically intended to ensure that new development along the south side of 4th Street is similar in appearance to the development that can occur on the north side of 4th Street; noted that the mixed use they are proposing is designed to mitigate any potential impact or incompatibilities created by the building, providing the two residential units on the ends, no signage on 4th Street, no balconies on 4th Street, all access will be from the non-primary street, everything is internal to the site and it is buffered by the building, and the residential development to the north is not going to be impacted at all; b. the proposed use is consistent with the desired character of the Downtown Edge Zoning District- Mr. Freedman noted that they comply with all primary street requirements and regulations, as well as major pedestrian enhancements, and they meet the Downtown Edge Zoning District standards; C. If more than one Adjustments are requested - Mr. Freedman stated that only one Adjustment is requested; d. Impacts to historic structures = Mr. Freedman said that there are none; e. Any impacts resulting from the Adjustment are mitigated to the maximum extent practical - Mr. Freedman pointed out that the design is residential in character, dwelling units on the ends, no signage, all access and loading are from the south non-primary street. In conclusion, Mr. Freedman stated that in his opinion and in staff S opinion, according to the staff report, the proposed development with the Adjustment granted will meet the purpose of the regulations. PB Member Ohlrich asked what the developer's intent is for the two residential units. Mr. Freedman stated that they are for longer term stay; said they are full units, one has three bedrooms the other two bedrooms, the units are 1,000 - 1,200 sq. ft., and will be for longer term stays, perhaps even more than 30 days at the time; noted in hotels and motels one is not supposed to stay more than 30 days in a room; and said the Residence Inn has an interesting clientele such as visiting nurses, doctors, etc., and the idea is that the occupants of the units stay longer than 30 days, it could be the manager of the hotel. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 46 PB Member Ohlrich expressed appreciation for the applicant's additional outreach efforts and said she is pleased that 29% of them responded, saying that it is a good response; added that they did a nice job in designing the building to make it look like a residential facility rather than a hotel; and said shei is sure the neighbors across the street will be pleased with that. Mr. Meehan said that one neighbor, Bob, was very involved on how the access worked, the last time the project was promoted he actually paid for his own traffic consultant just to check the City, and Mr. Meehan appreciates him. PB Member Gannon asked why the applicants are proposing two residential units. Mr. Freedman responded that the mixed use. look fit more intoi it, and also they needed some longer stay capabilities, but when looking at the whole issue, they thought they wanted to do the minimum adjustment necessary to get the project going, it just came about to further mitigate things. PB Member Gannon noted that the applicants are asking for an Adjustment and it could apply to the entire frontage; and said that the applicants say that the entire frontage satisfies the conditions of a residential dwelling frontage. Mr. Freedman explained that the middle part of the frontage does not, it is a hotel, but from the visual standpoint it looks like a multi-family building. PB Member Gannon noted that the applicants testified that the purpose of the residential street frontage was appearance only, SO if you have appearance only from the hotel, why do you have to have any residential dwelling units. Mr. Freedman said that the idea came up when the applicants were researching what to do SO that they would avoid an Adjustment, you have to have certain uses for the hotel, and then the idea came that the two residential uses are adding to the hotel, because they can have longer term stays for those two. Mr. Meehan stated that the site itself restricted that use. If you looked at the public area on the ground level you will find that all the required accessories such as exercise room, food service area, back of the house management, you can only put sO much into that area, and that drove to some degree what will happen internally. Mr. Freedman added that they had these two ends, and that helped interface with the neighborhood; it creates a mixed use building, which adds to the applicant's argument that it is a residential structure type, and gives the applicants the ability to request the Adjustment with their heads up. PBI Member Gannon stated that he has to listen to more testimony, because it is not clear to him why any units, if not requiring all units; if the Planning Board is granting an Amendment saying that the applicants don'tneed to have residential units because the building is for commercial use that simply looks like a residential use building, that satisfies the condition for what is required there. Attorney Connolly stated that the Zoning Code requires residential use; the Zoning Code requires the entire 4th Street frontage is residential use; the applicants are seeking an Adjustment SO that they can have the residential use at the northeast and northwest corners; the justification for the Adjustment is that they are meeting the purpose of the Code by making it look like it is a residential use, but it is not a residential use and they have to get the Adjustment. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 46 PB Vice Chair Blumetti referred to the back door for the food prep on 4th Street, asked what types of deliveries they are anticipating there, and if it is going to be an issue in terms of volume of deliveries. Mr. Meehan said that deliveries of food service are scheduled on a regular basis and everybody fits into a schedule; and noted the only thing that goes through that area is food itself. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there are going to be big delivery trucks. The applicants stated that there will be minimum deliveries of food service. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked about the hours of operation of the café. Mr. Freedman said that it will be for hotel guests only, from 6:30 am to 10:00 am. PB Chair Normile stated that she has no questions, it looks like a nice facility. PB Member Gannon stated hel has questions relating to the landscaping, and invited Mr. Smith, Landscape Architect, to come to the table. Mr. Smith appeared and introduced himself for the record. PB Member Gannon referred to Sheet A1-003K, noted that this is a four story building, and the trees in the rendering are three stories tall; said that they are planting 17-inch plantings according to the mitigation chart on page L-05, they are showing fifty one 7-inch trees, and asked if these trees are those. Mr. Smith said that the trees in this particular area are specified as green buttonwoods, and their size is 3 inch caliper SO they are going in at 12 by 6, that is the initial installation, they are green buttonwoods,3 inch caliper, measured a 6i inches above grade and 12ft. tall, and six foot spread. PB Member Gannon asked how long it will take for those trees to reach the height of three floors, 30 - 35 ft. tall. Mr. Smith stated that they can expect 12-16 inches of growth every year, about a foot per year would be a reasonable expectation. PB Member Gannon stated that the trees will reach that height in 15 - 16 years, SO in the meantime this is not what the residents across the street will be seeing. Mr. Smith stated that what it is being portrayed in the llustration is to show what will be built on the other side, right now there is not a lot of vegetation on the other side; the idea is to introduce street trees, and that is the proposal on this stretch, to provide for 6-ft. wide strips sO that we could have some small canopy trees introduced into the streetscape. Mr. Freedman added that the wide landscaping strip will allow the trees to grow much better. PB Member Gannon commended the applicants for the streetscape plan, and for planting canopy trees instead of palms, but he wants to put on the record that this nice picture is not going to be seen for 15 to 20 years; and added that we need to understand, given the requirement of the visibility, that this affects the visibility of that project for the residents of this primary street. PB Chair Normile asked about ex-parte communications. PB Vice Chair Blumetti disclosed a site visit, and a conversation with staff; and PB Chair Normile disclosed a site visit with staff. Staff Presentation: Planner Greenberg introduced himself for the record; stated that the subject site is located in the Downtown Edge Zone District, and the future land use classification is Urban Edge; noted that the applicants mentioned that they submitted an Administrative Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 46 Site Plan Application that has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and has obtained a partial sign off; explained that complete DRC sign off is pending on the approval of the Adjustment, therefore the applicant is asking for approval of Adjustment Application No. 19-ADP-03; pointed out that approval of the subject petition will grant the applicant relief from the 4th Street residential use frontage requirement as outlined in Section IV-1004 of the Zoning Code for a distance of 247ft.,5 5 in. or 72% of the proposed 340 ft. Iong 4th Street frontage; said that two dwelling units are located at each end of the 4th Street frontage and help the residential appearance at each corner; noted that when one looks down the corridor it does not look like a hotel but it looks like apartments, which is something that could be developed on the other side of the street; stated that the intent of the 4th Street frontage requirement is "like- face-like;" said that 4th Street is unique in that it has a Downtown Edge Zoning, and a neighborhood street across from Downtown Neighborhood (DTN) without zoning district separation, sO it has a residential frontage type requirement facing the north; explained that this intends to help the character of the structures on the south side to appear more residential, to be more compatible with the DTN neighborhood; pointed out that in a mixed use zone district residential uses are not allowed; in fact the hotel motel uses are permitted, not by right, one would have to seek Conditional Use approval; said that there are other uses that can occur on the north side of 4th Street; pointed out that thea applicants proposed a number of mitigation techniques to help their proposed structure feel more residential, to soften the non-residential aspect of the frontage, such as no commercial signage on 4th Street, no balconies on 4th Street, enhanced landscaping on 4th Street between the building and the sidewalk and between the sidewalk and the road; they do not have any of the hotel's ingress/egress on 4th Street; and they have provided variations in the façade to give it the appearance of townhomes; stated that staff reviewed the proposed Adjustment against the review standards for Adjustments in Section IV-1903 of the. Zoning Code; added that staff finds that the proposal complies with all the required standards for the review of Adjustment as shown in the staff report; and concluded that staff recommends approval of the Adjustment subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. PB Member Morriss asked for clarification if this whole process is just about the Adjustment, nothing else, for example not the landscaping, unless it impacts the appearance of what is being adjusted. Planner Greenberg concurred. PB Member Gannon stated that when he tried to get clarification from the applicant there was a statement made about a residential requirement based on the District, adding that the property is zoned DTE which is a mixed-use district, and: non-residential uses are permitted in the mixed-use district. Planner Greenberg said yes in accordance with the permitted use table. PB Member Gannon asked if the residential frontage requirement is strictly visual or is it use. Attorney Connolly stated that we are not talking about the residential frontage requirement; the desired Adjustment is to Note 5 on Map 6-1003 (referenced on p. 5 of the staff report); said that this map identifies various streets in the City where a residential use is required along the road frontage; added that it is not just how it looks, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 46 the looks is the justification for meeting the purpose of the Code. Planner Greenberg said that the purpose of the regulation to be adjusted lies in the appearance. PB Member Gannon noted that they are adjusting from the usage. Planner Greenberg said that they are adjusting the length of the frontage of the usage as required. PB Member Gannon asked if this is required all the way along the length of 4th Street, all the way down to just north of Orange, it will be the dividing line from Gillespie Park; noted that from Orange to Washington there is a whole lot of old single family homes now used for business purposes in most cases; and asked if this restriction would mean that any development along that has to be residential use, even though they are businesses; explained that he is trying to find out how is this applied consistently, if they make a decision here, how can this be applied to all this frontage and how it affects other neighborhoods. Planner Greenberg pointed out that Adjustments are unique and they do not set precedent for other Adjustments, sO the Planning Board members may: feel comfortable that they are not setting a precedent with this decision by that specific requirement of the Zoning Code, however it would apply to future development as outlined in that map. PB Member Gannon noted that when this was put in place, the Planning Department had some reason for what they expected the development to be along this area, and that is what he is trying to get to, the intended vision of the planners; added that the Planning Board has not dealt with this before SO he wants to make sure that the planning intent is clear. Planner Greenberg said that it is his understanding that the intent was "like facing like" in terms of appearance, noting in the downtown there are a lot of choices, SO this is based on appearance not specific use. Attorney Connolly concurred and explained that there is a difference, north of 4th Street was a much less intense zone district than south of 4th Street, and there was a concern about having a mixed-use right across the street from something that had to be residential, SO Duany was saying "like VS. like." PB Chair Normile said that residential is not included even though this is a Residence Inn, it is a hotel, it is not residential. Planner Greenberg pointed out that there are two proposed residential dwelling units, they are part of the hotel, but they are considered dwelling units. Attorney Connolly stated that there are no affected persons. PB Vice Chair Blumetti moved to Adopt a motion to find adjustment #19-ADP-03 consistent with applicable sections of the Zoning Code and approve the requests for adjustment subject to the following: 1. Signage on the building fronting 4th Street, other than address or directional signs, is prohibited. 2. The accessory uses identified on the ground floor site plan, in the habitable area fronting 4th street, shall only be available to guests of the hotel and their guests. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 46 3. AIl related development and construction plans for the proposed development shall be in compliance with the applicant's written request for adjustment received by the Department of Development Services on April 9, 2019. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. 4. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion Speaking to his motion, PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that the proposal meets the standards of review for the Adjustment, and the applicant did a wonderful job making the façade "like VS. like" and residential in nature; and added whether the use was a hotel or a restaurant, the look would be the same as if they were all residences. PB Member Ohlrich had no further comments. The motion passes with a vote of 4 to 1 (PB Member Gannon voted "No.") 5. SKEA Enterprises, LLC (2375 S Tamiami Trail): Site Plan Application No. 19-SP-04 is a request for Site Plan approval to construct a 3-story Medical Office Building with parking on an approximate 0.35 acres site located in the Office Professional Business (OPB) zone district with a street address of 2375 S Tamiami Trail. (Gretchen M. Schneider, General Manager) Attorney Connolly noted that there is an application for affected person's status regarding this project and called Ms. Lisa Morano. Ms. Morano was not in the audience and therefore she was not granted affected person's status. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Don Lawson, representing SKEA Enterprises, LLC, introduced himself for the record; stated that the application is for a small medical building to be located on South Tamiami Trail; noted that the site is located on the northeast corner of Hibiscus Street and South Tamiami Trail and is zoned OPB; said that until recently it had some rather old and unsafe buildings on the property, but the buildings have now been removed, primarily because the owner was encouraged by the Police Department to do SO due to the fact that the buildings became a central location for homeless people, vandalism, drugs and all sorts of things that are not desirable in the community; said that they had Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 46 tried to hold off on the demolition until after the Planning Board meeting, but it got to the point that it was necessary to deal with it to prevent other issues from developing, and the building is gone now; pointed out that for many years it was occupied as an office use, varying from a dentist office to insurance companies, but it had been vacant for some time; referred to a survey prior to the demolition of the buildings and stated that there was very little green area around the building, and it was only the building and pavement, and it was pretty much overgrown for a number of years; referred to the proposed site plan, and noted that it has ground level parking with 32 parking spaces, pointed to the outline of the building, noted that they have placed the building as far as possible from the residential neighbors to the east; noted that the required set back is 15 ft, and they - have exceeded that, they are at 401 ft.; said that the habitable space is elevated, SO the ground level is pretty much open and there is pedestrian access from South Tamiami Trail; said they are improving the access along Hibiscus Street, and they will have only one curb cut, the existing curb cut that has been there for over thirty years; pointed out that the traffic study indicated that the impact is de minimis; said that the case planner in this project was Ms. Lucia Panica and she was very thorough; noted that they were reluctant to secure occupants for the second and third floors prior to the Planning Board meeting; noted that there are enough medical professionals who need space that do not want to take the space that belongs to Sarasota Memorial Hospital, which is also one of his firm's clients, sO he feels that, in short order, they will have their tenants; said that they submitted their application as a medical office, even though they are not guaranteed that it will be strictly medical, but medical offices have more stringent and more strict requirements, sO if in fact they find a tenant or occupant who is not medical, they have overdone it, as they have provided more parking because of the medical use, and they have provided other things in this project that are applicable to medical offices; said that the applicants felt it was more prudent to pursue the more rigorous standards and have the worst case scenario, sO if an attorney wants to use the space, he is not prohibited from doing SO, and he has extra parking spaces; referred to an architectural rendering of the building, stating that they want to do an iconic upscale building along the Trail, they believe it is ani improvement of what was there previously; pointed out that they are providing a higher level of landscaping, and in the renderings they try to replicate, the best they can, the landscape plan that was included in the package; addressed PB Member Gannon and said thathe actually asked that the size of the trees in the renderings be depicted as the trees are expected to look within nine to twelve months from planting; referred to several renderings to show the view from US 41 and the view from Hibiscus Street; stated that this project complies with all applicable codes and ordinances, as well as all the stipulations and requirements for an office building in this zoning district; and respectfully requested Planning Board approval of the project sO that they can move forward with a new building on the South Trail. PBI Member Morriss stated that his question is irrelevant to the site plan, noted that they are proposing columns in the parking, and asked how they plan to keep them from being hit by someone with a big car and no sense. Mr. Lawson stated that they did the Urgent Care Center for Sarasota Memorial Hospital at St. Armand's Key, and this is very similar to that; noted that they try to set the columns back as far as possible from the travel patterns, and in this case they will be steel columns encased in concrete; added Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 46 that they try to do everything they can for the safety of the people who drive in there, but also to ensure they will not have issues with the integrity of the building. PB Vice Chair Blumetti referred to a discrepancy he noticed on Sheet PL -1; pointed out that there was a column in the middle of a parking space, on the south side of the building, which seems to have been corrected in the plan, but the dates do not align. Mr. Lawson stated that it was an error, the landscape architect put the column in the wrong place, but the location of the column is between the parking spaces. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked about the red band on the top of the building, and asked what material iti is, and why the change in materials; said that it is an attractive building, but he is just curious. Mr. Lawson stated that they have found materials that are compatible with the pedestrian touch, SO what he is seeing is the continuation of what is happening on the back side of the building; referred to a rendering and pointed out that there is a wood look because that is what the people see, touch, and feel, and they continued it around the corners, around the top, and at the pedestrian access from the South Tamiami Trail [US 41] into the building; added that people will go through that nice material, and it takes them all the way to the elevator, SO they wanted to introduce that material before they got to the building. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that it is not rendered as wood and asked if it will be wood. Mr. Lawson said that it is their goal, but it all comes down to what they can afford, but the goal is to create that type of environment. Staff Presentation: Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services, introduced herself for the record, and stated that she is sitting-in for Lucia Panica who is attending a conference; said that Mr. Lawson did a great job describing everything, she will not repeat information, and she will only add that this is Site Plan Application No. 19-SP- 04, and that they are putting in a bike rack close to the street; added that they are required to provide a bike rack for three bikes but they are providing a bike rack for four bikes; noted that Mr. Lawson has discussed the height of the building, they are providing 32 parking spaces, more than they are required, they meet all landscape requirements, the height is within the height limitation of the district, and staff is recommending approval since it is a office, and it is located in an office district, and they meet all the standards or review; and concluded that staff recommends approval subject to the two standard conditions that are found in the staff report. PB Member Morriss moved to find Site Plan No. 19-SP-04 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the petition subject to the two conditions that follow: 1. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled 2375 S. Tamiami Trail, received by the Development Services Department on May 7, 2019. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of the Development Services Department. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 46 2. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance oft thej permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that he completely concurs with the staff report. PB Member Gannon agreed. The motion passes unanimously, (vote of 5 to 0) IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TOTHE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address thel Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which havel been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) Dan Bailey - stated that his firm has been representing Marie Selby Botanical Gardens since its inception in in 1972, and represented Marie Selby before that; noted that they have four applications coming before the Planning Board, and they were seeking to be placed on the Planning Board's public hearing agenda on July 10, 2019; said that he received a call at his office around 6:00 P.M. this evening, telling him that the topic had come up during this meeting, and he came over here; said that he met people in the hall wearing yellow shirts and smiles who told him that they have been postponed until September; stated that he is concerned about that, because this is a big project with four applications associated with it, and one that has drawn a lot of attention; said that he spoke with Mr. Connolly during the break to find out about the circumstances that led to the decision to postpone the hearings, and he indicated that the Planning Board was considering a potential special meeting date on July 22nd, 2019 but PB Member Gannon will not be able to attend, and that onJuly 10th, 2019, the date they were shooting for, both Attorney Connolly and Attorney Fournier have to leave early, and one of their colleagues will have to take their place; explained that his concern is that the Planning Board will proceed on to hear other applications that night, but the Selby applications are not among those; pointed out that they got in line, they passed the test of the DRC, and he was unaware that this topic would be discussed this evening; added that, apparently, a lot of people thought that it was coming up, and that the optics do not look very good; stated that these types of petitions are very expensive to maintain and put forward, include a lot of consultants' time, and the construction delays associated with this project should it be approved, every month costs a lot of money; stated that it is one of those situations where justice delayed is justice denied; said that they want to make sure that everybody who has an interest in it knows about what is going on, and he guarantees that they do, because they have had multiple meetings; noted that those who are opposed are not opposed because they do not know what the project is about, they know what it is about but they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 39 of 46 do not like what they see, they understand that, that is the reason they went through this process; said that it would be easy to dread to go through the hearing, he is dreading it, he wishes he could call-in sick that night, and thel Planning Board might also feel that way, but we can't; asked that the Planning Board please put the hearing back on the agenda, let it go forward like any other petition, they are special but not that special that they have to be yanked off the agenda and be put off for a couple months, they cannot afford that; asked that the Planning Board reconsider their decision; added that Selby Gardens representatives Jennifer Rominiecki, CEO, Wendy Deming, COO, and Rob Rominiecki are in the audience; and stated that he would appreciate any consideration in that regard, because it is a due process issue and needs to be addressed. PB Chair Normile asked Attorney Connolly if she is allowed to respond to these comments. Attorney Connolly stated that during Citizen's Input, the Planning Board does not respond, however this is a unique situation, because, for everything that is going to be on the PB Agenda of July 10, 2019, tomorrow morning [June 13, 2019] is when the City's Clerk's Office does the advertisement, sO they need to know this evening what is going to be on the July 10, 2019 PB Agenda; explained that, while normally the PB response to Citizen's Input is just "OK, I will send it over to staff," this evening the PB Members may want to have some back and forth; and concluded thatiti is in the discretion of the Planning Board. PB Chair Normile stated that she wants to give Mr. Bailey a little background; explained that the idea that the Selby hearings might be postponed to September came up on June 4, 2019; said that the discussion came up at the beginning of the meeting; noted that Mr. Cover recommended July 22, 2019, then they found out that one individual could not make that date, and the request was to please look at September; said that happened on June 4, the fact that there were people here this evening, somebody was watching the June 4 meeting; stated that she personally sent an email to Attorney Connolly on this subject to find out how it can be brought up this evening, and that was way before anybody started sending out emails, including the 500 plus that the Planning Board members got from Selby, from 4:30 PM last night until 1:30 PM today; added that as far as due process goes, her understanding of due process in a quasi- judicial hearing is that it relates to the right to present evidence, notification, and the ability to question witnesses; pointed out that none of that is being denied, in fact the idea of having everyone present is SO that Selby's and everyone else's due process rights are all met, not just a little bit but completely; added that Attorney Connolly is the Planning Board's expert, and Attorney Fournier, and she thinks it is significant that they be present, it is very important that they be here for guidance for the Planning Board; and that is a little of the background. Mr. Bailey said that he also feels safe when Attorney Connolly is in the room, but the Planning Board will conduct business that night, and asked why not with them. PB Chair Normile stated that Selby is not just a special case, it is an enormous case, it is tremendous, asking for Comp Plan amendments, and Zoning and sO many things, and the Planning Board needs the expertise, there is no doubt about it; and added that she would not want to go into it without that. PB Member Ohlrich stated that they need all five members of the Planning Board present. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 40 of 46 Mr. Bailey stated that this is true of every applicant that comes before the Planning Board, they all have the same due process rights, and that is all they are asking for. PB Chair Normile agreed, and stated that those due process rights are minimal as far as she is concerned, and the idea is to expand them as much as possible, but there are issues involved in the Selby case that, she thinks, require even more expertise, because of the issues involved. PB Member Gannon noted that General Manager Chapdelain stated earlier this evening that staff has a tentative agenda for the PB meeting on July 10, 2019, and asked what items are included on that agenda; said that consideration was given to having Selby on July 10, 2019 and the other items would have to be moved out, but those have already been scheduled. General Manager Chapdelain said that they have not been scheduled at this point. PB Member Gannon said that they have not been formally noticed, but from a general planning standpoint, those projects are in the queue too, SO they are all in the queue; and asked General Manager Chapdelain to list those items. General Manager Chapdelain stated that there are three Zoning Text Amendments, one relating to the CGD Zone District, one is looking at the North Trail Overlay District, and one about public art, all of them city-initiated items; added that there are two privately initiated items, one is the Humane Society Site Plan, and the other is the Auteur Street Vacation, which is adjacent to the Hyatt on Boulevard of the Arts; noted that it is a challenge speaking with the applicants, trying to meet everybody's needs, and making sure everybody can be here, looking at all different calendars and dates; noted that staff considered moving the three City initiated items to the July 22, 2019 Special Meeting, and then the two privately initiated items were both willing to go on July 22, 2019 or in a Special afternoon session on July 10, 2019 in order for Selby to have the evening of July 10, 2019, because of the number of applications and their complexity, and sO forth. PB Chair Normile stated that the three Zoning Text Amendments are legislative issues, they are not quasi-judicial public hearings. PB Member Gannon noted that the Street Vacation is in an area where there are other development issues and resident issues, there are a lot of neighborhood association concerns, and most likely they will be providing input. Attorney Connolly stated that the Planning Board has had previous discussions with regards to Selby relating to the fact that the Planning Board needs to have a special meeting for the Selby project; noted that there are five separate applications, and over the last couple months, multiple times a week, they get either an editorial, or guest editorial, or a letter to the editor on Selby, and there is even one today; stated that the Planning Board knows that they need an entire day, it would be inappropriate to schedule Selby with anything else, because he does not know if the Planning Board can finish Selby in one night; added that clearly no applicant has the right to leapfrog the other applicants that are already in the queue ahead of them; pointed out that it was just today that Selby received its sign off from the Director and from the City Auditor of the Clerk's Office, SO in his opinion they would not be entitled to get ahead of the people who were already up for consideration for the July 10, 2019 PB Meeting; referred to the July 10, 2019 meeting, and said that last month the Planning Board heard part of his conversation with Director Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 41 of 46 Cover regarding his availability;noted that, for months, hel has been telling Director Cover to be aware of the July PB Meeting, because he has to leave at 9:00 PM that evening; explained that Attorney Fournier and himself, both have to keep their certification as Board Certified in City, County, and Local Government, the seminar starts on DJuly 11, 2019] Thursday morning in Palm Beach, Mr. Fournier is not a morning person, SO he is going over there on Wednesday, and there is no chance he is going to be here; stated that he can handle mornings, but he cannot be up all night and then drive across SR 70, sO he has to get out of the meeting early to get a full night's sleep;added that the Planning Board talked about July 22, 2019 and one Planning Board member is not available; pointed out that it is the Planning Board's decision, and he cited in addition to the Planning Board's Rules and Procedures in the Zoning Code Section III-203, it says 1 meeting shall be held at the call of the Chairman and at such other time that the Planning Board may determine.. : stated that it is the Planning Board's call; referred to due process, and explained that all the parties have due process rights, but the date of the hearing is not one of the primary ones; said that if one wants to talk about due process on the date of the hearing, in his humble opinion and advice to the Planning Board, nothing usurps the Epoch; in the Epoch the Planning Board has an applicant who has already received site plan approval, already has received building permit approval, already has his construction funding in hand, already has begun construction, already has sold units, and the Planning Board has a multi-night hearing with regard to that appeal, which then has to go to the City Commission; stated that if the Planning Board should clear the decks for anything, his advice to the Planning Board is to clear the decks for the Epoch; noted that for all those reasons, while the Planning Board has the obligation to do the best they can, he does not think the Planning Board should treat Selby differently than anybody else, rather if the Planning Board is going to treat anybody with special consideration right now, his advice is that has to be the Epoch. PB Chair Normile concurred and stated that the Planning Board has been giving the Epoch special consideration, there are two more hearings and possibly another one after them, the Planning Board is doing their best to do them the right way, and will do the same for Selby; 1 noted that this Board works very hard; added that the Planning Board will make sure that everybody has their day in court; and said that she does not like to use that phrase, but she does not know if "their day at the Planning Board" sounds as good. Mr. Bailey expressed his appreciation and asked if the September date has been set. Attorney Connolly said there are two choices, the first choice is Wednesday, September 18, 2019 and the second choice is Wednesday, September 25, 2019; and added that staff will try to clear those dates with the Chambers and all the other people and will work through it. PB Chair Normile said that the Planning Board will be holding another meeting tomorrow night June 13, 2019], doing the Epoch Appeal, SO actually if Mr. Cover or Mr. Chapdelain can bring those dates in, the Planning Board will set [the Selby public hearingl as soon as they can. Mr. Chapdelain noted that Mr. Smith will be the Planning Board Acting Secretary on June 13, 2019. Attorney Connolly stated that the Planning Board members Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 42 of 46 have indicated their availability on September 18 and September 20, 2019, sO it is a question of the parties being able to attend. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 10, 2019 PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 42 Of 48, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, add the word "like" to read: 1 PB Member Ohlrich noted that it sounds like 1 PB Member Gannon noted that on the same page all paragraphs begin with the words PB Member.. except in one case where the word "member" needs to be capitalized. 2. May 8, 2019 There were: no revisions. The revised Minutes of April 10, 2019, and the May 8, 2019 were adopted by consensus. VI. PRESENTATION: OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were none. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Ohlrich asked if Mr. Connolly has any information or feedback for the Planning Board regarding a question the Planning Board asked previously about different decision-making criteria the Planning Board had versus the City Commission for the Airport Hotels. Attorney Connolly stated that he went over that with Attorney Fournier, obviously there have been a lot of Planning Board meetings, he has been busy in between, and Attorney Fournier has been busy with the City Commission, sO he has not had a chance to put a presentation together, but he and Attorney Fournier have talked about it; said that he can give an example of the same thing that happened this evening, to show the Planning Board what exactly he was trying to say to the Planning Board a couple months ago, which it did not get through; said that the first hearing this evening was a Rezone Ordinance Amendment which, in 2003, had been rezoned to ORD, SO the Planning Board was not discussing this evening about rezoning the property to ORD; added that the section that he read during that public hearing was Section IV-1108, which states: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 43 of 46 A modification to any ordinance that rezones real property shall require a public hearing before the Planning Board and a separate public hearing before the City Commission in accordance with the notice and public hearing requirements of sections IV-201 and 202 of these regulations. Revisions to site plans profered as part of a rezoning application other than revisions determined to be minor pursuant to Sec. IV- 508, shall require the submission ofan amended site plan to the. Planning Board and City Commission... Attorney Connolly stated that is why everyone was here this evening with regard to the Hope House, and that is why everyone was here a few months ago in regard to the Airport Hotel; the point he was trying to make on the. Airport Hotel is that all of those criteria, the twelve criteria in the rezone, they applied at the time the rezoning was done, and for this evening's earlier rezone public hearing, [the original rezone] was in 2000; stated that the only thing the Planning Board needed to look at this evening was the changes they made; pointed out that the change they proposed this evening was to enclose the outdoor patio to make it an indoor sanctuary, sO that is what the Planning Board needed to look at the twelve criteria for, not the whole project; referred to the Airport Hotel, and said that the Planning Board needed to look those criteria for just the changing of the square footage from the commercial square footage to the hotel rooms, and in that case it was really authorized by the equivalency table; and that is the point he was trying to make but obviously he failed to make it. PB Member Morriss stated that the Planning Board is a tad overzealous. PB Chair Normile stated that she remembers being told that the Planning Board had to use the standards of review for the rezone. Attorney Connolly stated that the rezone for the Airport Hotel happened in 2007. PB Chair Normile said he said [to use them] that night. Attorney Connolly said that was not what he was trying to say to her; added that he has not had time to go back and look at it, because everyone had been sO busy, sO he is telling today what he was trying to say, obviously he did not make that point and he apologized for that; he did not get that point across, but the point he was trying to make was that in 2007 the. Planning Board needed to look at those criteria to rezone from the Governmental Zone to whatever it was rezoned to, but in 2019 the Planning Board only needed to look at that criteria for the change for the 178,000 sq. ft. PB Member Morriss suggested that the safe word would be "bookkeeping" instead of "analysis," " because he did not get that at all. Attorney Connolly said he realizes he did not get that point across. PB. Member Gannon said that he wants to make sure that everyone is on the same page for tomorrow night [6/13/2019 Special Planning Board Meeting); said that the agenda that Planning Board members picked up along with their 3-ring binder simply says that the agenda item is the Appeal Application, but he understood from the last meeting on the topic, there was a more narrowly defined set of things; and asked how will that be conducted tomorrow, sO that it is clear; and suggested that there should be clarification as to what the Planning Board is doing tomorrow. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 44 of 46 Attorney Connolly stated that what the Planning Board is doing tomorrow night is that the Planning Board will be asked to make a decision regarding the 21 individuals and the corporation who have filed the appeal, and whether they qualify as "aggrieved persons" under the definition in the Zoning Code; added that last week he passed out the time limits that he was suggesting, the definition [of aggrieved person] is the third thing of the things he mentioned, SO that would be the order, which, if he recalls correctly, Mr. Lobeck had thirty minutes for his evidence, then Mr. Lincoln's cross examination, etc.; repeated that this is the only thing that the Planning Board needs to do tomorrow night, make a decision about who, if anyone, is an "aggrieved person;" said that he has no expectation to start the public hearing or even talk about it; and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln withdrew all the motions. PB Chair Normile stated that there is half of the "standing issue" motion. Attorney Connolly stated that according to his recollection, Mr. Lincoln withdrew all of the motions, and said that the issues would still be relevant and they will get to it in the public hearing. PB Chair Normile said that she thought the decision was made to have both motions heard upfront, SO that it would not crop up in the middle. PB Member Morriss concurred. PB Member Ohlrich stated that this would be her preference as well. PB Chair Normile stated that Mr. Lincoln withdrew half of the standing issue. PB Member Morriss said that he threatened to do SO, but he is not sure if he did it. PB Chair Normile said that she thinks he will do that. Attorney Connolly stated that in his recollection, Mr. Lincoln withdrew all of his motions. PB Chair Normile said that he offered to, but the Planning Board pushed back. Attorney Connolly stated that there was some back and forth. PB Chair Normile said that she thinks it was his idea to do the pre-trial stuff upfront. Attorney Connolly said that they will try to save some time, because when they start the public hearing, that is going to be lengthy, sO if they can get any of the pretrial stuff done, and added that the "aggrieved persons" is part of the pre-trial stuff. PB Chair Normile said that she will be ready for both of those motions. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he does not think Mr. Lincoln can address that first motion, the striking through the Jan Norsoph's report, because Jan Norsoph is not going to be here to defend it. PB Chair Normile said that they do not know who will be there tomorrow. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he cannot be there and that was the reason for scheduling another Planning Board meeting. Attorney Connolly stated that the only persons who will be at the meeting tomorrow are the aggrieved persons, noting the meeting will take a few hours. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she would like to get this on the agenda at some point in time, to review the Planning Board Rules of Procedures so that it is explicit that all materials for all meetings, or appeals, or whatever, come to Planning Board members from the City, and not directly from applicants, or appellants, to the Planning Board members by email; added that she spoke to Ms. Grassett about this the other day, and she does not have any recommended wording, but she suspects that Ms. Grassett does; added that she is talking about amending the Planning Board's Rules of Procedures sO that this never happens again. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 45 of 46 Attorney Connolly stated that they can schedule an agenda item at some point in the future to discuss amendments to the procedures. PB Chair Normile said that it would be good to go over all the Rules of Procedures anyway, that would be useful. PB Member Gannon stated that] he was really frustrated this morning knowing that the day before and the day of Planning Board meetings, often times the PB members have emails coming from the Attorney or staff alerting PB Members about something that they have to deal with that night, and he could not get to those [emails] because of the 500 emails that were sent out from one website; noted that he was absolutely concerned coming to the public hearing that he may have missed something in communications; and asked how would staff reach the Planning Board members before 500 emails, he does not know if there is another back channel way other than picking up the phone and say that they have sent something. Attorney Connolly stated that what happened the last two days was problematic, and at this point, IT is doing all they can to block it, which is going to have another effect too, because: right now they are blocking everything with the word "Selby" in it; said that what they have done, if they are 500 [emails), these are ex-parte communications, to all five Planning Board members and all five City Commissioners, according to the Zoning Code, every ex-parte communication must be on the record of the public hearing, sO if you have ten people, five PB Members and five City Commissioners, that is 5,000 emails that have to go on the record for the City Auditor Clerk's Office to record just for today. PB Chair Normile noted that PB Member Morriss was not on the list. PB Member Gannon said it was a website that people logged into, put in their name and email address and the website sent it out, and it states how and why they are doing it; said that it complies because you could respond back to that person; added that blocking based on subject matter will not do it, you will need to have to block it based on the IP address for the domain of that. PB Chair Normile said that they [emails] stopped at about 1:30 PM - 2:00 PM, they started at 4:20 PM the night before, and they were out of control. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the people who sent the emails know that they sent them. PB Chair Normile said that they must put their name in. PB Member Gannon stated that you sent a letter to your congressman, and they say here is the text we: suggest, you select the template and send the template text to your congressman, sO 500 people went to the website and entered their name and e-mail address to send it out; and noted that it seems like a lot of people to do that, it is more like someone uploaded a database, or a spreadsheet of names and email addresses. PB Member Morriss asked if someone does not know that they have sent something, wouldn't that be a problem; said it may be worth checking it out, maybe someone from staff contacting these people and asking them if they have sent this email. PB Chair Normile suggested that staff just call the PB Members if there is something that they need to know for that night's meeting, just in case this happens again; said this could happen again when the public hearing comes up, unless there is legal means to prevent it; and said PB: members would have to be contacted if therei is something they need to know, because shifting through 500 emails is impossible. Attorney Connolly stated it does not accomplish anything. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 12, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 46 of 46 VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM Shu Steven R. Cover, Planning Director EILEEN W. NORMILE, CHAIR Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]