CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OFTHE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Patrick Gannon, Chair Members Present: Eileen Normile, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven Cover, Director, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Lucia Panica, Chief Planner, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. PB Chair Gannon called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.m., and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were: none. IV. LAND USE. ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE. PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by thel Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Contact. Attorney Connolly described the procedures for Quasi-judicial Public Hearings, recommended time limits for the presentations, and administered the oath to all present who intended to speak this evening. B. Quasi-udicial Public Hearings 1. Sarasota Daycare (930 N. Beneva Road): Site Plan Application No. 17-SP-12 and Minor Conditional Use Application No. 17-MCU-02 are a request for Site Plan and Minor Conditional Use approval for a Daycare Facility to serve up to 300 children with proposed hours of operation being Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., located on an approximate 7.5 acre parcel in the Residential Multiple Family-1 (RMF-1) zone district with a street address of 930 N. Beneva Road. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 38 PB Chair Gannon requested ex-parte communications be revealed. PB Member Ohlrich declared ex-parte communications with the applicants, whom she met at the site when she was visiting with staff. PB Member Blumetti also visited the site, and had a meeting with City staff. PB Vice Chair Normile visited the site and had email communications with members of the Sarasota County School Board. PB Chair Gannon had a meeting with staff. Applicant Presentation Mr. Freedman, agent introduced to the record himself, Mr. Richard Losee, developer, Mr. Robert Lincoln, Attorney, and noted that in the audience are additional members of their team; stated that the site is located at 930 North Beneva Road, to the north there is condominium, to the south, there is is an ACLF and Goodwill, and, across the street to the west, there is a shopping center; noted that the property is zoned RMF-1, and is designated Multi-Family on the City Comprehensive Plan; stated that the applicants are proposing to do a daycare facility, called Sarasota Kids 'R' Kids, a professional operation focusing on daycare; complemented staff for working with the applicant team, because this is a complicated project for a variety of reasons; pointed out that it involves the County, because Beneva Road is a County road; and concluded that staff has prepared a great report. Mr. Losee stated that he is involved in the design and the development of the project; noted that originally this was going to be a school/d daycare center; said that when the school did not receive the charter, the owners decided to continue with the daycare operation; added this was a minor operation for the school, now the daycare is the major operation for this project; noted that originally the building had a U-shape configuration, as they tried to work around the heritage trees in an effort to preserve them; stated that when they redesigned the project for the daycare, they removed the two wings east of the proposed building and redesigned the building to be one floor instead of the original two floors; pointed out that this is Phase I of the project, and they are not sure what Phase II will be, but it will come before the Planning Board for review at a later time; noted that Kids 'R' Kids is a national franchise, it is an early learning center for children; and concluded that it is a nice stepping stone for daycare kids to learn while in a school environment. Mr. Lincoln stated that the majority of the: issues raised by staff related to the site concept, trees, transportation circulation, and management; noted that there are improvements to Beneva Road for the driveway, including a right-hand turn lane; added that there is a second right-out-only driveway on the north side; said that the left hand turn on Beneva Road will be channelized SO that there is no left turn out; noted that all those improvements: need to be approved by the County; pointed out that another issue is the bus stop in front of Goodwill, people use the bus stop, they cross to go shopping, and staff wanted improvements there; stated that it is not a direct engineering requirement to put a mid-street pedestrian crossing at that location, but it is something that staff wanted to do, to improve safety in the area, and the applicants have agreed to do it, but it has to be approved by Sarasota County; noted that there are four conditions attached to the recommended staff motion, the applicant has proposed amendments to the first condition, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 38 and they have been reviewed by staff; explained that the amendments relate to the right- of-way-use permits from the County for all the median and the driveway requirements before the first building permits, the crosswalk has to be applied for; pointed out that the County has its own standards for the driveway and median approvals, the crosswalk will be subject to some other kinds of requirements; noted that staff would like to use flashing lights, where pedestrians who want to cross can push a button and a flashing light will require the cars to stop, but the County may object to that; stated the applicants decided to move forward with their building permit, and they will build what the County will approve; stated that if the County approves the crosswalk, it will be built, and all transportation improvements will have to be done by the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO); pointed out that this is the only change proposed by the applicant; and concluded that staff has analyzed the criteria and have determined that the applications meet the review criteria. PBI Member Blumetti stated that two important pieces ofi information are: missing from the site plan, one: is the median, which requires approval from Sarasota County, and the other is approval from FPL for the easement under the refuse collection area which has not been approved, as far as. he knows. Mr. Lincoln stated that the FPL easement is something that FPL will release, and it will be done before anything is built at that location, but it does not need to be done before the site plan is approved; noted that FPL will have other easements to provide services to the property but it is difficult to know where the services need to be moved to prior to the approval of a site plan. Mr. Losee stated that the applicant originally requested that the condition call for this to be required at the CO,not prior to the building permit; noted that the change came late in the day for the applicants, who have contacted FPL and are in the process of getting it; pointed out that all the other lines that provided services to the trailers have been removed, the power poles have also been removed, there is nothing alive on the site, sO basically these are only lines on paper right now, and they will be removed and new easements will be putin place. PB. Member Blumetti stated that this is a site plan approval, and these are items that require approval by some other sources; added that his biggest concern is the open space requirement; added that the site is 7.53 acres, 320,000 sq. ft., and only 15,000 sq. ft. are allocated to open space, which is half of what is required; said that it seems that the priorities are mixed up, because the applicants are doubling the parking and reducing the open space; and pointed out that 30,000 sq. ft. is the minimum requirement for open space. Mr. Losee stated that this has been discussed with staff, all the children are not out at the same time, not all ages go out there, the group using the playground is smaller. PB Member Blumetti said that he compared it to two other schools who have similar site acreage and they have much larger open spaces, and questioned why sO much space is devoted to the cars and not to what is important, the children; and questioned how this got through the DRC without architectural stamps. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 38 Mr. Losee stated that he is an Architectural Engineer licensed in four states, he has built fifty-five schools in Florida and other states and never had a problem before. PB Member Blumetti stated that Mr. Losee cannot sign architectural plans. Mr. Losee stated that these are building designs and he never had an issue before, and, if that is an issue, he can partner with an architect. PB Member Blumetti stated that it is an issue because the building lacks architectural merit. Mr. Losee stated that this site is being developed like a campus, this is one building and others will come, this was originally a two-story building, now it is an one-story building and there will be other buildings to compliment this building. PB Member Blumetti said that in Sarasota, schools and the relationship of indoor and outdoor space is important; expressed concerns that this was designed by an engineer not an architect, and there is a precedence in this city for architecture; noted that it is a criterion for Planning Board approval; and pointed out again that there is missing information, like Sarasota County's approval and FPL's approval. Mr. Lincoln stated that there: is no such requirement, and staff has submitted the condition that Sarasota County's approval must be done in order for the project to go forward; argued that it would be unreasonable to get the driveway permits and other improvements from Sarasota County before the applicants had a site plan identifying the uses that will go on the property; said that Sarasota County will say the opposite, how can they approve the driveways and construction of a median without having an approved use for the property that requires these improvements; added that it: is not appropriate for the Planning Board to put applicants in this position with the County; noted that there is a condition for the right-of-way permit to be issued before the building permit can be issued; pointed out that this is the site plan, it is not the building permit, it is the stage before the building permit; said that this level of review for a project is appropriate at the building permit stage; added that, likewise, the FPL easement is not a public easement, it is a dedication to the County, any issue relating to constructing something on the top of that easement is a private matter between the owner and FPL, and resolving that matter is between the owner and FPL, and while this can be an impediment to the timing of the project to resolve it, it is not a regulatory matter for the approval of the site plan; stated that as far as the parking is concerned, for a phased development, excess parking is designed to also handle the following stage of the development, and part of the reason the parking and some of the stormwater is done now, is to minimize the ultimate disruption to the site from the construction activities of the phased project; and added that stormwater lines, and other kinds of things that have to go underground, if they had to be put underground after the first phase was done, it would be highly disruptive to the operations and the ability to use the property. PB Member Morriss asked how many phases this is going to be, because it is difficult to analyze this ift the Planning Board does not know whatis] planned for the future. Mr. Losee said that the applicants are not prepared to discuss this, the only thing they he can say at this time is that they plan to use the original U-shape configuration for the following phases. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 38 Attorney Connolly stated that all that the Planning Board has here is what the applicants refer to as Phase I, which is a 300 student daycare facility; we cannot talk tonight about what they will doi in the future, because this is a quasi-judicial public hearing, the Planning Board can talk about this public hearing, not the one that may come in one or five years. PB. Member Morriss stated that this relates to the design compatibility. Attorney Connolly stated that he would have an issue with that; pointed out that because this is a quasi- judicial public hearing, decisions must be based on evidence on the record today, not what is going to happen in the future. PB Chair Gannon pointed out that any additional phases will have to come back to the Planning Board for review. Attorney Connolly concurred; added that what has been mentioned is the potential for a charter school, that would require a Major Conditional Use, which would come both to the Planning Board and the City Commission, it is a free standing site plan, that would come to the Planning Board for review; and added that they would be proposing a future development that would require Planning Board review. PB Member Morriss asked for additional information about the Kids 'R' Kids national franchise; and asked if they have any images of their other schools or daycare facilities. Mr. Losee stated that he does not have them with him, but PB Members can go on the company's website to see images, there are a variety of designs; and added that they feel there is a need for a daycare in this location, reached out to find the best franchise that they could find, brought them to see the site, they approved the site for their plans, and they are ready to go. PB Member Ohlrich noted that there was mention of some pedestrian incidents crossing at that location; added that there have been vehicular incidents in the area as well, but her main concern about the project is the traffic and the traffic analysis, which was originally done when a school for 1,300 children was going to be built, and when the project changed, it was not re-done, but re-analyzed; added that people are looking at the intersection of Fruitville Road and Beneva Road, and the immediate area where this project will be, but not considering four driveways between Circus Blvd. and the entrance to this site, where people are allowed to turn north or south, people zoom through the light at Beneva and crash into people who are going through Circus; repeated that she is concerned about the traffic and she would like to see some drawings and discussion about the improvements that are being considered for Beneva Road. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she read Mr. Lincoln's letter regarding the first traffic study, she understands that this proposal is for a smaller amount; added that she also read the letter from Mr. Oliver responding to Mr. Lincoln's letter, sO she wanted to address the traffic study for the 300 hundred students and the proposed mitigation, and asked who will pay for that. Mr. Lincoln responded that the applicant willl pay for that. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that originally it was $337,000 dollars to put-in a signalized intersection, which was turned down because of FDOT. Mr. Lincoln stated that for the traffic signal, FDOT goes through a warrant analysis; noted that a school automatically triggers a warrant analysis, without consideration of driveway volumes, and street volumes and all the other considerations; added that the first traffic analysis for the charter school Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 38 assumed that a traffic signal will be desired and required; pointed out that this would require negotiations with the County about moving the signal that is further north to this location; stated that: is not what the applicants are talking about now; explained that when they re-did the traffic study, they did not pull out the analysis for the signal, but there is no-way a daycare can trigger the warrant or the requirement for a signal; and stated that the applicants have been working with staff to identify improvements that address the specific conditions of the street, as it is based on the specific impacts of the daycare, without closing off what may be done to accommodate a Phase II part of the traffic. PB Vice Chair Normile expressed appreciation for the re-written condition, because it is more specific, and an improvement. Mr. Losee introduced Mr. Robinson, with J.R. Evans, who suggested the proposed configuration to North Beneva Road. Mr. Evans referred to Sheet 2: the Preliminary Site Plan, Sarasota DayCare, Master Site Plan and Cross Sections, (09/07/18), and pointed out that if one is driving north on Beneva Road, one can do that using the south entrance driveway on the site, which is right-in-right-out only; noted that they are also proposing the directional median that will prevent anyone exiting the site from turning left, and, at the same time, it would prevent anyone turning left coming out from the Publix driveway [across the street). PB Member Ohlrich asked if the proposed configuration would allow one to make a left turn into the Commons Shopping Center when driving north on Beneva Road. Mr. Robinson stated that you can turn left into the Commons Shopping Center; and noted that coming out of the Goodwill site, it will also be right turn only, they can only exit going north, and Goodwill supports this configuration. Mr. Lincoln stated that the current situation is not safe, everyone is trying to make the overall situation safer, and this would be a desirable configuration regardless if the proposed site were built. PB Member Ohlrich noted that there are two more drives south of the Goodwill driveway, on the same side of Beneva Road, one driveway is for the Sahib, the second is the entrance to Goodwill, and the third is the entrance/exit to the housing that is located behind the Goodwill; pointed out that people can turn north and south at these driveways; added that at the driveway across the street, at the north end of what used to be the K-Mart site, which is where the Big Lots and Planet Fitness are currently under construction, people can come out of that driveway and turn north or south; explained that this is the reason she mentioned earlier that people focus on the proposed site, and the failed intersection of Fruitvillle Road and Beneva Road, but there are a lot of other places in this immediate area where people go north and south and crash into each other. Mr. Lincoln stated that this project cannot fix all oft the problems; noted that there are other problems in this area, even old railroad rights-of-way from the time when this area was the winter quarters of the Circus; and suggested that a good planning solution would be for the City, or somebody, to figure out how to create common routes of access for all these properties back to Circus, through some combination of those routes; pointed out Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 38 that this is not something that the Planning Board can put on this project, thatj just happens to be coming into a situation where there are a lot of bad traffic issues; added what the applicants propose is to fix the problems that are directly impacted by the proposed development, and beyond, and that is what is presented in the proposed improvements. PB Member Ohlrich noted that there will be many kids under the age of five, not potty trained, and asked how frequently the applicants are going to do recycling. Mr. Lincoln stated that it will be done weekly or bi-weekly based on the need; explained that commercial pick upis established through a contract between the vendor and the daycare, and pick-ups are adjusted based on the need. Mr. Losee stated that in the other daycares they have pick up twice a week at a minimum. PB Vice Chair Normile referred to p. 179 of the packet, and asked for clarification of the statement at the beginning of the second paragraph, which reads: The signalization improvement to the project site access intersection is a direct requirement of the proposed development itself as is mecessary only due to the estimated site generated traffic. [March, 2018] Mr. Norman Trebilcock stated that, normally, a signal comes with a warrant study, there are nine warrants that the applicant needs to prove and validate; noted that the daycare itself will not meet those warrants, even school-crossing is specific to elementary school through high school, and iti is the crossing volume of students, where a school would meet the warrants for signalization. Mr. Lincoln stated that this [traffic] study was not done by the applicant, rather it was a study that the City contracts for and sets the study parameters; added that what happened, before it was accurate, but when the use changed in November/ December of last year, new trip generation rates were given to the consultant to run the analysis for the concurrency section, but that particular provision in the traffic study was not revisited, and that conclusion is notj justified by the numbers that are generated by the actual trip studies and the traffic generation. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that they changed the costs. Mr. Trebilcock said that they are considering a mid-block pedestrian crossing, what they call a rapid flashing beacon, but what is the most appropriate device to use at that location will be determined by Sarasota County. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the County and FDOT have the same spacing requirements between a hawk signal and two traffic lights. Mr. Trebilcock stated that it is situational. Mr. Lincoln pointed out that this is identified in the conditions that they will apply for the right-of-way-use permit, however it is worded sO thati it will be required to be constructed only if the County approves it; added that should the County deny it, it would not keep them from going forward with the project; noted that the driveway, the median cuts, and the lane improvements are direct vehicle in- and-out safety issues, and the way this is currently written, if the County denied them for some reason, they would not be able to go forward until the issues are resolved; and pointed out that the pedestrian crossing is something that the applicants cannot design ahead the time, the County will have Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 38 complete discretion on whether the crossing would be located there. PB Vice Chair Normile summarized that the applicants guarantee the construction of the lane and other improvements, and they will provide the beacon if it is approved. Mr. Lincoln agreed and added that the applicant is prepared to provide whatever else the County requires for the development of the crosswalk. PB Chair Gannon said that the original wording of the proffer said that this would be approved with County confirmation on both the road improvements and the crosswalk; and asked if that needs to be changed to say that building the crosswalk is not a condition for approval. Mr. Lincoln explained that the original language stated that the applicant must demonstrate that the County supports those things; added that the County does not have a way to support them; noted that there were problems with the language, first it was not clear whether or not it was a requirement that they had to grant the right-of-way use permit prior to granting the building permit; added that the other problem was the issue that if the County decided that they did not want the crosswalk, the entire project could not go forward, and that is not appropriate or fair; stated that this project is doing everything that it can to address a pedestrian issue that already exists; noted that staff feels that there is a chance that people from the project might also want to cross the street there; added that studies do not take under consideration that people may "J-walk," but this is what the people are doing now as they are leaving the Goodwill location; stated that currently there is a situation where people are crossing the street illegally, some of them have been hit, and it is aj problem; and pointed out that the applicants are proposing to actually address that problem and fix it, but that is far and above what would be required by any traffic study. PB Chair Gannon asked for clarification about the people who come from the south to drop off things at the Goodwill and exit going north, where do they have to go to turn south again. Mr. Lincoln said that they have to go to the traffic light, about one tenth of a mile: north, at the signalized driveway for the shopping center. PB Chair Gannon asked if people would be making a U-Turn to turn in to the Commons. Mr. Lincoln stated that people would not do it as a matter of course. PB Chair Gannon asked about the age of the students, stated that this about the families who would contract with the school to bring to the daycare children who are younger than 5 years old, and asked if parents can have children of other ages dropped off there, to be picked up after work. Mr. Losee stated that they do not have those provisions yet. Mr. Lincoln explained that providing after school care does not require different permits under the Zoning Code, however the applicants would have to revise their facility to accommodate such activity, and that is not in the applicants' plan at this point; and noted that such an activity would not change any of the parameters of the studies relating to this use. PB Chair Gannon asked about the statement on page 7, second paragraph of the staff report, relating to the Tree Mitigation Plan; noted that about three different clusters of trees were counted in the mitigation but the applicant is attempting to save the trees; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 38 stated that he does not know where in the Code it provides for trying to save the trees; and concluded that a site plan either meets the code requirements or it does not. Mr. Lincoln explained that staff has interpreted that expression to indicate that the site plan meets the Code requirements; the site plan demonstrates that the applicants are going to try to save those trees; the attempt satisfies the criteria of the site plan. PB Chair Gannon stated that the site plan refers to the tree mitigation and tree protection process, and the drawings show how the trees will be protected, sO in his opinion the trees will be protected, as indicated on the site plan; and asked if they will be cut out. Mr. Phil Smith, Landscape Architect, introduced himself to the: record; explained that with the grading operations that have to happen on the site, they want to save the trees, they are marked to be removed, and when all the physical improvements are laid out in the field, they will decide ifi iti is possible to save those trees, however these trees are included as part of removal and mitigation; and added this will be a field adjustment that sO that they can save the trees. PB Chair Gannon referred to Sheet No. L-01, Sarasota Daycare, Tree Protection and Removal Plan, (09-07-2018), tree cluster #80, and asked about the line of the fence that goes through the cluster. Mr. Losee stated that they will move the fence on the other side of the tree cluster but will adjust the location of the other fences so that the square footage of the playground area remains the same, or larger than what is now. PB Chair Gannon asked about the height of the outdoor playground fence; referred to the top of page 6 of the staff report, noted that the report states a 4-ft. outdoor playground fence, while Sheet No. L-01 shows a 6-ft fence. Mr. Losee stated it is 6-ft fence. PB Chair Gannon commended the applicants for trying to keep as many trees as possible; and stated that according to the submitted mitigation plan it appears that in addition to the mitigation trees, more trees are being added for the buffer. Mr. Smith agreed and pointed out that there are 23 grand trees on the site which they are proposing to save. PB Chair Gannon noted that the site plan states the owner is Charter School Beneva, LLC., and asked if they currently own the property, or is it owned by someone else and they have a contract to buy it. Mr. Lincoln stated that itis bought out right, and it is not a contract to purchase; and stated the entity has changed names, and the current owner is Charter School Beneva., LLC. PB Chair Gannon noted that the address is in Miami, Florida, as opposed to the address submitted with the application, which is a postal service on Siesta Key. Mr. Losee stated it is the same owner for both locations. Mr. Lincoln stated that the Principle is local, but it makes no difference, an entity may have several locations. PB Chair Gannon stated that the address in Miami is the location of a law firm specializing in immigration law; and asked if money is solicited from immigrants to make $500,000.00 dollar payments to get a green card. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 38 Mr. Lincoln pointed out that this is not an appropriate question to ask about the funding sO long as an entity has sufficient funding to go forward. PB Chair Gannon stated that it is confusing, given the different addresses, as to who exactly is the owner, who is proceeding with this, and where is the resolution on it. PB Vice Chair Normile referred to page 11 of the staff report, Item (6) which states: (6) Whether the applicant has demonstrated the financial and technical capacity to complete any improvements and mitigation necessitated by the development as proposed and has made adequate legal provision to guarantee the provision such improvements and mitigation;" PB Vice Chair Normile stated that based on this review standard the question asked earlier by PB Chair Gannon is appropriate; added that there have been three applications to the County for Charter Schools at this location, two of them were withdrawn, but according to the final evaluation, they were about to be rejected, and the third one, Pine Crest Academy, was rejected; asked if the applicants can explain who are the applicants of these applications, if they are the same person as the owner of the property, or they are different persons; added that someone is the constant in this story of bringing in all these charter schools that have not met the standards for charter schools, including the most recent one, the Pine Crest Academy, which failed under Transportation; and asked again, under the standard for review #6, which calls for the applicant to demonstrate the financial and technical capacity to complete the improvements, if the applicants can explain how they would meet this review standard. Mr. Freedman pointed out that the question relates to bringing in a charter school, which the applicant is not doing at this time. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that the applicants have not demonstrated the necessary financial and technical capacity, this is all she could find under public records as. far as the financial and technical capacity is concerned; stated she is not questioning the charter schools, but that is part of the public record, and it is part of the history of this site. Mr. Freedman stated that the owner of the property now intends to build a daycare center. Mr. Losee pointed out that it is fully funded, there is no funding issue, there is no state funding, FTE funding, it is completely separate. Mr. Lincoln stated that on the technical capacity, there is a developer who hired a design build firm with the capacity to construct it, and all other necessary experts including landscape, construction, traffic toimplement not only site plans but also building permits, and the Planning Board has the testimony from the design/build contractor that the project is funded, and that is competent and substantial evidence that they have the technical and financial capacity to do the project; stated in terms of the other questions, it is irrelevant that the owner had the idea to build a charter school and ran into difficulties; and added that the real take away would be that they are not going to come back with a proposal for a charter school unless they have done the necessary homework to know that the application is going to succeed. PB Vice Chair Normile said that is what she is asking to see, that the applicants have the technical and financial capacity, which is relevant under review standard #6; and asked Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 38 what happened to the bus shelter. Mr. Trebilcock responded that they are working with SCAT on that, the applicant will build the slab and SCAT will provide the shelter; and added that they coordinated with the Goodwill folks on this issue, because it is important to them. Mr. Losee noted that originally the applicant proposed to have the bus shelter on their property, but Goodwill wanted it on their property, sO the applicants moved the bus shelter location back, at Goodwill's request, because they felt that was the better location all together, sO the applicants will pour a new slab and SCAT will provide a shelter that they already have and meets their standards. PB Vice Chair Normile asked about the queuing plan for parents picking up and dropping off their children. Mr. Lossee stated that some parents will come in, go around the loop, and drop off under the canopy, or they can park and walk in the building. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that the report states there will be 200 additional cars at pickup hour, and asked if the team engineers feel that this will take care of that queue, or there be spilling off onto Beneva Road. The team engineers stated that if there are staggered start times it would be OK. Mr. Trebilcock added that there is enough area to do dual lanes if necessary to contain everything within the site, which was one of the reasons for requesting the additional right lane, to make sure that there is no impact externally. Mr. Losee noted that a daycare is not like a school, where everyone is coming in at the same time, the impact is not quite the same, it is spread out in the morning, and it is spread out in the afternoon. PB Chair Gannon asked the applicants to point out the locations of the existing and the proposed location of the bus shelter. Mr. Losee showed on the site plan the existing location, and the new location further south on Goodwill's property, at the point where the crosswalk meets the sidewalk; and added thati iti is a good location for the persons who want to ride the bus and want to cross the street to go to the shopping center. PB Chair Gannon stated that in order to build the turn lane, which basically starts in front of the Goodwill, they are taking up the amenities strip between the street and the sidewalk; and asked if the sidewalk will be moved. Mr. Trebilcock stated that they are able to contain everything within the right-of-way, and the sidewalk will remain where it is. PB Chair Gannon noted that the sidewalk will be located adjacent to the turning lane, immediately next to the curb; and asked about the width of the sidewalk. Mr. Trebilcock stated that it will be 6-ft. wide. PB Member Blumetti stated that he has a Building Official's Guide for Architects and Engineers in Florida, it is straight from the AIA web site, it cites the statutes, and on the second page it states that ". .all nez buildings and additions to the buildings, all occupants except one- or two-family dvellings, architects are responsible for comprehensive building design, including life safety, floor plans, elevations, architectural detailing, architectural features, specifications and aspects relating to human habitation of the building. .;" noted that it goes on and on to say that an engineer cannot sign architectural drawings, and architects cannot sign engineering drawings; and he questioned that technical aspect of this project. Mr. Lincoln responded that what was just read does not apply to plans submitted for site plan review; stated that the City of Sarasota establishes the standards that are necessary Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 38 for filing plans for site plan review in the City of Sarasota, and the staff has signed off and accepted the plans that are in front of the Planning Board, deeming them adequate for meeting the City of Sarasota site plan review requirements; and added that if there are issues with respect to compliance with those standards, then the City staff will enforce those standards at the time the applicants submit plans for building permit review, and that is the appropriate time to apply and deal with those regulations. PB Member Blumetti disagreed; noted that Division 9, Conditional Uses, review standard #5, states "whether generally the publichealth, safety and welfare will be preserved, and reasonable conditions, as necessary for such preservation, have been made;" and added that in his opinion that is the role of an architect. Mr. Lincoln suggested the PB Member Blumetti can ask PB Chairman Gannon to ask the City Attorney if the Board has the discretion to determine, even though no such requirement is set out in the City's Ordinances and published rules for these applications, whether the Planning Board has the authority to decide who can and cannot submit site plans. PB Member Blumetti stated that on the front page of the proposed site plan, the architect is listed as the engineer, and it is misleading; added that the applicants misled the City in the representation of the team members; and he questioned how this would go through permitting. Mr. Losee stated that every plan hel has produced and submitted has his company's seal, SO if there is an error that somebody else did on their plan, he apologizes but his plans have his seals. PB Member Blumetti acknowledged that the elevations and the building design were prepared by Mr. Losee; and added that Mr. Losee cannot do that according to Florida Statues. PB Chair Gannon suggested that PB Member Blumetti discuss this with staff at rebuttal. PB. Member Morriss noted that the issue is design; stated that the building looks more like a warehouse than a daycare, the play area has no shade structures, there are some existing trees, but there is a vinyl fence, which is another blank, the children will be basically inside a corral; and noted that the discussion has been about traffic, trees, sequencing, but what about the kids. Mr. Losee stated that thel building plans will address all oft that. PB Member Morriss pointed out that it is part of site plan review, the Planning Board must see if the proposal is architecturally compatible with the residential areas around it. Mr. Lincoln stated that iti is about compatibility, this does not mean architectural review of PB. Member opinions of what good architecture for the use would be. PB Member Morriss stated that it is part of what the Planning Board has to review, and he will not take the staff S read on this, because they are not architects either; said that to be told that this is acceptable is offensive to him; added that this is the least the applicant can possibly do to house little kids, in little cubicles, for the bulk of their day; noted that talking about this being compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood, it is not, it looks like a warehouse, and is not changing his opinion because Mr. Lincoln thinks it is not appropriate. PB Member Blumetti referred to Division V, the site plan, #4 and noted that it states Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 38 "whether there are ways in which the configuration of the development (e.g. location ofuse(s); intensity; density; scale; building size; mass; bulk; height and orientation; lot coverage; lot is configuration; architecture; screening; and concluded that it is all part of the site plan review. Mr. Lincoln read the last part of Division V, Item #4, noted that the issue is whether it [the proposal] would mitigate or improve the effect of the development on adjoining and nearby properties and on the community; stated that there has been no identification in a way that the design and architecture of the property would be harmful to the community in a way that it needs to be mitigated; added that taking the position that this review standard alllows the Planning Board to impose on applications completely subjective architectural standards, that are based on professional or aesthetic views, is not the appropriate application of the review criterion; that criterion goes to saying that... PB Chair Gannon interrupted Mr. Lincoln and stated that the Planning Board will rely on the City Attorney to advise them on the criteria for the Planning Board'sj judgement. PB Member Ohlrich stated that there is a lot banking on the County's approval of the improvements on Beneva Road; and asked what is "Plan B," should the County not approve the crosswalk. Mr. Lincoln stated that the question would be what the County would approve at that location; stated the applicants will put whatever the County allows then to which would be an improvement over what the existing condition is; and stated if the County decided that they do not want a cut in the median for a pedestrian refuge, that is up to the County to decide. Mr. Trebilcock stated that from a technical standpoint, the applicant's project does not warrant the need for that mid-block crosswalk, this project does not create the demand for it; pointed out that what they are proposing is based on the understanding that there is an identified need at the part of the City, the applicants met with the County and identified the potential to have some type of improvements along those lines, but the County reserved their ability to decide what makes most sense; added that the idea is to work through something, be it specifically at this location, or it is a flashing beacon, a hawk signal, or something else, that is what the applicants will do; stated that alternative "Plan B" on the applicant' S part would be, it is not warranted or needed here, they will have to address it somewhere else; and repeated that this project does not create the demand or need for this, SO, from a technical point, this project is not creating that issue, but the applicants will be willing to help out. PB: Member Ohlrich noted that there are three drives where there will be north bound exit only, the northern Goodwil drive, and both of the drives of the proposed project will also be northbound exit only onto Beneva; and she concluded that she does not think it will work. Mr. Lincoln noted that if there is a Phase II development, part of the reason and the configuration of the most northern driveway is that it actually permits moving the light from further north down to this driveway, there is a point that allows the location of a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 38 signal there, to address exactly that circumstance, but it is not a requirement now, the County would not do it: now for the development at this point. PB Member Ohlrich said that at those three drives, if the people really want to go south, they still have to turn north, scoot over to the westerly lane on Beneva Road and make a U-Turn at that light to go south. Mr. Lincoln pointed out that is not an imposition on anybody, it is safe traffic management on the road, given the traffic and the configuration of the road today. PB Member Ohlrich agreed, with the exception of the U-Turn, which she does not think enhances safety. Mr. Lincoln stated that it is a controlled intersection compared to someone making an uncontrolled left-hand turn, without a light, across three lanes of traffic, in order to make a left-hand turn. Mr. Trebilcock stated that the opposing left with the current conditions at this location, is not as desirable as having medians, and controlled access; and concluded that those are more desirable conditions. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out that she is the only one around the table that travels that road several times a day and she is thinking that it is not going to be good. Mr. Lincoln repeated that it will be better than the existing conditions. PB Member Ohlrich agreed with the exception of the U-Turn. Mr. Lincoln stated that, even today, it is safer for someone leaving Goodwill to drive to the next traffic light and make a U-Turn, than to make a left-hand turn against traffic, and run into someone coming out of the Commons; and noted that this will improve safety across the board, compared to the existing conditions. PB Member Ohlrich addressed the applicant engineers and asked if they have any idea, based on the traffic study that was done, how many vehicles will be actually turning north to make a U-Turn at that light to go south. Mr. Trebilcock reviewed the numbers in the traffic report and said that there will be 77 peak hour trips leaving the site, taking that left turn, and that will be the number of vehicles that would need to go to the signal and make their turning movement; noted that they spoke to the County abouti it, as well, but they also felt that it was safer to go to the signal to make a U-Turn, because they can adjust the timings; added that one can provide a protected phase on the signal, as well, a protected left turning movement, which would allow the U-Turn to be taken safely and protect the movement; and concluded that this enhances safety and minimizes the conflicts. Staff Presentation Mr. Dan Greenberg, Planner with Development Services, Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer, and Steve Infanti of Tindale Oliver introduced themselves for the record. Planner Greenberg stated that this is a site plan and a request for Minor Conditional Use approval for a daycare of up to 300 children; noted that the site: is 7.5 acres, is zoned RMF- 1, the daycare is allowed in this zone district through the Minor Conditional Use process; pointed out that the development on the site consists a 17,000 sq- ft. structure for the classrooms, one structure to provide shelter at the pick-up and drop-off of the children, and the outdoor play area; stated that other items include underground stormwater vaulting, side roadway improvements near the egress/ingress, parking spaces, landscape Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 38 throughout, and said that the parking is double the required amount; noted that City staff walked the site with the applicant early on to examine the proposed tree removal and the possibility of preserving trees; said that this is an evolving project, it started with several structures, and came back to an one story structure; noted that the live oak cluster, cluster #80, located east of the proposed building will be preserved as indicated on the final proposed plan, the fence will go around it, and it will be shown as such in the construction drawings; said that the outdoor play area meets the minimum requirements of the zone district, this is for a pre-school, not a school, and therefore the students do not need as much play area, noting the younger children need to be more closely monitored; added that the additional trees #57 and #58 at the ingress/egress, the applicants have mitigated for them, but they are on the plans as "required to be preserved," noted that during the construction staging, according to the Code, they are required to have the ten-foot radius barriers, and these trees will not be permitted to be removed; added that should they need to be: removed, then the applicant willl have to go through the removal application process; explained that the only difference is that they have mitigated for the trees in advance, sO that they can better plan the location of the mitigation trees; noted that there was discussion about the 4-ft. fence, and explained that the code requires a 4 ft. fence, the applicants have gone above and beyond that requirement; pointed out that there are 143 trees on site, including 23 grand trees that will stay on site; 59 trees are proposed for removal, many of which are: non-native trees, 86 trees will remain, and the total trees on site will increase from 185 to 198 trees; referred to the FPL easement under the refuse/recycling area, and noted that, as the applicant has stated, the easement is vacated, and there are no remaining facilities, however the paper easement has to be removed before the refuse collection area can be built at that location; pointed out that the applicants expressed interest in differentiating the driveway ground material at the pick- up/drop-off area, in order to make drivers more aware that there is increased pedestrian activity there; explained that ground material differentiation can be installed as ground pavers, or other means; stated the proposed architecture complies with all applicable development standards, and the proposed development was scaled back from a two story and three different structures down to this; stated that the applicants thought that they would have a significant increase of costs due to the signalization; noted that since this is a site plan, the applicants proposed a structure that complied with the code, it is well beyond the minimum setbacks, it is under the maximum height, and there are no extensive architectural detail requirements, like there are for other districts; added that they have "Type C" and "Type B" buffers to the north, to the east, and to the south, sO one is not going to see much of the building from the adjacent sites, and in that regard, it complies with the Code, and it is compatible with the: neighborhood; noted that staff has discussed with the applicant that this is not the most exciting building, perhaps there are some other details that could help enhance the program, and thea applicants are: interested in showing more details in the construction documents; discussed the proposed improvements on Beneva Road; said that, first, a traffic light was required, and the County said "No;" added that there was a large meeting with the applicants and City and County staff, including transportation, engineering and planning staff to determine "Plan B," what will the County allow; said that this has been the reason for the delay, trying to determine what would be acceptable to both City and County staff, that would increase Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 38 the safety of the area, including restrictions of turning left coming out of the site; noted that the shopping center across the street has two exits, the one to the north is signalized and the one to the south is not signalized; pointed out that every time he has been in that area he sees a line of cars exiting the shopping center waiting to turn left at the signalized intersection to turn north, and people use the unsignalized intersection to turn south; added that there have been incidents in the area at the crosswalk, and the applicants want to improve the safety at this location because pedestrians will not walk to a signalized intersection thatis located far away;said that thisi is the cause of many J-walking accidents; noted that putting the crosswalk at the same location as the bus stop results in a great improvement, and the applicant is willing to do it, Goodwill is in support of it, but the County has not yet given the applicant the final permit; and concluded that the other staff recommendation was the use of the Rapid Flashing Beacons (RFB), because recent research indicates that the FDOT, now, supports RFBs. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that there was extensive coordination with Sarasota County, they had a large meeting with the applicants, City and County staff to review the different options, because this is the County's road and the City does not permit this road; said that County staff are OK with the conceptual plan, and the next step is to apply more details and make modifications to meet County standards; clarified that the traffic study was redone for the new, lesser scope of this project; pointed out that regarding access management, the City's practice has been to restrict left turns to remove the conflicts, and that left restriction is what improves the safety in this situation; and added that in terms of the crosswalk, it may bei that the increased traffic would cause more concerns with issues about pedestrian crossing, that is why the final details are up to Sarasota County, which mostly is a matter of what is the appropriate signage, which has not been determined at this time, however a rapid rectangular beacon, like the one on School Avenue between the Health Department and the County Garage, is one possibility for appropriate signage. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the traffic impact analysis was redone, or the original results were analyzed again after the applicant changed from a 1,300-student charter school to a daycare. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein and Mr. Steven Infanti of Tindale Oliver stated that essentially it was redone, it was treated as a new study; Mr. Infanti stated that there was a growth rate analysis done for the first study, which was carried over to see what the background rate was, and projected it into the future, but they based the initial study on the land use information of the charter school, which called for AM Peak Hour traffic counts; added that with the daycare, the shift was to call for PM Peak Hour traffic counts, sO from the traffic counts, the original analysis; and added that the analysis of existing conditions, future background and future totals, including traffic volumes from the project, all those parts are new. PB. Member Ohlrich noted that Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein and Mr. Infanti do not think that the traffic analysis is significantly flawed as suggested in Mr. Lincoln's letter; and asked, after they received the new land use information from the applicant, and they re-did the analysis, if that corrected any significant flaws in the analysis. Mr. Infanti stated Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 38 that the only flaw that he is aware of was in the traffic analysis for the charter school, and they responded to that in the comments, this is a new analysis. PB Member Morriss noted that they are making a bad situation better; added that in the site plan the Planning Board has to address those terrible design standards for this district, however this is a Conditional Use, as well, and the condition needs the approval of this body, and some of that condition has to do with whether the Planning Board, as a group, believes that this is held up to the standards; and asked Planner Greenberg if he believes that this a good building in terms of its functions for the end user. Planner Greenburg stated that he has not seen the final construction plans, and at the initial site plan stage, things are scaled out from the human scale detail, and things can change. PB Member Morriss stated that architects are also interested in the environment you create for the end user, not just if the roof is going to sag, or leak or fall off, and whether that design is compatible with the surrounding area and the concept of the nearby residential neighborhood, and that is his concern with this building, and he does not know if there is a way to build some reassurances that this will be a better piece of architecture. Attorney Connolly addressed PB Member Morriss and stated that he appreciates how everybody is talking about the standards for review; noted that the Planning Board discussed the site plan standards for review, and then those for conditional uses; reminded the Planning Board that the Conditional Use is the use, i.e. the daycare, the conditional use is not the structure, therefore the PB has to look at the standards for Conditional Use and analyze the daycare, not the building. PB Member. Morriss noted that they are related. Attorney Connolly stated that the site plan is related, and you can talk about the standards in the Site Plan. PB Member Morriss referred to p.9, standard (c) addressing building size, style and scale, and asked if they should ignore it; and added that based on this standard, will the proposal be a good daycare center. Attorney Connolly stated this is a valid question. PB Member Morriss stated that the daycare is necessary at that location, the applicants are taking a bad road and maybe making it better, how do you assure that some of the higher bits of research about daycare centers are being implemented in the final building, such as daylight, external connections, etc., these are important things, that is why this is a conditional use. Attorney Conolly pointed out that subsection (c) is talking about compatibility with adjacent residential developments, of which there is some but not total. PB Member Morriss asked if there is a way to assure that the building will meet the needs of the daycare center properly. Attorney Connolly stated that this is a fair line of questioning when tied to subsection (c). Planner Greenberg stated that subsection (c) talks about compatibility with residential development based on characteristics such as size, building style and scale; added that in terms of size, it is a small size for this site, and it does noti impose on the adjacent buildings; noted that in terms of style, that is where it gets a little subjective, the structure is simple not contemporary style, it cannot be called incompatible in that regard; said that in terms Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 38 of scale it is similar to a large residential building, iti is below the maximum height, it meets the setbacks, and it meets the roof pitch, there are not that many residential standards, and suggested that the applicant should speak to this, before they add a condition to address best practices and additional pedestrian enhancements. PB Vice Chair Normile asked why it is important to focus on the P.M. peak hour. Mr. Infanti stated that they are looking at the trip generation of land uses, and they are doing the analysis in terms of the peak hour of traffic at the A.M. peak hour and the P.M. peak hour; added that the charter school had a higher generation rate in the morning, but for the daycare, the higher generation rate is in the evening, the peak hour falls between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M., and it is the P.M. commuter hours when the most demand is placed on the roadway. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the peak hour reflects the use, rather than what the road already does. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that in terms of making the road better, there are proposed improvements, but we have to keep in mind that we are adding 200 cars to the intersection, SO there is a give a take, it is not just a big improvement, and noted 77 cars making a U-Turn in an hour is a lot of cars. PB Chair Gannon referred to the edits of the proffer that the Planning Board received, and asked Planner Greenberg if he has reviewed them and if he concurs with them. Planner Greenberg stated that staff recommends approval of the petitions subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, as amended by the applicant. Responding to PB Chair Gannon's request, Planner Greenberg discussed the landscape buffer along the ease boundary, as shown on Sheet No. L-02., Sarasota Daycare, Planting Plan, 09-07-2018; explained that the northeast boundary abuts Bobby Jones Golf Club and the southeast boundary is adjacent to a cemetery, zoned Residential, each requiring different types of buffer, as listed on the plan; and discussed the existing buffers on the Bobby Jones Golf Course along the boundary, the lake and the location of the greens. PB Chair Gannon asked what examination was done to evaluate the impact of 150 kids playing in the school yard when someone is trying to T-off right there. Planner Greenberg explained that it was considered and discussed when the original location of the outdoor play area was closer to the eastern boundary of the subject property, noted the play area is closer to the building now, it is more internal and it has landscape buffering to the east of the play area, heavy buffers along the boundary on both the side of the subject parcel and on the side of the golf course, sO all this will considerably mitigate any noise. PB Chair Gannon asked if this was reviewed and approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation, because he noticed that the signature on the DRC Signoff is the same as the signatures on Utilities. Planner Greenberg pointed out that Utilities does not offer concurrency for Parks and Open Space. Planner Greenberg explained that the signature indicates that the application meets concurrency, not whether they agree with the site plan; and added that Parks and Open Space does not sit on the DRC, and when staff sent a notice for the application, Parks and Open Space provided no comments. PB Chair Gannon stated that the sign-in sheets for the two community workshops were not included in the materials provide to the Planning Board, and asked if there are any records Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 38 of how many people attended the workshops. Planner Greenberg stated that 4 people attended the second workshop, which was for the daycare, and 14 people attended the first workshop when the charter school was proposed. Affected Persons There were none. Citizen Input 1. Forest Paradise - resident, lives 50 ft. north of the property - spoke in opposition- expressed concerns with potential traffic congestion when the through traffic is reduced to one lane on that segment of Beneva Road; and stated that a large daycare is not a good fit for the residential neighborhood, because it is not a residential use and because it is across from very busy commercial uses. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Lincoln stated that Beneva Road is not reduced to one northbound lane because the applicant is adding a right-hand deceleration lane sO they will retain two northbound lanes at that segment of Beneva Road, the traffic numbers work, and there will be no back up. Mr. Norman Roberts appeared and stated that the proposed improvements will eliminate conflicts and will help the capacity problems at that segment of Beneva Road, and the proposed improvements are: not impacting the through lanes of the roadway. Mr. Lincoln referred to the questions about architecture and pointed out that this is a site plan, not the building plan, and in the future he will suggest to his applicants to do more on architectural renderings, however if one looks at the requirements of a site plan, it is not really a requirement unless you are in the downtown, and the conditional use design requirements are to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood, noting a residential use could be placed there without the conditional use; added that he did not think there is a heightened issue there, and staff said there is a huge amount of buffering and setbacks in a low building between the residential uses, sO the architecture is not going to be inherently incompatible with the adjacent residential uses; noted that it may not be subjectively as attractive as the Planning Board may like, but as the staff said the fixtures are design, all the other elements that go into the final site quality and improvement are not done yet, and they would not be normally done even in the Conditional Use, they are done when the building permits are done. Mr. Losee said he will be happy to work with staff to enhance the building, the owner wants to have a nice-looking building, it is going to be his landmark, sO they will work with staff and come up with some good solutions. PB Morriss asked how the Planning Board can be assured that this will happen. Mr. Lincoln pointed out that staff will review the plans to make sure they are consistent with the Conditional Use and Site Plan Approval. Planner Greenberg stated that if they proposed architectural changes he will be working with the applicants to review the changes to ensure that they comply with the approval and enhance the site. PB Member Blumetti stated that this is a site plan approval and a conditional use, and on the site plan there is nothing to indicate that this is for children, the playground area is a pen, it is a rectangular shape surrounded by a 4-ft fence; and stated that he disagrees with Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 38 that, it is part of the architecture. Mr. Losee stated that the play area will be enhanced for the children, it is not just a fenced in area, and also pointed out the ages of the children, this is not a school this is a daycare facility. PB Member Blumetti stated he has a three- year old daughter and he does not need explanations as to what a play area is or what it looks like, he is well familiar with it. Mr. Lincoln stated that the playground equipment is not something to be reviewed at the Conditional Use application. PB Member Blumetti stated that this is a site plan for a daycare and there is nothing to indicate this is a daycare other than the name. Mr. Losee stated that the requirement is to show on the site plan a certain square footage for the play area, which they did. PB Member Blumetti said that this is what happens when an engineer designs a building, not an architect. Mr. Losee stated that they meet all the requirements. PB Member Blumetti said this is not a personal attack, it is a legal matter. Mr. Lincoln stated that he can argue other statutes, but they will not do this right now; stated he understands what PB Member Blumetti is suggesting, but it is a level of specificity on the plans that goes beyond what is historically required or expected in these circumstances; added that he understands that PB Member Blumetti thinks this is reasonable, but without wanting to argue, it is not what is required; pointed out that when the applicants talked with staff as to what needs to be depicted on these plans, no one said that for the site plan and for the conditional use application for a daycare you must depict the playground; stated if that expectation had been there, it would have been met; added that if the Planning Board thinks that this is really necessary to evaluate the program, then what would be fair would be to continue this meeting and give the applicant a chance to submit a set of revised drawings, bring this back at the next month's meeting and let the applicant show the Planning Board some other kinds of enhancements; said that he wants the Planning Board Members to understand that he understands that Mr. Blumetti is suggesting something that he thinks is reasonable, but is beyond what has been expected, historically, for these types of applications, and iti is beyond what the staff and anyone else looking at the Codes has said it is required for this review, and he suggested that the Planning Board has to have some institutional sensitivity to applicants, and understand that people do what is expected, and if you want to heighten the standards, they will respond, give us an opportunity to do that. PB Member Morriss stated that site plan approval is one thing, and he agrees that there is nothing in the standards asking for more than the information the applicants have given, however the conditional use is a different thing, and he believes that he has explained his argument carefully, that basically this has to do with how this is woven into the community and that involves the architectural know-how of what is appropriate for the children, how they experience the building. Mr. Lincoln pointed out that the intent of the Conditional Use is to control the location, timing and function of those uses to deal with their impacts on the community; added that it is in the intent section, iti is about external physical impacts, not the level of function the Planning Board is talking about, but pointed out that the applicant is willing to be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 38 responsive to that demand, and suggested that instead of taking a vote this evening, to continue the meeting for a month and let the applicants resubmit some things that are responsive to the concerns the Planning Board has raised. PB Member Ohlrich asked if architects have to be licensed in the State of Florida; added that she used to be on the licensing board for a different profession in a different state, and anyone who called themselves a "speech language pathologist" or an "audiologist" in the state of Ohio, had to meet the criteria that were established in the state and nationally; added that in the state of Ohio, if they saw anyone who said they are a speech language pathologist, like someone is calling themselves an architect on the paperwork we have received, and is not, they would say that they are practicing that profession without a license; and said that this was not on her radar for discussion this evening, but she sees somebody calling himself an architect and that he is not licensed. Mr. Losee said that the document PB Member Ohlrich referred to is not his document, it is someone else's document, noted that on his documents he does not call himself an architect, and one can see that on his website and review all his information. PB Member Ohlrich said that this was the document that was submitted to the Planning Board. Mr. Losee stated that his drawings that are included in the documents do not say that he is an architect. Mr. Lincoln pointed out that there are multiple entities involved in the project; added that there is a statute that actually says that under certain circumstances engineers are not prohibited from performing architectural work incidental to their other engineering work, and they can discuss this at another time, and if the Planning Board will give the applicants a chance to come back, they will resolve with the City's attorney and the staff whether or not the submitted plans need to be signed and sealed by anyone else; stated there is no reason to have this particular fight, because there are other ways to resolve it; and concluded that in his opinion, that is the appropriate way to move forward. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if there is a licensing requirement for daycare centers. Mr. Lincoln said there is a licensing requirement, DPR, the Department of Professional Regulation, and there are a lot of sets ofs standards; explained that one applies for a facility, you don'tget the license until you have the facility to be licensed. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the applicant wants to know if their facility will meet the requirements. Mr. Lincoln said there is no problem with the facility meeting the requirements, it is that you need the facility to get the license, it does not work the other way around, just like when you go for a restaurant license you get an architect who knows how to design kitchens to design the kitchen because DPR is not going to issue you a license by seeing the plans, they will come when it is built, and they come to the facility and inspect it and then issue the license, one cannot get the kitchen license before it is built. PB Vice Chair Normile said what if you build this and they come in and say that Mr. Lincoln stated that the proposed facility meets their standards for the square footage for daycare facilities.. there is a proper order of doing things. Staff Rebuttal There was none. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 38 PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. PB Member Morriss moved to continue the public hearing to the next month. PB Vice Chair Normile seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that his reasoning is that you cannot count on trees to cover a bad building, and asked staff: not to use that argument; and added thathe thinks the applicant is willing to step up to present something that would be more day-care-center-y" than it looks right now. PB Member Blumetti said he has no problem with the conditional use, he thinks it is a great for the area, the traffic: improvements seem to maybe not improve the area as much as they should, but it is hard for him to approve something that he knows is not possible, because there is no design professional that is an architect to sign off on it, as it clearly states that in the City's Code. PB Chair Gannon stated that the applicants stated they will address that. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that there are some questions that need to be answered, such as the standards for daycare centers, demonstrating the financial and technical capacity of the applicant, because there is a history of three attempts at a charter school which can also mean that when applying for the daycare center there could be some issues there as well, SO there should be some competent and substantial evidence on the record that this capacity is there. PBMember Ohlrich addressed staff and requested a cleaner packet next time, stating there was information in this packet about the charter school, and information about how the traffic impact analysis was not accurate, it was just very confusing to read through this packet; and said she had to read it multiple times to figure out what was being recommended and where the narrative went. The motion to continue the public hearing was approved unanimously (vote 5 to 0). Attorney Connolly announced that the public hearing for 17-MCU-02 and 17-SP-12 will be continued to the next scheduled Planning Board meeting, which will be on Wednesday, November 14, 2018, at 6:00 P.M., at the City Commission Chambers at City Hall, 1565 First Street. PB Chair Gannon noted it is 8:25 P.M., and suggested at the Planning Board takes a ten- minute break. PB Meeting resumes at 8:35 PM 2. Sandçastle Resort at Lido Beach (1540 Benjamin Franklin Drive): Site Plan Application No. 17-SP-15, Rezone Application 17-RE-03, Minor Conditional Use Application no. 17- MCU-03 and Major Conditional Use Application No. 17-CU-06 are a request for Site Plan, Rezone, Minor Conditional Use and Major Conditional Use approval for the Sandcastle Resort at Lido Beach, located on property currently in the Residential Multi-Family-4 (RMF-4) zone district with a street address of1540 Benjamin Franklin Drive. Theapplicant is seeking approval to rezone the property from the RMF-4 Zone District to the Waterfront Resort (WFR) zone district, demolish the existing 176 room hotel and amenities and Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 38 construct a new 304 room hotel with parking and associated amenities. The applicant is seeking approval of a Minor Conditional Use for the hotel use and approval of a Major Conditional Use for the restaurant, meeting rooms and non-motorized recreationa/watercrat rentals. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Attorney Connolly called the names of the following individuals who had submitted applications for affected person status: Patricia Ludwig, James Ludwig, Charles Schmidt, Fay Schmidt, and Nancy Katz. Patricia and James Ludwig were present in the audience and were granted affected person's status. Applicant's Presentation Mr. John Patterson, Attorney, representing Lido Sand LLC, owner oft the subject property commonly known as the Lido Sandcastle; Berry Kimble, the owner of the property, an affiliate of the Oceans Property Group, which has over 125 hotels in fifteen states, including the Longboat Key Club, the Lido Holiday Inn, the Lido Beach Resort and this facility; Mr. Bruce Franklin, land planner; and Mr. Jim Wurst, Architect with Nichols Brosch Wurst Wolfe and Associates, Inc., appeared. Mr. Kimble stated he has decades of experience in the construction and management of Resorts; stated that the improvements at this location were built in the 1950s; noted in 1953 there was some remodeling and they are way past their useful life; added that, as Mr. Franklin will describe, very little is conforming about these facilities now; it is the only remaining obsolete hotel structure of this magnitude on Lido Beach; noted that the property: is approximately six acres, and the applicant's are requesting a rezoning to WFR - Waterfront Resort, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; said hotel and accessory uses are permitted in the WFR District; said that last year a variance was approved by a unanimous vote by the Board of Adjustment to allow valet parking with some spaces being shared or stacked parking; pointed out that today's applications include a rezoning to WFR, a Major Conditional Use approval, and a Minor Conditional Use approval, all ofwhich are required for the hotel and accessory uses, and Site Plan approval; noted that this hotel will be a four or five star hotel, it will have 304 guest rooms, meeting facilities, a restaurant, and the usual spas and guest amenities; stated it is designed to be in harmony with the neighborhood; stated that the applicants concur with the staff report, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the WFR District is appropriate for this, and the project meets the review requirements for the rezoning; stated the major and minor conditional uses and the site plan conform to City Code; noted that there is one thing staff can talk to the Planning Board about, an addition to or tweaking oft the conditions that relate to ADA requirements and valet parking; stated that the applicant has no problems with the staff recommended conditions; and said that Mr. Franklin will explain the neighborhood, the property, and the reason for which it meets the criteria, and Mr. Wurst will explain the site plan and the building, and how it meets the criteria for approval. Mr. Franklin referred to Sandcastle Resort at Lido Beach, Sheet A-0.04, to illustrate the location of the subject property; stated that to the south is the Regency at Lido Beach Residential Condominiums, to the north are the Mark Twain Residential Condominiums, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 38 and to the north of that is the Ritz Carlton Condominium and Beach Club; said that the property is just over six acres, it currently has a 176 room hotel, and they are proposing a project consisting of 304 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, a restaurant and other amenities associated with a four or five star hotel; stated that the access will be off Ben Franklin Drive; noted currently there are five driveways which is being reduced to three, which will be discussed later as part of the circulation plan; referred to the Future Land Use & Rezoning Map and pointed out that the property is located within the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification on the Future Land Use Map; added that the zoning in this area is either RMF-4, which is the zoning for the subject property, or Waterfront Resort (WFR) which the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to; said that both of these zoning categories are consistent with the Resort Residential Land Use classification; explained that they are proposing to rezone the property from RSF-4 to WFR, noting the existing use is a hotel and is not permitted in the RMF-4 district, and there are number of non-conformities that will be addressed with the new redevelopment plan; stated the hierarchy ofevaluation is first consistency with the Comprehensive: Plan, then the proposed zoning, then the site plan and conditional uses; noted that the Future Land Use classification is Resort Residential, the existing zoning district is an implementing district, however the existing use is not permitted in the RMF Zoning District, SO it is a legal non- conforming use that meets very few current day standards, for example, when you look at the site plan, the first buildings, which were built in 1953, 1957 and 1960 before there were zoning codes or any other regulatory framework, they do not meet the waterfront setback requirements, the parking garage does not meet the side yard setback requirements, and the overall parking of 175 spaces does not meet current zoning requirements; said that these are only three of the standards ofthe current code that will be cured; said the intent of the rezoning is to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and have a zoning district that meets all the current regulatory requirements of the City's Zoning Code, SO there are four applications: the Rezoning to WFR District, the Site Plan of the hotel and accessory uses, a Minor Conditional Use which is the hotel in the WFR District, and Major Conditional Uses which include the restaurant, meeting rooms, non-motorized vehicle, recreational watercraft rental in the WFR District; stated that the proposal is found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Zoning Code; commended staff because they have been working on this for over a year-an-a-half, stated the staff report is very complete, identifies all the areas that the applicants needed to address, both technically and procedurally; and concluded that the applicants have no problems with the staff recommended conditions in the staff report. Mr. Wurst stated that his firm was hired by Ocean Properties to study this site and came up with some critical elements they thought were needed to match the local area and to create a resort that all can be proud of, and he appreciates the commitment to allow his company to create an iconic and special resort; noted that hotels are special facilities because all of us can go in to participate, after they are open, and it is important to the architect that people feel comfortable when they approach the building and enter the building, that they find their way around easily, and the entire site is SO that one would want to visit in the future; pointed out that his firm just celebrated their 50th anniversary as an architectural firm; stated John Nichols was the original owner and built the Hilton on Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 38 Longboat Key, which was the first hotel of the firm; noted they are still working in this area, they also did the renovations with Ocean Properties and now it is called Zota; added that his company has done over 300 hotels with Ocean Properties, including Zota, the Opal Sands, and other properties; stated they also completed the Wyndham Grand in Clearwater, the Hilton that recently opened in West Palm Beach, and they have several other hotels under construction at this time, including one in New Orleans across from the WWII Museum, as a special resort feel because it does not have a beach but the firm tries to create really special environments; added that they are doing a. JW Marietta in Tampa across from the downtown Convention Center; illustrated on an aerial photograph how the building fits in the fabric oft the area; referred to Sheet R-0.01 to show an artist's rendering ofthe hotel elevation; noted that every room will have its own view of the beach, it is a single loaded guest room building, it costs more, all the rooms face the beach, great views, no second class citizens, balconies in every unit; said that the massing of the building is important, they want the buildings to fit within the community; noted that to the south is the Regency, and that facility is the taller of the neighboring buildings, and to the north is the Mark Twain, which is the lower facility; stated they tried to have the taller elements of the proposed facility adjacent to the taller buildings neighboring to the north, and that the proposed building stepped down on the south side; added that they had to address 601 cars on the site, and they had to place them in an area where you do not see the parking garage, it is within the first 20 ft of height, which is the wave crest requirement from FEMA, SO the parking is underneath the building and the first level ofthe hotel is the lobby level, and there are two levels of parking below it; explained that this allows to have views from the front lobby, when you are at twenty feet above the water the guests can take advantage of the views, light, and air; said that the garages are obscured by berms, landscaping and pool decks; said that from the lobby one comes down to the pool, which is about 6 ft. lower than the lobby level, and then you step down to a lower level, and then you step down to the beach; noted that the step down approach allows the opportunity to take advantage of the view, and they are ADA compliant, the ramps work perfectly to take guests to the beach; stated that they selected an anomalous shape with the curves and a central element from which the spiral evolves; referred to Sheet 0.05 to illustrate the location of the curved buildings, thei tower, and the stepped down north section adjacent to the Mark Twain; noted that two levels above the garage, there is an 8-story wing; described the guest experience, arrival sequence, and parking sequence, and the guest experience at departure, especially after a large event when a lot of guests depart at the same time; pointed out that there are two points to bring the cars around to the porte-cochere, but the vehicles are on site at all times; pointed out that the loading area is located next to the parking at the south side of the site; said all the buildings arelocated back from Ben Franklin Drive, allowing for plenty of space to landscape; referred to Sheet A-1.02, and described the experience of approaching and entering the lobby when the guests see the views of the Gulf of Mexico; stated as they walk along the glass to the left ofthe lobby there is the restaurant, and to the right are some guest rooms, the gym, the spa and other facilities; referred to Sheet A.1.03, to describe the next level up, pointed to the banquet facility, the ballrooms, the two story lobby below, the meeting rooms, and on the opposite wing some guestrooms; explained that based on input from the neighbors during the early meetings they adjusted the left wing, took some rooms off, and swung the structure around SO as to open up the views for Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 38 the people in the Regency, then the second floor spaces were adjusted and those rooms were located on the second floor to maintain the total number of rooms; pointed out that the elevator core is in the middle, when guests come out the elevator they are looking at the gulf, they have wonderful gulf views from their rooms, and when walking along the corridors they have a view of the Intercoastal; referred to Sheet A-1.04 to show the typical floor, up to the seventh floor, and referred to A-1.07 to describe the floor plan ofthe eighth floor which matches the height ofthe Regency, and has guestrooms on the south wing that is adjacent to the Regency, where the north side roof lines that are adjacent to the Mark Twain are stepped down.; referred to Sheet A-2.00, and pointed out the guest floors, the location of the banquet floors, and noted that below the lobby there are two levels of mechanically ventilated parking, the view of which is blocked from the beach by berms or other: means; and concluded that the whole idea is to create a great environment committed to a wonderful project where every room has a great view. PB Member Morriss noted that there are meeting rooms to be used primarily by hotel guests, and ballrooms to be used by people who may not be hotel guests; and asked ifi in their traffic calculations they have taken this into consideration. Mr. Wurst stated that ballroom parking is calculated separately; added that the existing facility has 176 rooms and 175 parking spaces and the proposed facility has 304 rooms and 601 parking spaces; and stated they have doubled the number of parking spaces while meeting all zoning requirements, except the stacked parking. PB Member Morriss stated that they are proposing a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant space; and asked about the related parking calculations. Mr. Franklin explained that the code requires one space per 150 sq. ft., and the applicant has satisfied that requirement. PB Member Morriss asked how they plan to control the restaurant smells, and ventilation, and asked about their mitigation strategies for the kitchen exhaust fumes. Mr. Wurst referred to Sheet 1.03 and pointed out that the kitchens servicing the restaurants and the ballrooms are located next to the parking lot on the lobby floor, and the vents are the same level as the roofline of the Regency, and all the equipment is screened. PB Member Blumetti commended the applicants for the very complete and beautiful project; noted that the applicants have received FDOT approval for the sidewalk and asked if they have it for the building. MR. Wurst said, not yet, but they expect to get it. PB Member Blumetti noted that there was conflicting information about the size of the restaurant being 4,000 sq. ft. or 5,000 sq. ft.. Mr. Franklin stated that they used 5,000 sq. ft. fort the parking calculations. PB Member Blumetti asked how many seats there are. Mr. Wurst stated that usually they allow 25 sq. ft. per seat, but for fine dining they go up to 30 sq. ft. Mr. Patterson said that the ballrooms are open to the public for rentals. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wurst explained the entrances to the two separate garage levels; noted that exiting on the north side ofthe first garage level, the cars will use a single lane drive which is buffered along the border with the Mark Twain; and pointed out it is 100% valet service, usually the top level fills first and the lower level will be employee and overflow parking. Mr. Patterson pointed out that there is no connecting ramp between the two garage levels, each has its own entrance and exit; added that there is a Variance for the valet use oft the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 38 parking, and they have provided more than the 582 required parking spaces. Discussion ensued regarding how to navigate around the stacked parked cars. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 88 of the packet, Traffic Impact Analysis, Future Condition Estimates, where it states: To estimate future peak-hour traffic volumes, the estimated 100th highest hour volumes were then factored up by an annual growth rate of1.0 percent per year to 2020, as typical for roadways within Sarasota County. PB Member Ohlrich asked if that is also typical for roadways on barrier islands and specifically for roadways in high tourist areas. The applicant suggested this is better addressed by staff. PB Member Ohlrich noted that in the letter from Mark Twain, it seems they were interested in working with the applicant to put their utilities underground; and asked if the applicants have been able to work with them on that. Mr. Franklin said that they had conversations with Mr. and Mrs. Ludwig, one oftheir concerns is a construction related issue, another concern is the relocation of existing power lines, and easements to the extent they can, or FPL allows them to do. PB Member Ohlrich expressed concern about demolition and construction impacts on the neighboring properties; noted that the applicants are demolishing a two-story building and constructing a ten story building, and stated that they had an experience in the City, where a building was constructed in very close proximity to another building, and windows were flying around, and cars were getting dented; and asked what are the applicant's plans to protect and communicate with the neighbors during demolition and construction. Mr. Kimble stated that they have communicated with the Mark Twain about this issue, and the applicants will have a construction manager involved early on in the process; described the process they use to document existing conditions of the neighboring buildings, which they share with the neighboring building owners, even pay their engineer to review the documentation, SO that they are happy with the documentation; added that they also set up a communications system, which will be the: responsibility ofone person ofthe construction manager's group, where the neighbors can report concerns day or night SO that the construction manager addresses it; said that there is also a plan prepared by the construction manager to manage the site, including day clean up, dust control, traffic control, and other items that could be a nuisance; stated the applicants recognize this will be a disruptive process, and stated that they have promised to the residents of the Mark Twain that, when this is done, their property will look better than when they started, including dust on building, landscaping, etc.; noted this is a pretty open area, unlike others where they have to do construction on zero-lot-lines; and stated they have a staging plan, and staging areas, it is the way they do business. PB Member Ohlrich requested that they communicate with the residents of Mark Twain and the Regency ahead the time SO that they know what is coming. Mr. Patterson stated that it is all part of the planning before anything happens, the construction manager plans how he will mitigate any: nuisances for the neighbors, including dust, noise, traffic, utilities etc.; and noted that when they worked on the Zota on Longboat Key, they did not have any problems with the neighbors. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 38 PB Chair Gannon commended the applicants on the specificity of the drawings, noting rarely do site plans show the adjacent properties, which is very useful to the Planning Board; requested clarification on the setback lines north and south; noted that the plan shows vehicular access; and asked if there is pedestrian access to the beach. Mr. Kimble stated that there is pedestrian access only for the guests, however there is a designated ten- foot right-of-way public beach access, just north of the Mark Twain, within one hundred feet. PB Chair Gannon referred to Sheet A-1:00 showing Garage Level I and asked about the location ofthe pedestrian access to the building for hotel guests who may be walking. Mr. Wurst stated that there is a path along the Porte-Cochere ramp, shown on Sheet A-1.02, and the ADA access is shown on Sheet A-1.00 noting that leads to an elevator that brings you up 18 ft. to thelobby level. PB Chair Gannon asked about the location to charge electric vehicles. The applicants responded that they have it in all their hotels, but it is not in these plans yet. Staff's Presentation Chief Planner Panica, Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer, and Steven Infanti with Tindale and Oliver introduced themselves for the record. Ms. Panica stated that the site is located at 1540 Ben Franklin Drive, at the south end of] Lido Key, it is zoned RMF-4 and it has a Future Land Use classification of Resort Residential; noted that to the north and south are condominiums and to the east is a park; stated that the existing hotel resort consists of175 rooms, a restaurant and some meeting space; pointed out that the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to Waterfront Resort in order to develop the site with a 304-room hotel and ancillary uses, such as ballrooms, restaurants, meeting spaces, and non- motorized recreational watercraft rentals; said that the structure is 108 ft. tall starting with the first habitable floor to the top oft the roof; noted that in addition to the rezone-required site plan, there is a minor conditional use and a major conditional use; said that the ancillary uses include a spa and a pool available for hotel guests only; noted that the access is through three proposed driveways on Ben Franklin Drive, which is a reduction from the existing five driveways; pointed out that 582 parking spaces are: required and the applicants are proposing 601 parking spaces; said that approval of a variance was received to allow automobiles to be parked and un-parked sO other automobiles may be moved; discussed additional parking spaces and the four loading spaces; stated that a community workshop was held on May 16, 2017, twenty seven people were in attendance, and in addition to the workshop, the applicant is working with the community subsequent to the workshop; said that a traffic impact analysis was conducted and found that the project meets concurrency and that future traffic conditions on adjacent road segments and at the project's driveways are projected to operate well within the expected loads; noted that landscape requirements have been met, and the applicant is proposing more mitigation than what is required; stated that the project has received DRC sign off, and all other zoning code requirements have been met; and concluded that staff is recommending approval subject to the revised conditions given to the Planning Board on the pink sheet. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 38 PB Member Blumetti asked for clarification about Chief Planner Panica's e-mail relating to handicap access. ChiefPlanner Panica explained that, in Condition 2., a couple of words were added to the sentence to read: 2. Onsite parking shall be provided by a valet service at all times except when consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chief] Planner Panica explained that this was: required SO that the applications are consistent with the variance that was approved; added that the ADA does not consider valet parking as a method of meeting their parking requirements; and said that there are 12 potential ADA accessible spaces on the first parking level, but those details are reviewed at the building permit stage. PB Member Ohlrich addressed Mr. Infanti, asking for response to the question she had previously asked the applicant. Mr. Infanti stated that one percent (1%) per year, in this case, is basically a standard in the absence of other data that provides a conservative estimate on growth, where we have no real method of estimating growth; added that, because this is on a dead-end road we do not see a lot of through traffic, this is the only evcopmcurcdveopmen project that is showing growth, which would result in the growth of trips, and because this section in the growth area does not have historical traffic counts on it that they can use to forecast, they factor in one percent per year, which is typical for County roads within Sarasota County; and stated that is the standard default rate in the absence of other data. PB Member Ohlrich asked ifthere is any other data regarding barrier islands or high tourist areas, because this dead-ends to a park. Mr. Infanti stated that some of the growth is possibly due to redevelopment, which is this project, and that is counted separately, but the rest of the increase in growth in three years you would assume it is an increase in people attending the South Lido Park; added that in hisj judgement, one percent is applicable here, some may argue that it is an overestimate, but, they are playing it safe to make sure that they are counting for growth in this case; and agreed with PB Member Ohlrich that there is no other data to lead him in another direction. PB Member Ohlrich stated that as she looked at staff' si recommendation to PB, she noticed that the rezone, the site plan, and the major conditional use were lumped in to one motion, and it is her understanding that usually, when items can stand alone, they should be in separate motions. Attorney Connolly agreed and presented the reason the motions are drafted that way; explained that 17-MCU-03, a Minor Conditional Use is going to be done this evening, unless there is an appeal; added that the Planning Board approves the Minor Conditional Use, but the other three all have to go to the City Commission; said that the. Zoning Code requires a public hearing on the rezoning, SO with that the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Commission, and we know it has to be a quasi-judicial public hearing; noted that the Major Conditional Use and the Site Plan go together, and the Zoning Codei requires that they go to the City Commission, and the City Commission has an option to either affirm without a public hearing or to schedule a public hearing; said that, since Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 38 thereis going to be a public hearing on the rezoning, they plan to schedule all three ofthem for one quasi-judicial public hearing, and that is the reason the Planning Board is making one recommendation there, and the other one stands alone because that is done this evening. PB Member Ohlrich asked if there is an order the motions are to be made in. Attorney Connolly stated it does not matter, because on the Minor Conditional Use, Condition #1 states that it is contingent upon the ultimate approval of the other three applications. PB Member Morriss stated that there is a difference in the function of the site relative to event space which the previous use does not have; and said let's sayt there is an event at the ballroom letting out 300 = 400 people at one time, how is that factored in the traffic analysis. Mr. Infanti responded that the trip generation rates used by the Institute ofTransportation (IT), specifically for resort hotels, includes in the description of what is included in that land use type, uses such as ballroom events, as ancillary uses to a resort type hotel, SO that is considered in the trip generation rates that we did here. PB Member Morriss asked if staff sees hotel and condos comparable as interchangeable uses in the Resort Residential land use. Chief Planner Panica stated that they are not interchangeable uses, however that Future Land Use category has both of these land uses. PB Member Morriss asked if the coverage relates to coverage of land or it relates to the units. Chief Planner Panica said it relates to the land coverage only. PB Member Morriss asked if Chief Planner Panica thinks it should be mitigated in some way. Chief Planner Panica responded no, because the way it is now it meets the intent of the comprehensive plan. PB Vice Chair Normile followed up, saying that no matter how large the parcel is, ifthere are two bungalows on it that are leased out as a hotel, that is considered a hotel, ifthere are seven acres and all of that is hotel, it is done by the parcel itself and it does not matter how large the parcel is. Chief Planner Panica stated the size of the parcel matters, it is done by the square footage ofthe land, but the size of the hotel does not matter, and that is why the percentage does not change. PB Chair Gannon expressed concern about the intensity of use; noted that they are going from 176 to 304 hotel rooms, a 73% increase, the restaurant square footage varies from 2,600 to 4,000 sq. ft., and the height of the neighboring structures are one to three stories high, and the proposed structure is more than double the height; and asked how staff took into consideration this increase in intensity both in use and in size in the staff analysis. ChiefPlanner Panica stated that the applicant presented some ofthe mitigating factors they plan to use in relation to the condos to the north and to the south. PB Chair Gannon said that he is concerned about the visual impact at the street level. Chief Planner Panica stated that the tower is set back from the property line and even farther from the street by sixty- seven feet and they are proposing a 10 ft. wide sidewalk and landscaping; and noted the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 38 ramp is steep, SO there is no structure right next to the sidewalk, and you do not get the feeling that the building is hovering over you. PB Chair Gannon referred to Sheet R-0.04 and stated that this seems to show the greater impact of the length of the building; and asked if, from the Code' standpoint, there is a limit on how wide and long the buildings should be. Chief Planner Panica stated that the structure has to meet the set-backs from all sides and meet the lot coverage requirements; said that sO long as the building meets all other standards, there is no limit to how wide the building should be; added that this illustration makes the structure appear closer to the road than it really is; and pointed out that there are no residential uses across the street. PB Chair Gannon noted that there were some comments in the workshop about the large structure interfering with the views. Chief] Planner Panica stated that the area to the east is a park and will not be developed; and added that there was concern about obstructions to the views ofthe Regency, but that has been mitigated. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that the Minor Conditional Use refers to sailboats, and paddle boards, and asked ift these are only for the use ofthe guests, and ift there are any other hotels in the area that have this type of equipment. Chief Planner Panica stated that this is referenced onlyi in the Major Conditional Use and they will be only for the use of the hotel guests; and stated the Ritz Beach Club requested similar uses, but the request was withdrawn and she does not think anyone else does this. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that there is mention of the turtle season, when all of this has to be brought in to an interior place during the season. ChiefPlanner Panica stated that the County has to accept what the applicant is proposing to do during turtle season, which is that some equipment is on the landward side ofthe seawall which is not completely enclosed, noting the County needs to review and comment on the proposal; and added that is why the language in the condition states that either the equipment will come inside or the County will suggest an alternate location. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the Planning Board does not know what the County will approve, how can they approve conditional uses ift they do not know exactly what they are. Chief Planner Panica stated that when the building permit comes in, the County will review what is proposed for the location of equipment storage during turtle season, and will comment accordingly, but that is done during the building permit stage; said that City staff has been in contact with the County, unfortunately the representative who was going to attend this meeting could not get over the Skyway this evening, however she has seen the proposal and is confident that considering thel building structure, there will be opportunities to store the equipment during turtle season. Affected Persons: 1. Patricia Ludwig, resident oft the Mark Twain Condos stated she was overall in favor of the redevelopment; is concerned about vehicular noise, amplified noise, and excessive guest party noises; asked for sound mitigation; stated she: is confused about the statement of"all valet parking" because they were told that hotel personnel will not have valet parking; stated her concerns about noise coming from the outdoor terraces on the north side of the structure, light overflow, pedestrian traffic through their property to access the beach, and the impact on the south views; stated she was concerned about the: impact Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 38 of the height of the building, the hours of shadowing they receive on the beach in the mornings, beach equipment storage in front of the protection wall which would clutter their view, and the elevation difference between the height of their building and the proposed building. 2. Jim Ludwig, president of the Mark Twain Association stated the Board is generally in favor of the proposed development based on the site plan review; stated there are conçerns about demarcation between the two properties, the buffer area, the location of the north beach equipment storage, noise, and invasion oftheir privacy by the guests on the large terraces overlooking their property; and asked that outdoor spaces close at 10:00 pm. PB Member Morriss complimented the speakers on their well-articulated presentation. Citizen's Input 1. Beth Dilworth - Lido Beach resident, spoke in support of the project, stating it is needed at Lido 2. Carl Shoffstall - Chair of the Lido Beach Residents Association, spoke in support oft the project 3. Mike Adkinson active community member, spoke in support oft the project. Applicants Rebuttal Mr. Patterson appeared and pointed out that the concerns expressed by the Ludwigs are things that relate to the building construction phase; stated that the reason they have created site plans with more details than required is the fact that they are confident about what they will build; noted that one of the concerns was the invasion of privacy from the balconies, and there is an answer to that. Mr. Wurst stated that the guest rooms with the terraces can have an architectural feature to protect the guests from the wind and at the same time prevent them from looking down to the Mark Twain property, and they would not be able to see the hotel guests; and added that the pools are wrapped by the buildings and the noise will not be heard. Mr. Kimble noted that the president of Ocean Properties met several times with the Ludwigs to assure them the they will mitigate noise, dust, and any other concerns they have; and stated that they will work very closely with them and their Association to mitigate all these situations that could be a nuisance. Mr. Franklin stated that the terraces will have wind screens, and the primary view ofthe guests will be the Gulf and the pool areas; and referring to the north storage area for beach equipment, pointed out that the building will block that area, and it will not obstruct the south views ofthe Mark Twain. PB Member Ohlrich noted that a lot of the concerns expressed by the Ludwigs are things that the applicant can continue to work on with them, throughout the duration ofthe project, except for elevation, and when the structure is built, if runoff from this building goes to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 38 their building, it is a done deal. Mr. Kimble stated that the property of the hotel is lower than the Mark Twain property, by 18 - 20 in., and that is an opportunity to mitigate sound, and they will not be able to see cars. Mr. Patterson noted that the current hotel was built before there were retention standards, and it has no retention, SO the proposed will be a significant improvement. PB Member Blumetti asked about the purpose ofthe beach storage; and asked ifthe chairs can be left on the beach. The applicants said that they cannot leave the chairs on the beach. Mr. Kimble stated that there were long discussions with staff about the storage ofthe beach equipment, and they are still working on it. PB Member Blumetti asked if there is pedestrian traffic by guests along the north property line. Mr. Patterson said there is not pedestrian traffic at that location. Mr. Franklin pointed out that Ocean Properties owns the Lido Beach Resort, and they have a1 recreational use agreement in place with Sarasota County that deals with the location and manner of storage ofbeach equipment, and they intend to have the same thing here, which by stipulation (if this is approved this evening) will be done as part of the building review process. PB Chair Gannon asked if the applicants can address the question of noise raised by the Ludwigs, in terms of outside amplification of noise. The applicants stated that there will bei no outside sound amplification. Mr. Kimble said that there is low background amplified music at the pool deck, and in the case ofevents, any noise will have to be contained within the structure; and stated if they want louder sounds then they can have the event indoors, because the guests do not like it. PB Chair Gannon asked about the hours ofthe pool area. Mr. Kimble stated that they close the pools at sundown, because they do not allow night swimming; stated it will come under the operations of the hotel; and added that the only outside bar/café is contiguous to the restaurant, there could occasionally be a temporary, portable bar for a small group on the event lawn, but the primary service to the pool deck comes out of the main kitchen, and the main bar, and it can be managed that there is no outside noise after 10 P.M.. PB Vice Chair Normile asked ifthe applicants plan to have an area where they can handle the storage ofall thel beach equipment. Mr. Kimble stated that they already have designated areas, north and south locations in the parking garage. Affected Persons Rebuttal There was none. Staff Rebuttal Chief Planner Panica stated that, in terms of1 the outdoor music, the Zoning Code prohibits outdoor music in conjunction with accessory uses to a hotel, such as a restaurant, meeting facilities, auditoriums, convention centers, etc., sO no outdoor music is permitted, either amplified or non-amplified; noted that includes musici in a tent, because it is not an enclosed Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 38 building with four walls and a roof; added that the applicant' S statement that it may be an outside event with a band playing would not be permitted; and stated that the applicants would have to meet the Zoning Code's requirements regarding outdoor lights, and the requirements of the Turtle Protection Ordinance because they are on the water. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti noted that it is interesting that there is SO much development and redevelopment in Sarasota, primarily in the Downtown area and the Rosemary District, but Lido seems to be forgotten; added that he is glad to see a project that will bring much energy and life back to this area, and commends the property owner for hiring such an accomplished team, and a design oriented architect; noted that he did not understand what was the opposition to the Lido Beach Pavilion, because he thinks that this project appeals to a different demographic, and it does not put this project at jeopardy at all; noted that he likes this project for the same reasons he liked that project, which is the fact that this is a much needed improvement to what is currently there; and concluded that staff did an excellent job on the report and agrees on their conditions for approval. PB Member Blumetti moved to find Rezone 17-RE-03 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code, find Site Plan 17-SP-13 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and to find Major Conditional Use 17-CU-06 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the petitions subject to the following conditions: 1. All beach equipment including but not limited to, cabanas, day beds, hobie sailboats, umbrellas, lounge chairs, paddle boards and cabana hoods, must be placed in the two roped off areas as shown on the site plan on a nightly basis during non-turtle nesting season. Approval from the Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, Environmental Protection Division is required for the location of the placement of the beach equipment during turtle nesting season. Evidence of approval by the Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, Environmental Protection Division must be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permit authorizing construction approved by this Site Plan. 2. On site parking shall be provided by a valet service at all times except when consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3. The! Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall bei in compliance with those labeled Sandcastle Resort at Lido Beach, received by the Department of Development Services on September 5, 2018. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director Development Services. 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 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 38 applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss stated that this is an exemplary project, the fact that the adjacent neighbors are sO well informed of what is going on, to be able to say how high the chairs will be stacked, is evidence of extremely good communications between the developers and the neighboring community; thanked the applicants for that; and concluded that this is an exciting project, and a nice piece of architecture. PB Chair Gannon added that the packet both from the applicant and from the staff was complete, and it made it a whole lot easier having all that information and diagrams; commended the applicant for the extensive community outreach, and for addressing the construction issues which are huge; and stated that as this City continues to grow, and grow rapidly, residents are beingimpacted by construction, and both developers and staff need to take it under consideration, and ensure that existing residents are taken care of during the construction, and are allowed to use the public thoroughfares, and everything else. PB Member Ohlrich agreed with PB Chair Gannon. PB Vice Chair Normile had nothing to say. Motion for Rezone 17-RE-03, Site Plan 17-SP-13, and Major Conditional Use 17-CU-06 is approved unanimously (vote 5 to 0). PB Member Morriss moved to adopt a motion to find Minor Conditional Use 17-MCU-03 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code and approve the petition subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is contingent upon City Commission approval of Rezone 17-RE-03, Site Plan 17-SP-13 and Major Conditional Use 17-CU-06. 2. All beach equipment including but not limited to, cabanas, day beds, hobie sailboats, umbrellas, lounge chairs, paddle boards and cabana hoods, must be placed in the two roped off areas as shown on the site plan on a nightly basis during non-turtle nesting season. Approval from the Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, Environmental Protection Division is required for the location of the placement of the beach equipment during turtle nesting season. Evidence of approval by the Sarasota County Planning and Development: Services, Environmental Protection Division must be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permit authorizing construction approved by this Site Plan. 3. On site parking shall be provided by a valet service at all times except when consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Sandcastle Resort at Lido Beach, received by the Department of Development Services on September 5, 2018. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director Development Services. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 38 5. 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. Motion for Minor Conditional Use 17-MCU-03 was approved unanimously (Vote: 5 to 0) V. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: AT THIS TIME CITIZENS: MAY ADDRESS' THE. PLANNING BOARDON TOPICS OF CONCERN. ITEMS WHICHI HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY: DISCUSSED. AT. PUBLICI HEARINGS MAY NOT BE. ADDRESSED AT THIS' TIME. (A MAXIMUM 5-MINUTE TIMEI LIMIT.) There was none. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 5, 2018 PB Member Ohlrich moved to approve the minutes; PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Minutes were approved. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be plaçed on the next available agenda for discussion. Planning Director Cover stated that there will be a presentation next month regarding sidewalk accessibility in relation to new construction, and the right staff will be here to cover that topic. PB Member Ohlrich asked if staff has communicated with the Citizens With Disabilities Board regarding this matter. PB Chair Gannon stated that he and Mr. Cover discussed this, Mr. Cover was to follow up with Engineering and Building Department staff, and based on that, they would draft a letter to the Chair of the Citizens With Disabilities Board to invite them to join the Planning Board. Mr. Cover stated that the final interviews for the Transportation Master Plan, Sarasota in Motion, are completed, and they have selected the vendor, which is ADSQ from Tampa; said that there was a three-way tie: in the voting, it's never. happened before, Purchasing came up with a list of tie-breakers, and it came down to a coin toss, at which point they said they are: not doing that, and after a brief discussion, they voted again, and selected ADSQ; noted that they had four submittals for the Water Taxi Feasibility Study which they will review in the next couple weeks; Bike Shares RFP submittals are due on November 8; the Form Based Code is up on the Website for review; and Monday, October 15, he and Mark Lyons will give a presentation to the City Commission on parking in the downtown area. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 38 VIII. 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 Blumetti stated that he is part of a demographic that is not well represented in Sarasota regarding City issues; noted that the reason is not that this demographic does not care, but they are busy, it is difficult to find daycare SO they can attend public hearings to speak in support of a project; explained that he brings this up because when a project is geared towards a certain demographic, and that demographic is not present to support it, the Planning Board cannot listen just to one side of the argument; stated for example this evening the Planning Board approved a project that did not have FDEP permitting, and it had a 200-seat restaurant with no parking, traffic obviously will be increased, and the scale of the project is ten times of a project that the Planning Board did not approve; and concluded that the Planning Board should keep in mind that there are persons that may support the project that are unable to attend Planning Board meetings. PB Member Morriss agreed to an extent; stated that PB Member Blumetti is that voice, and it will fall on him to be that voice, but there is also the argument that, just because the older people do not like something the younger people are: not necessarily for it; added that there is no comparison between what was proposed this evening and the Lido Beach Pavilion, this evening' S proposal has radically different circumstances, density, and place in the heart of Sarasota; said that over the years he listened to older people who have lived here for a long time, and they identify where the heart of Sarasota is, and its different components that are spread around the City and sometimes, the younger people who have not been here very long may take a while to find those things, there. is something to be said about the old, you do get some wisdom, but he likes the passion of that; and promised to try to listen more carefully, given the technology, with which young people are: more comfortable with, things like e-mail, texting, twitter... PB Member Blumetti stated that they are not plugged in; iti is important for him to ask questions, to understand why the project was denied last month, there is a parallel between the two projects, why approve a project with no FDEP approval, a 200 seat restaurant and al ballroom without adequate parking; said that hei is not convinced that the stacked parking is going to work, and then the traffic it is going to create, and the scale of the project, the other project was denied for similar reasons. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that the other project had a different land use, different zoning, and was denied based on the Comprehensive Plan. PB Member Blumetti responded that the arguments that were brought up were intensity of the restaurant and traffic. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that it was in an Overlay, and intensity is in the Comprehensive Plan, it was an Open Recreation Land Use and Government Zoning, and those are major differences. PB Member Morriss stated that the people who were passionate against the Lido Beach Pavilion were. here supporting the proposed project this evening, it is not an age thing, it is more the heart of Sarasota that the people did not want to trespass on, or if you are going to trespass it, then be a whole lot more careful. PB Blumetti said: it: is a dilapidated building, and that use was pretty interesting, and it was a much-needed improvement on the existing Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 38 structure. PB Vice Chair Normile agreed that improvement needs to happen there. PB Member Ohlrich noted that it is going to the City Commission. PB Member Blumetti clarified that his reason for saying this is the divide that exists among the different demographics. PB Member Ohlrich suggested that he can bring it up for discussion in his professional association meetings. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if they will receive the minutes from the Lido Key meeting before it goes to the City Commission. Mr. Cover stated that it has not been scheduled yet, it is going to be either on the first week of December or in January. PB Member Normile emphasized that it is important to review the minutes before they go to the City Commission. PB Chair Gannon stated that reviewing the minutes supplements the quick notes PB Members take during the meetings, for example reviewing the September 5th minutes he noted that there were some action items, read what the PB members said about them, and what is expected, and followed up on them. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:47 P.M. Steven R. Cover, Planning Director PATRICKGANNON, CHAIR Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]