CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE KEGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY January 13, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Planning Board Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Chair Members Present: Terrill Salem, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services Department 1:39:55 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Ohlrich called the meeting to order. 1:40:41 P.M. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Secretary Cover discussed the procedures for the combined in-person and virtual meeting noting three. Planning Board members would be in the Chambers at any given time to ensure a quorum is present throughout the duration of the meeting. Attorney Connolly stated the applicants for En Pointe had requested a continuance to the February 10, 2021 meeting. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to approve the request. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. Attorney Connolly stated the date/time/location the public hearing for En Pointe was continued to. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TOTHE. PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) 1:44:57 P.M. A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Cover read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly briefly explained the procedures for Quasi-Judicial public hearings, recommended time limits for the presentations in petitions that will follow. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 2 of 11 Planning Board approved the time limits by consensus. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those wishing to speak. B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. En Pointe (509 Golden Gate) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 12, 2020): Site Plan Application 20-SP-05 is a request for Site Plan approval for development of a 4-unit multi- family condominium project on approximately 0.16-acre property located in the Residential Multiple Family (RMF-5) zone district, with street address of 509 Golden Gate Point. The applicant proposes to utilize the Alternative Development Standards for Golden Gate Point. Eight parking spaces are proposed on the ground level. The existing building will be demolished. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) The public hearing for 20-SP-05 was continued to the February 10, 2021 Planning Board meeting. 2. Quay Sarasota Blocks 4 & 5 (333 N. Tamiami Trail) (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 9, 2020): Site Plan Application No. 20-SP-08 is a request for Site Plan approval to construct an 18 story multi-family residential development consisting of 149 residential units on Blocks 4 & 5 located on the southeast portion of the Quay Sarasota site located in the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) zone district with a street address of 333 N. Tamiami Trail. (Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Department) 1:48:18 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing for 20-SP-08. Attorney Connolly noted due to technical issues the presence of Affected Persons would be determined at such time the citizen input portion of the public hearing was opened. The Planning Board members disclosed their ex-parte communications as follows: PB Member Gannon stated he had spoke with Ms. Cathy Antunes regarding the Bath & Racquet Club application PB Member Morriss stated he met with the applicant for Bath and Racquet Club PB Member Blumetti stated he visited both sites on his own PB Vice Chair Salem stated he visited both sited on his own and received emails PB Chair Ohlrich stated she spoke with Ms. Eileen Normile regarding the Quay Sarasota application and spoke with Mr. Ron Collins regarding the Bath and Racquet Club application. Attorney Connolly noted the importance of ensuring all emails are provided to staff to be entered into the record. 1:51:31 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Mr. David Arent, Kolter Acquisitions LLC, Agent for the project; Ms. Benda Patten, Attorney for the project; Ms. Melanie Smith, Engineer for the project; and Pinar Harris, Architect for the project; appeared. Mr. Arent stated the project consisted of Blocks 4 & 5 of the Quay Sarasota General Development Plan, the proposed condominium would Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page3 of 11 be 18 stories with 149 units, the site is just under one acre, and the proposal complies with the approved Development Order; discussed the overall Quay Sarasota development; reviewed the proposed site plan noting the proposed loading dock is the only access off of the MURT; said the proposal complies with all Code provisions; and pointed out the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Arent concluded his presentation and requested the time allotted that he did not use be applied to his rebuttal time allotment. PB members agreed by consensus to allow the remaining time to be allotted to Mr. Arent' S rebuttal time. 1:58:36 P.M. Staff Presentation: Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Department and Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer appeared. Director Panica discussed the proposed site plan stating the project is proposed for Blocks 4 & 5 of the Quay Sarasota General Development Plan, the site is .98 acres, the zoning is Downtown Bayfront (DTB), and the proposed condominium would be 18 stories with 149 units; briefly discussed the history of the overall Quay Sarasota site development; noted 149 parking spaces are required however the applicant's are providing 260 parking spaces; said an Administrative Adjustment to slightly reduce the drive aisle width in a small portion of the parking garage had been approved; discussed access, refuse and recycling, and landscaping; a and stated the project complies with the approved Development Order. Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer, noted the consultant that performed the traffic study, Mr. Bill Oliver, was also present; discussed the overall traffic concurrency for Quay Sarasota; noted each block is evaluated at such time development occurs; and stated Blocks 4 & 5 meet the requirements. Director Panica noted the DRC had signed off on the project on October 21, 2020; stated the project meets all Code requirements; and said staff recommended approval. Citizen Input: Attorney Connolly called the following that applied for Affected Person status: Alan Ross Erica & Achim Ginsberg-Klemmpt Donald Goldsmith Erica & Achim Ginsberg-Klemmpt and Donald Goldsmith were not present and therefore were not granted Affected Person status. Mr. Ross stated he only wished to observe the proceedings. Mr. David Lough registered to speak under Citizen Input via Zoom however was not present virtually or in-person. 2:06:22 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich requested the Applicant team return to the table to answer questions from the PB members, noted questions had been asked and answered in advance of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 4 of 11 meeting, and requested those documents be attached to the meeting minutes with explanation. PB Member Blumetti questioned if no parking signs would be installed along the MURT and how the trash/ recycling pick-up would occur. PB Vice Chair Salem commended the project and suggested canopy trees versus palm trees be utilized whenever possible. PB Member Gannon reviewed the questions/answers he asked in advance for the record. PB Member Morriss questioned what the legal status of the MURT was, is it treated the same as a road. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she had submitted questions in advance that were answered and reiterated the need to ensure the documents are attached to the meeting minutes. Ms. Harris stated there were no plans to install no parking signs on the MURT as no traffic will be diverted there, and stated trash/recycling pick-up would be 2 times per week via one of the two loading bays. Mr. Arent provided clarification to question #2 regarding Sheet A100 stating homeowners are informed prior to moving in that a SU-30 box truck is the largest allowed and noted the SU-30 box trucks fully fit in the loading dock. PB Member Morriss' question was referred to staff. 2:24:50 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich called upon staff to return to the table to answer questions. PB Member Blumetti questioned what recourse there was if the MURT were to be continuously blocked. PB Member Gannon questioned why a parking violation would not be issued versus a Code violation, why no parking signs were not being installed, noted his questions regarding Sheet LP-102 and the Quay Development Agreement were to be clarified at the meeting, requested clarification on when the CO for the Ritz-Quay would be issued and the Interim MURT opened, and questioned why the Downtown Greenspace policy was not being followed regarding the types of trees being planted. PB Vice Chair Salem and PB Member Morriss had no questions. PB Chair Ohlrich commented that she had concerns regarding the MURT and pedestrian safety. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated blocking the MURT would be treated as a Code violation, noting parking violations are: not applicable to rights-of-way that are: not public property. Director Panica stated the landscaping is consistent with the MURT Agreement. Discussion ensued regarding the overall landscaping plan for the Quay Sarasota GDP. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the questions regarding the MURT and the Quay Sarasota General Development Plan were not applicable to the Quay Sarasota Blocks 4 & 5 application that was under consideration, discussed the history of the MURT construction and landscape plans, noted compliance with the Downtown Greenspace policy is not required on private property, said some revisions to the landscaping were done due to a utility conflict, and reiterated these issues due not pertain to the application that is the subject of today's public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page5of11 2:46:20 P.M. Rebuttal: Attorney Patten pointed out the Applicants only own Blocks 4 & 5 of the Quay Sarasota General Development Plan and therefore have no control over the MURT/landscaping concerns expressed by the PB: members at today's public hearing; and noted the MURT is a public easement over private property that the Applicants do not own. Mr. Arent stated the TCO for the Ritz was issued on 1/6/21, and in response to a question posed by PB Chair Ohlrich presented a rendering of the arrival deck. Discussion ensued. 2:50:10 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly clarified the difference between Blocks 4 & 5 and the overall Quay Sarasota General Development Plan. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to approval Application 20-SP-08 with conditions 1, 2 and 3. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti stated the project meets the intent of the Code and said he was comfortable the other issues discussed at today's hearing will be addressed. PB Vice Chair Salem had no further comments. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Member Gannon voting no. 3. Bath and Racquet Club (2170 Robinhood Street and 2104 Robinhood Street) (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 9, 2020): Rezone Application No. 20-REN-03 is a request to rezone the 13.45-acre site with a street address of 2170 Robinhood Street and 2104 Robinhood Street from Office Neighborhood District (OND) and Intensive Commercial District (ICD) to Office Regional District (ORD) and Commercial Storefront District (CSD). The rezone petition is subject to proffers which will limit the intensity and density of the development upon the property and establish additional development parameters for the development on the property. The Future Land Use for the property is Community Office/Institutional and Community Commercial. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) 2:53:36 P.M. Attorney Connolly called the following that had applied for Affected Person status: Kimberly Madden Scott Olson Jack Stevens Shauna Stevens Nick Crutcher-Stevens Pamela Lyon Attorney Connolly recommended Scott Olson and Shauna Stevens be granted Affected Person status as they were present, and recommended Kimberly Madden, Jack Stevens, Nick Crutcher-Stevens, and Pamela Lyon not be granted Affected Person status as they were not present. The Planning Board Took a Five-Minute Break Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 6 of 11 3:01:00 P.M. Attorney Connolly administered to oath to those wishing to speak. PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Michael Halflants, Design Architect with Halflants + Pichette, and Bobbi Claybrooke, Engineer with AM Engineering, appeared. Mr. Halflants discussed the history of the Bath and Racquet Club and the previously proposed redevelopment; noted the property could be developed as an office park by right; discussed the surrounding land uses; presented the current proposed redevelopment stating the housing will be located on the north portion of the site next to Trader Joe's; the Clubhouse would be rebuilt; the previously proposed road next to the adjacent single family has been eliminated; all of the grand trees and slash pines will be saved; the size of the proposed park has been increased from approximately 6,000 sq. ft. to 40,000 sq. ft. and includes a running trail, playground and two dog parks (one for small dogs, one for large dogs); discussed the current zoning and permitted uses; noted the proposed zoning allows for more residential than commercial uses; discussed the proffers; reviewed the proposed height compared to the surrounding area; discussed the landscape buffer; stated the residential component would be three stories over parking; noted the parking would be concealed by retail and residential uses; discussed the proposed amenities; stated if the proposal is denied the property will be developed as an office park, noting a seven foot setback from the adjacent residential is permitted; reviewed the progression of the proposed redevelopment; and pointed out a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not required. 3:23:50 P.M. Staff Presentation: Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner, appeared and discussed the location of the project, the size of the property, the existing uses, zoning and Future Land Use classification; stated the request was to rezone the property to implementing zone districts Office Regional District (ORD) and Commercial Storefront District (CSD); reviewed the proffers; presented a comparison chart of the existing and proposed zone districts; noted twenty-seven units will be attainable for thirty years and includes membership in the Bath and Racquet Club; noted the most intense uses are positioned along US41; discussed tree protection and pointed out enhanced buffers that are proposed along the adjacent residential uses; said a privately owned/j publicly accessible park is being provided; stated a Community Workshop was held and the project received DRC sign-off in November 2020. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared and stated the traffic analysis was based on a comparison of the existing uses and the total potential uses; noted a traffic study was not required; pointed out an additional initial traffic review to determine if a traffic study is required will be completed upon submittal of a site plan application; stated the proffers related to traffic have not changed since the previous submittal; and noted a possible connection to School Avenue was being explored. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page7 of 11 Senior Planner Dobbs stated recommends approval with the proffers and conditions listed in the staff report. 3:33:59 P.M. PB Vice Chair Salem, noting a discrepancy in the materials versus the statement staff made regarding the length the twenty-seven units would remain attainable, questioned if the period would be ten years or thirty years; and asked what is considered affordable. Senior Planner Dobbs noted a corrected proffer sheet was sent to the PB members and confirmed thirty years was correct; and presented a chart showing what is considered affordable. PB Member Gannon questioned if a subsequent site plan would come before the Planning Board. Senior Planner Dobbs stated that was correct. PB Member Morriss questioned how staff would ensure the proffers were included in the site plan submission; and, noting several proffers hinge on the cooperation of Trader Joe's, questioned if the City would be taking action regarding the existing traffic pattern if Trader Joe's declines to cooperate. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the City has no plans to redesign the intersection. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned who was responsible to ensure the proffers were carried over into the site plan; and requested a graphic showing the traffic flow if Glengary became a two-way street. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the proffers are conditions of approval and noted staff and the Planning Board will review the site plan. Discussion ensued. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A FIFTEEN MINUTE BREAK 3:48:10 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich requested roll call to ensure all PB members present. Secretary Cover callled the roll, all members were present. Affected Persons; Attorney Connolly called Scott Olson and Shauna Stevens. Mr. Olson appeared, noted he had been sworn, and stated he was in favor of the proposal; discussed the history of the Bath and Racquet Club; stated the proposal was an improvement over the previous proposal; and requested the PB approve the rezoning. Ms. Stevens appeared. Attorney Connolly administered the oath. Ms. Stevens stated her opposition noting increased water runoff; additional school crowding; negative impacts the increased traffic and noise would have on the surrounding area; noted she had submitted written comments as well; and pointed out her husband Jack Stevens and son Nick Crutcher-Stevens were opposed as well. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 8 of11 3:53:49 P.M. Citizen Input: Ms. Barbara Bourgoin appeared. Attorney Connolly administered the oath. Ms. Bourgoin pointed out the presentations were difficult to understand due to audio and visual quality issues; and stated she had concerns regarding traffic issues, building heights, lighting and noise. Mr. Brian McCarthy appeared, noted he had been sworn, stated he supported the proposal noting he is the CEO of the Pickleball Club; discussed the history of the sport and the design of the pickleball courts; noted members of the Bath and Racquet Club would be entitled to membership in the Pickleball Club as well; and reviewed the results of a survey he had done. Mr. David Morse was registered to speak however was not present. Mr. Jim Del Rio appeared. Attorney Connolly administered the oath. Mr. Del Rio stated he supported the project; noted he is a nearby homeowner; said the proposal was much improved from the previous proposal; and stated he felt the project was good for the overall community. Mr. Kevin Robbins was registered to speak however was not present. Ms. Marjory Lasita appeared, noted she has been sworn; stated she is a nearby resident; commended the improvements to the proposal; stated she supports the project; and noted traffic is already an issue. Ms. Cathy Antunes appeared. Attorney Connolly administered the oath. Ms. Antunes stated she owned property on School Avenue to the north of the Bath and Racquet Club site; discussed ongoing criminal activity in that area; and requested the applicants, City and County work together to provide a connection to School Avenue in order to complete the grid which would help alleviate the criminal activity. Mr. Milford Inganamort appeared, stated he owns the Chili's Plaza; said he supports the current design which is a significant improvement from the previous design; and noted the positive impacts the project will have on the small businesses located in the Chili's Plaza. 4:11:27 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Halflants noted expert witness Professor Jan Wampler was present via Zoom and noted his credentials. PB Chair Ohlrich pointed out the time Professor Wampler testified would be considered part of the Applicant S rebuttal time. Profession Wampler appeared. Attorney Connolly administered the oath. Professor Wampler discussed his background; stated the proposed design was extremely well done and is sensitive to the neighborhood; and stated his endorsement of the proposal. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 9 of 11 Mr. Halflants discussed the traffic issues citizens had expressed concerns about; presented photos of Mill Terrace at 5:00 PM on a weekday noting there was no traffic on Mill Terrace; and pointed out the only entrance to the Bath and Racquet Club was through Robinhood and Glengary Streets. Ms. Claybrooke pointed out local and state requirements related to stormwater runoff had to be met noting stormwater runoff cannot exceed current levels. Mr. Halflants stated stormwater retention will bei improved from its current condition and concluded by acknowledging the large number of proffers, pointing out the proffers provide public benefit. PB Member Blumetti questioned how the stormwater runoff would be addressed. Ms. Claybrooke stated an underground system would be installed. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned why only 15% of the units were designated as affordable and what the rent would be. Mr. Halflants stated the County requires 15% while the City has no requirement; said there is a balance between providing affordable housing and the financial viability of the project; said the rent that will be charged is unknown at this time; and pointed out affordable rents are based on the annual AMI. PB Member Gannon commended the revised plan; noted the rezone was being evaluated basked on the most intense use permitted under the requested zoning; said the proffers will mitigate the intensity of the use; and questioned when the site plan will come before the Planning Board. Mr. Halflants stated it is unknown at this time when the site plan will come before the Planning Board, noting the applicant's desire to move forward quickly. PB Member Gannon pointed out concerned citizens will have an opportunity to provide input on the site plan when it comes before the Planning Board. PB Member Morriss noted proffer #21 requires cooperation from Trader Joe's and FDOT, noting that is risky. Mr. Halflants stated through that process Trader Joe's circulation issues will be solved at Bath and Racquet Club's expense; and pointed out discussions with Trader Joe's are on-going. PB Chair Ohlrich noted questions had been submitted in advance of the public hearing, answers were provided, and that document needs to be attached to the minutes; said the proposal was much improved; noted she would address her concerns regarding two-way traffic on Glengary Street during the site plan review; and strongly encouraged the applicants to work with the City and County to address the connectivity to School Avenue. Mr. Halflants noted the previous proposal included such a connection however due to concerns expressed by the neighbors that connection was not included in the revised proposal; and stated a pedestrian connection could be installed. There was no Affected Person or Staff Rebuttal 4:33:23 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 10 of 11 PB Vice Chair Salem requested clarification that the property could be developed under the existing zoning should this rezoning be denied. Secretary Cover confirmed that was correct. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to approve application 20-REN-03 with proffers 1-19 and conditions 20 and 21. PB. Member Gannon seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti commended the developer for going through this arduous process a second time; said the development would be an asset to the City; and he hoped the City Commission will approve the rezoning. PB Member Gannon stated the proposal was in scale with the City and neighborhoods needs. The motion passed 5/0. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE. PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 12, 2020 The November 12, 2020 minutes were approved as presented by consensus. 2. December 9, 2020 The December 9, 2020 minutes were approved by consensus with the following revisions: Under "Changes to the Order of the Day", second paragraph, change "ensuing" to "ensuring." Page 2, second paragraph, change giving" to given" and delete the word "not" sO the sentence reads he would then go back around..." VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were none. PB Member Blumetti noted there is a special meting scheduled for January 28, 2021. Secretary Cover confirmed the meeting, noting the start time will be 2:00 PM and the subjecti is The Bay Park Phase I project. PB Member Gannon questioned when the meeting materials would be available. Discussion ensued. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 11 of 11 VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Gannon requested Secretary Cover elaborate on the item labeled Discussion and Direction Re: Comprehensive Update to the City of Sarasota Zoning Code" that is on the City Commission agenda for January 19, 2021. Secretary Cover stated the Mayor had placed the item on the agenda for discussion purposes. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly announced staff had indicated the materials for the 1/28/21 special meeting would be available next Wednesday, January 20th. PB Chair Ohlrich recommended the special meeting be conducted in the same manner as today's meeting and requested the PB members inform Secretary Cover of any recommended improvements. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:45:03 P.M. Gah Kodle T.D Steven R-Cover, Planning Director Kathy Kelléy Ohlfich, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board] Questions for PB Meeting 2021-01-13 (v1) 20-SP-08 = Lucia Panica Questions for Staff: 1. P.5 4th para- Staff Analysis & P8 Staff Response to #5 What mitigation steps are being taken to protect pedestrians and bicyclists safety on the Scenic MURT on south side of Quay property from large trucks and tractor trailer rigs as they going in and out of both BaySo and Ritz? The Quay has approval to put up signage such as "Share the Trail" in the area. The Scenic MURT alley will appear per the approved cross section in the MURT Agreement and approved building permit. What additional signage should be required to alert truck drivers of the pedestrian/bicylist as they are approaching the Scenic MURT from Quay Commons? At this time no additional signage or striping is required above what has been previously approved. Additional signage and/or striping may or may not be necessary depending on user experience. 2. Sheet A100. Block 5 shows Loading Bay #1 with a length of 40 feet. How far will a semi-tractor- trailer rig stick out into the Scenic MURT with an overall length >70 feet? According to the plans, the applicant does not show WB-67 trucks accessing the alley, but rather SU-30 box trucks. Accommodating interstate tractor trailers is not a requirement for loading zones. The applicant may clarify further 3. Sheet A302 South Elevation shows "MURT CONNECTION", while A100 appears to show stairs on the south end of the "Pedestrian Connection" on the east side of Quay Commons. How are bicyclists on the MURT Connection supposed to navigate these stairs when connection from Quay Commons to the Scenic MURT between Blocks 4 & 5? The MURT connection depicted is for pedestrians to walk onto the MURT and is not the MURT itself. There are two means of accessing the MURT provided: the stairs and the adjacent ramp. Bicyclists proceeding north may use Quay Commons. 4. Sheet LP-102 When was the Quay GDP Landscape Plan (Rev. 2020-08-10) approved by Development Services Director that now shows 6 Royal Palm Trees to be planted adjacent to the MURT on north side of Quay Property in the City ROW on south-side of Blvd of the Arts; and 7 Pink Tabebuias to be planted in the median? Clarification will be provided at the hearing. Questions for PB Meeting 2021-01-13 (vi) The Quay General Development Plan was approved by the Planning Board on Aug. 17, 2016 with no landscape plan for the north side of the Quay property. The PB relied on Staff input in unanimously approving the DA in 2016. "Having landscaping along the MURT to provide shade and a pleasant experience for pedestrians is what they want to do too" [Lucia Panica] * "this is a conceptual design, the final design will show details about the streetscape" [Dan Ohrenstein) The Quay GDP Landscape Plan (Rev. 2018-02-12) shows 6 Shady Lady trees approved to be planted in the City ROW on south-side of Blvd of the Arts. Why was this Landscape Plan changed? Clarification will be provided at the hearing. 5. Quay Development Agreement What is expected date of TCO or CO for Ritz-Quay and when will the Interim MURT be opened? The applicant can clarify the timing on their TCO or CO Clarification on both items will be provided at the hearing. Planning Board January 13, 2021 20-SP-08 Quay Blocks 4 &5 1. Staff - Blue page - Proffer 1-1 don't recall seeing this type of proffer before. How common is this and why is it necessary with this application? This is a common condition when the refuse pick up area is in the same location as a loading zone. We see this a lot in urban areas. 2. Staff - P. 124 - email from resident dated June 28, 2020 to Lucia Panica. Regarding concerns about landscaping on the east side of the building. In an application for another section of the Quay project, the PB and applicant worked out improvements, including landscaping, to what looked like back of house design for the section along Tamiami Trail. We don't want to neglect that same concern for block 4. What can you tell us about the landscaping planned for along Tamiami Trail. The subject landscape mentioned in that email is in the FDOT right of way and has been approved by FDOT through a separate permit. That landscaping is not subject to this application. The difference with Blocks 2 and 3 was they had room within their frontage to plant a canopy tree that would benefit the adjacent sidewalk. We don't have a "back of house" look issue with this project. 3. Applicant and Staff - P.8, (5) - Concerned about MURT. There's no reference to the MURT on many ofthe site plan pages. It clearly states service road, but not MURT on many pages of the site plan. What safety precautions have been taken to provide for the safety of pedestrians as the use the MURT when it is a service road AND a MURT? Similar to Block 6, the loading space area isn't expected to be used that frequently. Signage as approved by the permit for the scenic MURT will make vehicles and pedestrians aware that it is a shared path. 4. Applicant - Also re MURT - P.43 at bottom is the Service Drive/Scenic MURT. On far Lit looks like a drive way. Would you show that on the site plan? Is that the entrance to block 5 building? 5. Applicant - P.8, (6) - regarding parking - address parking for home health, cleaners, delivery, and other services utilized by residents on a regular basis. 6. Applicant - Site Plan = page 10, Notes on L side of page - please address notes 4 and 5 7. Applicant - Site Plan = page A302 What is the Arrival plaza? Who will utilize it? is there a better visual of that part of the building than that depicted on page A302 of the site plan? 8. Applicant - Show drawing of block 5. I'm interested in the where the main entrance is located. 9. Applicant and Staff - P. 56, paragraph 3 refers to the Quay Development being approved for 695 dwelling units, 175, hotel room, 38,972 square feet of office, and 189,050 square feet of commercial as well as vesting of 922 PM peak -hour trips. What is the current cumulative total for each of these categories? 463 dwelling units; 21,000 SF of commercial space; 18,972 SF office (representing the Belle Haven); 0 hotel rooms 10. Applicant and Staff - The Quay also has a trip budget of 419. After reaching that number of trips, it is my understanding that a new traffic study must be undertaken. What is the current total for trip budget? 481 trips was the total new trips at peak hour, not the number of total vested trips per the traffic study. The Quay trip budget is 922 PM total peak-hour trips. With Q45, the total now is 287 or 31% of the total vested trips. 11. Applicant and Staff - P. 60 -Refers to existing conditions for when the traffic circulation analysis was done. What were the conditions at the time? Was the Fruitville/41 roundabout under construction, lessening the traffic? How were traffic conditions taken into consideration? The existing conditions implied were other developments in the area and number of lanes in the surrounding roadway network. The Fruitville Roundabout was studied with the overall Bayside traffic study and was included in each subsequent analysis. New counts were obtained for this traffic circulation analysis in 2019. 12. Applicant and Staff -P. 66 Mr. Wm Oliver's memo to D. Ohrenstein dated Oct7, 2020 - would you address points 1 = 4.F Regarding items 1-4 on the letter a. The plans were clarified and the signage plan will be examined again with the Building Permit. Sight distance is within keeping for downtown standards. b. The sidewalk is provided on the south side of Driveway A. The overall Quay General Development Plan (GDP) was approved without a crosswalk on the east side of the intersection, SO the applicant is not required to provide it. C. This connection was provided. d. After discussion with the applicant, signage, striping, the vertical elements of the building, and pavement treatments provided rather than grade difference will be sufficient to signify the change in driving environment. 13. Applicant and Staff - P. 67 - 68 Oliver's memo to D. Ohrenstein, paragraph 3 re a missing element and clarification ofthe entry method... The parking garage is for residents only. There will be an automatic gate for residents activated by a sticker on the car window. The gate only takes 2-3 seconds to open, which will keep traffic moving. Planning Board January 13, 2021 20-SP-08 Quay Blocks 4 & 5 1. Staff - Blue page = Proffer 1-1 don't recall seeing this type of proffer before. How common is this and why is it necessary with this application? This is a common condition when the refuse pick up area is in the same ocation as a loading zone, We see this a lot in urban areas. 2. Staff - P. 124 = email from resident dated June 28, 2020 to Lucia Panica. Regarding concerns about landscaping on the east side of the building. In an application for another section of the Quay project, the PB and applicant worked out improvements, including landscaping, to what looked like back of house design for the section along Tamiami Trail. We don't want to neglect that same concern for block 4. What can you tell us about the landscaping planned for along Tamiami Trail. The subject landscape mentioned in that email is in the FDOT right of way and has been approved by FDOT through a separate permit. That landscaping is not subject to this application. The difference with Blocks 2 and 3 was they had room within their frontage to plant a canopy tree that would benefit the adjacent sidewalk. We don't have a "back of house" look issue with this project. 3. Applicant and Staff - P. 8, (5) - Concerned about MURT. There's no reference to the MURT on many of the site plan pages. It clearly states service road, but not MURT on many pages of the site plan. What safety precautions have been taken to provide for the safety of pedestrians as the use the MURT when it is a service road AND a MURT? Similar to Block 6, the loading space area isn't expected to be used that frequently, Signage as approved by the permit for the scenic MURT will make vehicles and pedestrians aware that it is a shared path. a. b. Scenic MURT/Access Drive has been permitted, constructed, and easements granted to City C. *Combining of Blocks 4&5 potentially has reduced the # of trips down quay commons and onto the SCENIC MURT - utilization of the plaza level instead of the Frontage Road/Scenic MURT 4. Applicant - Also re MURT - P. 43 at bottom is the Service Drive/Scenic MURT. On far LI it looks like a drive way. Would you show that on the site plan? is that the entrance to block 5 building? a. I believe the item being questioned is the Loading Dock. We can review in the meeting. 5. Applicant - P. 8, (6) - regarding parking - address parking for home health, cleaners, delivery, and other services utilized by residents on a regular basis. a. The Lobby and Plaza level will be used for most of those type of deliveries. Once the service personnel has checked in with management, they will park in the Residents garage. 6. Applicant - Site Plan = page 10, Notes on Lside of page = please address notes 4 and 5 a. Notes 4 and 5 from GDP - i. Scenic MURT was not fully designed at time of GDP - now its built, and open to the public l. Driveways C and D were part of Blk 2&3 - see 2&3 plans 7. Applicant - Site Plan = page A302 What is the Arrival plaza? Who will utilize it? Is there a better visual of that part of the building than that depicted on page A302 of the site plan? a. David (Kolter) to bring artist renderings of Arrive Plaza 8. Applicant - Show drawing of block 5. I'm interested in the where the main entrance is located. a. Main Entrance located on Blk 4; Resident Access to garage to Blk 5 - show site plan b. David (Kolter) to bring artist renderings of Arrive Plaza and Site Plan 9. Applicant and Staff - P. 56, paragraph 3 refers to the Quay Development being approved for 695 dwelling units, 175, hotel room, 38,972 square feet of office, and 189,050 square feet of commercial as well as vesting of 922 PM peak -hour trips. What is the current cumulative total for each of these categories? 463 dwelling units; 21,000 SF of commercial space; 18,972 SF office (representing the Belle Haven); 0 hotel rooms a b. See PDF PG 7 oftraffic circulation Study - Project is at 31% oft the Vested PM Peak hour Trips (287/922) 10. Applicant and Staff - The Quay also has a trip budget of 419. After reaching that number of trips, it is my understanding that a new traffic study must be undertaken. What is the current total for trip budget? 481 trips was the total new trips at peak hour, not the number of total vested trips per the traffic study. The Quay trip budget is 922 PM total peak-hour trips. With Q45, the total now is 287 or 31% of the total vested trips. a. 11. Applicant and Staff - P. 60 -Refers to existing conditions for when the traffic circulation analysis was done. What were the conditions at the time? Was the Fruitville/41 roundabout under construction, lessening the traffic? How were traffic conditions taken into consideration? The existing conditions implied were other developments in the area and number of lanes in the surrounding roadway network. The Fruitville Roundabout was a. studied with the overall Bayside traffic study and was included in each subsequent analysis. New counts were obtained for this traffic circulation analysis in 2019. 12.Applicant and Staff - P. 66 Mr. Wm Oliver's memo to D. Ohrenstein dated Oct 7, 2020 - would you address points 1 - 4. Regarding items 1-4 on the letter a. The plans were clarified and the signage plan will be examined again with the Building Permit. Sight distance is within keeping for downtown standards. b. The sidewalk is provided on the south side of Driveway A. The overall Quay General Development Plan (GDP) was approved without a crosswalk on the east side of the intersection, sO the applicant is not required to provide it. C. This connection was provided. d. After discussion with the applicant, signage, striping, the vertical elements of the building, and pavement treatments provided rather than grade difference will be sufficient to signify the change in driving environment. 13. Applicant and Staff - P. 67 - 68 Oliver's memo to D. Ohrenstein, paragraph 3 re a missing element and clarification of the entry method... The parking garage is for residents only. There will be an automatic gate for residents activated by a sticker on the car window. The gate only takes 2-3 seconds a. to open, which will keep traffic moving.