CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Dan Clermont, Chair Members Present: Michael Halflants, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Terrill Salem Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Myra Schwarz, General Manger, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Alison Christie, Development Review Chief Planner Briana Dobbs, Senior Planner, Planning Department Rebecca Webster, Planner, Planning Department Mary McNish, Senior Zoning Analyst, Development Services John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning lechnician, Development Services 9:15:47 A.M. I. CALLI MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Clermont called the meeting to order. General Manager Schwarz [acting as the Planning Board's Secretary] called the roll. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. CHANGES TO' THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. 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.) 9:16:51 A.M. A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Schwarz read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly discussed the Planning Board Rules of Procedure related to time limits; said the City and the applicant are the same for this particular item; noted there are fourteen proposed Zoning Text Amendments (ZTAs); recommended each ZTA be presented by staff then discussed by the PB member individually; stated after all Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2of 24 fourteen ZTAs have been considered, then public input would be heard, staff will respond ifneeded; and then motions could be made. Mr. Jim Lampl was the only citizen present and stated he only wished to speak on ZTA #7. The PB agreed by consensus to allow Mr. Lampl to provide his input after the staff and PB discussion regarding ZTA #7. 9:20:48 A.M. B. Legislative Public Hearing 1. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 23-ZTA-01 is a request for Zoning Text Amendment approval to ensure consistency between the definition and standards for a subdivision, regulate the use of interstitial space, create a definition and standards for accessory kitchens, clarify where banquet halls less than 5,000 square feet are permitted, clarify the expansion allowance for nonconforming structures, clarify the daylight plane requirement for single-family homes, modify standard requiring noise mitigation wall for outdoor mechanical equipment for single-family homes, clarify where swimming pools are permitted for the DTN, RSM-9, and RTD-9. zone districts, expand permitted parking surface materials to include permeable parking surfaces, provide parking requirements for self- storage facilities, expand the alternative parking ratio option outside of the downtown, modifications to tree mitigation requirements, include balconies and covered front porches in the setback encroachment regulations, establish a threshold to require residential developments to have refuse and recycling picked up on private property or abutting alley. (Rebecca Webster, Planner) Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Dobbs and Planner Webster appeared and discussed the proposed ZTAS with the PB members as follows: 9:21:28 A.M. ZTA #1 Subdivisions): Planner Webster stated purpose of revising the definition is to provide consistency between the definition and standards for subdivisions by including the requirement to establish a new street or alley in the development standards. PB: members did not have any questions or comments. 9:22:08 A.M. ZTA #2 (Interstitial Spaces): Senior Planner Dobbs and Planner Webster discussed the standards for interstitial space noting no current regulations exist; said the proposal is to add 'interstitial space shall only be permitted for the use of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, or similar equipment and materials. Any increase, other than the minimum height required to accommodate equipment, must be approved by the Director of Development Services or designee with written justification provided for review." to the development standards; and noted projects are being proposed with large interstitial spaces that have no purpose other than to increase the height of the building. PB. Member Ohlrich asked if the proposed verbiage would ensure that would no longer occur. Senior Planner Dobbs pointed out justification would have to be provided; said Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 24 the Director of Development Services designee would be the Building Official who would review the proposal against the Florida Building Code; and said the verbiage would give staff the ability to regulate the use of interstitial space. PB Member Blumetti asked if interstitial space will be able to be whatever size the developer wishes; and questioned if the maximum height requirements for structures would limit the amount of interstitial space that can be provided. Senior Planner Dobbs stated there are: no current limits to the amount of interstitial space provided; stated the maximum height requirement for a building would not be limited noting the interstitial space does not count towards building height in the downtown; and reiterated justification would have to be provided. PB Member Blumetti wondered if there should be a maximum building height that includes interstitial space. Senior Planner Dobbs stated staff had discussed that possibility and determined the best approach is to require adequate justification. PB Member Halflants asked if the maximum height per floor is 21'. Senior Planner Dobbs stated only if a mezzanine is provided, otherwise the maximum height is 14. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants noted a project he is aware of that is asking for a large interstitial space; stated he is in favor of height if it is for living space; and asked if the projects that are proposing large interstitial spaces would be coming before the PB. Senior Planner Dobbs noted the projects are in the downtown and will be reviewed administratively. 9:30:10 A.M. ZTA #3 (Accessory Kitchens): Planner Webster stated staff was proposing to add a definition for accessory kitchens clarifying the accessory kitchen does not count towards determining density and codifying that a dwelling unit with both cannot be divided into two dwelling units. PB Member Blumetti asked about cooktops being allowed in accessory kitchens, Planner Webster confirmed cooktops would be permitted. Discussion ensued. PB Member Salem stated having two ranges in one dwelling unit could cause conflicts with electrical systems. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the proposal only relates to determining density. 9:32:58 A.M. ZTA #4 (Banquet Halls): Senior Planner Dobbs stated staff is proposing that banquet halls of less than 5,000 sq. ft. be classified as a retail sales and service use: in zone districts where restaurants are permitted by right; gave examples; and stated the banquet halls would also be permitted by right. PB Member Salem asked if the banquet hall could be a standalone structure. Senior Planner Dobbs confirmed they could. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 24 PB Member Ohlrich asked if the definition of Exhibition and Meeting Area suggested no kitchen would be permitted and no meals could be served. Senior Planner Dobbs stated that ability is not limited. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the language regarding kitchens should be explicit rather than implicit. Senior Planner Dobbs stated that was a separate issue. PB Member Ohlrich asked if banquet halls were required to have a kitchen. Senior Planner Dobbs stated that is an option but not a requirement. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti asked what problem was being solved. Senior Planner Dobbs stated exhibition and meeting spaces that are less than 20,000 sq. ft. are classified as retail sales and services and noted the permitted uses are not defined. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated he felt larger banquet halls should be permitted by right. Senior Planner Dobbs stated since the banquet halls will be standalone and permitted by right staff wanted to limit the allowable square footage to minimize the potential negative affects on nearby uses. Discussion ensued regarding banquet halls that are between 5,000 and 20,000 sq. ft. that are not accessory to another building; the cost benefits of standalone banquet halls versus those that are accessory to a restaurant or hotel; and allowing banquet halls that are up to 10,000 sq. ft. by right. 9:43:17 A.M. ZTA #5 (Nonconforming Structures-lxpansion Allowance): Senior Planner Dobbs stated the proposed language clarifies and codifies an existing zone code interpretation thatstructures that are: non-conforming due to the setback can be expanded horizontally but not vertically; said staff proposes adding language specifying the non-conforming structures cannot be expanded vertically; and pointed out the provision only applies to one-story structures built prior to January 10, 1974. PB Member Blumetti questioned what the previous language was. Senior Planner Dobbs stated staff is only adding "and not vertically" to the previous language. PB Member Blumetti stated the policy will allow non-conforming structure to become more non-conforming. Senior Planner Dobbs reiterated the policy only applies to structures built prior to 1974. Discussion ensued. 9:45:56 A.M. ZTA #6 (Daylight Plane for Single-Family Homes): Senior Planner Dobbs stated the existing requirements have caused some confusion so staff is proposing to add the verbiage "(portion projecting beyond a vertical wally" and add a graphic for clarity. The PB members had no questions. 9:47:10 A.M. ZTA #7 (Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Screening for Residential Single-Family Homes): Planner Webster stated currently single-family homeowners are required to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 24 provide noise mitigation including sound deadening materials as well as screening for outdoor mechanical equipment; said that can be costly; noted most modern outdoor equipment is designed to make less noise; stated the proposal is to remove the noise deadening materials requirement while maintaining the screening requirements in the absence of perimeter fencing or when the equipment is elevated; said staff found this to be the best compromise between abutting neighbors; and said a screening wall will act as a buffer. PB Member Salem questioned if rooftop equipment on large buildings is included. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the proposal only applies to single-family homes. PB Member Ohlrich stated staff met with the Executive Committee of the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA); said the discussion as it related to this issue was the protection of existing homeowners versus reducing the cost for new homeowners; and asked how both parties would be protected. Planner webster stated maintaining the screening wall requirement provides for a buffer; said most new equipment is quieter; and stated staff had discussed this with the Building Official's office. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what recourse an existing homeowner would have after the fact if noise became an issue. Senior Planner Dobbs stated that would be a code issue. PB Member Blumetti questioned why this ZTA is proposed. Senior Planner Dobbs stated sound deadening walls are expensive; noted there is no criteria for how to construct a sound deadening wall; stated staff initially proposed removing the requirement completely however after meeting with CCNA staff agreed to require screening if there is no perimeter wall which will help mitigate the noise. PB Member Blumetti stated the existing code is reasonable; noted some equipment; generators in particular, are loud; stated the best way to reduce costs for the homeowner is to reduce the permitting fees; and said the existing requirements protect the existing homeowner while holding the new homeowner accountable. PB Member Halflants questioned if the screening wall had to be masonry or could be a fence. Senior Planner Dobbs stated it can be a fence. PB Member Halflants requested that be clarified in the language; noted the cost of installing a masonry wall along a property line; and stated if a homeowner can afford a generator, they can afford a wall. PB: Member Blumetti stated examples of what the intent is should be provided; and said excluding generators would make for a different conversation. PB Member Ohlrich stated she agreed with PB Member Blumetti; said the proposal will result in pitting neighbor against neighbor and favors new construction over existing residents; and stated the proposed ZTA should be changed dramatically or eliminated from the discussion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 24 PB Chair Clermont suggested regulating the noise by decibel level. Discussion ensued regarding the City's noise ordinance, reducing the allowable decibel level for outdoor equipment, and the difficulties of testing decibel levels for HVAC equipment. PB Member Salem asked if the requirements would be for new construction only or also apply to the change out of existing equipment. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the requirements apply to both. PB Member Salem requested clarification as to the expense ofi installing walls. Discussion ensued regarding the need to specify what materials are acceptable, permitting requirements for change outs; and requiring screening only if there is no perimeter fence; and excluding generators. Citizen Input: Mr. Jim Lampl appeared and stated the proposal is outrageous; played video of the noise from a lawnmower versus a generator; said the noise can be annoying to the neighbors; and requested the PB remove the proposal from consideration. PB Member Blumetti stated for the record that he had not had any conversations with Mr. Lampl. Senior Planner Dobbs responded that staff would add generators as an exception. 10:04:36 A.M. ZTA #8 (Accessory Structures - Swimming Pools): Planner Webster stated the allowable fence height in the DTN, RSM-9 and RTD-9 zone districts is four feet while fencing of swimming pools is required to be a minimum of six feet; stated as a result swimming pools are not permitted in the front yard in those zone districts; said staff proposes to clarify that swimming pools are not permitted in those front yards in order to maintain the character of the four foot fence. height; presented photographs depicting the four foot fence height; and stated the ZTA will also clarify that swimming pools that abut an alley in the DTN zone district have a minimum setback of four feet. The PB members did not have any questions. 10:05:38 A.M. ZTA #9 (Permeable Parking Materials): Planner Webster stated the proposal is to expand permitted parking surface materials to include permeable paving surfaces such as porous asphalt, pervious concrete and permeable concrete pavers in the Zoning code to encourage the use of permeable surfaces in the city. PB Member Ohlrich noted dirt and grass surfaces are not included and questioned why. Senior Planner Dobbs stated required parking areas must have hard surfaces to meet ADA standards; and pointed out additional parking can be grass. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 24 10:06:45 A.M. ZTA #10 (Self-Storage Parking Requirements): Senior Planner Dobbs stated there are no existing regulations specific to self-storage facilities; said currently calculations are based on the closest use which is 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of office and 1 space per 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area resulting in overparking; noted users often park at their unit; said there is no peak demand hours for this type of use; stated staff looked at the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual and surveyed other jurisdictions and as a result are proposing a parking ratio of 1 space per 10,000 sq. ft. plus a minimum of 5 spaces; and noted the 5 spaces would ensure adequate parking for the office staff. PB Member Salem asked if the issue was related more to internal facilities versus external facilities. Senior Planner Dobbs confirmed that was correct noting the internal facilities are generally taller with more square footage than external facilities. PB Chair Clermont questioned how staff determined the proposed ratio. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the proposed ratio is consistent with the ITE manual and standards used by other jurisdictions. 10:08:52 A.M. ZTA #11 (Alternative Parking Ratio): Senior Planner Dobbs stated currently applicants can apply for an alternative parking plan or ratio in the Downtown zone districts and the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD); stated the proposal is to allow for alternative parking plan outside of the downtown; said sufficient documentation such as site studies or engineering standards would have to be submitted and evaluated; stated the alternative parking would be site specific; and said alternative parking is generally applicable to a mixed-use with retail and residential that have differing peak demand times. PB Member Ohlrich stated existing neighbors would be very interested in the rationale; said the city would need to educate the area residents which she did not believe would occuri if the alternative parking plans are approved administratively; and suggested the plans be considered by either the Board of Adjustment or Planning Board. Senior Planner Dobbs stated administrative review would be consistent with other parts of the Zoning Code (Downtown and NTOD); pointed out the requested alternative parking plan would be reviewed in consultation with the City Engineer and the Director of Development Services; and noted the applicant would have to demonstrate the need. PB Member Blumetti questioned is valet parking was included as an alternative. Senior Planner Dobbs stated it is not, noting the alternative plans are specific to mixed-use developments. PB Member Blumetti requested clarification that valet parking cannot be used to meet required parking. Senior Planner Dobbs stated that was correct noting valet parking is one of five options for the downtown only. PB Member Blumetti pointed out site plans in the NTOD must undergo public review; stated his concerns that overflow parking would negatively impact the neighbors; and requested an example of an alternative parking plan. General Manager Chapdelain appeared and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 24 pointed out an alternative parking plan would be part of a site plan review sO would come before the PB. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich asked how that is consistent with administrative review. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the alternative parking plan would be approved administratively and would bei included in thel backup materials for the site plan review. Attorney Connolly explained the process stating parking is part of the criteria for site plans; said the Director of Development Services would have already made a decision that that alternative parking plan was acceptable; and stated the PB has the ability to deny the site plan if they feel the alternative parking plan is not acceptable. PB Member Blumetti reiterated his concerns regarding using valet parking to meet parking requirements. PB Member Halflants asked if staff was looking at revising the parking requirements for anything else; noted the ITE changes the standards frequently, lowering some due to people using Uber or other similar services; and said the current requirements result in projects being overparked. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the Planning Department will be working on looking at parking standards overall; said when staff drafts the proposed zone districts for the new Urban Mixed-Use Future Land Use classification parking requirements along the main corridors will be looked at. PB Chair Clermont said overparking is an issue; noted parking lots are hard surfaces that can potentially negatively impact groundwater; stated the need for the flexibility; and noted the PB can deny a project if they find the alternative parking plan is unacceptable. PB. Member Salem stated he agrees with alternative parking plans for shopping centers and malls; said he's not sure itis a good idea on Golden Gate Point or in the downtown; and noted the city could wind upl having to construct more parking garages as a result. Senior Planner Dobbs pointed out that alternative parking plans are already permitted in the downtown. PB Member Salem asked if people are actually driving less, noting he does not see that. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the zoning code standards for outside of downtown are somewhat outdated; and noted the self-storage discussion as an example pointing out the warehouse use parking standards have been used in the past resulting in a sea of parking with only a few vehicles present. 10:19:12 A.M. ZTA #12 Enhancements to Tree Mitigation Requirements): Senior Planner Dobbs stated staff was proposing to add that replacement trees can be planted within a neighborhood; noted replacement trees can already be planted on private property, in a public right-of-way, on public property or in a public park; and said clarification that the replacement tree must be planted within the municipal boundary is also proposed. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 24 PB: Member Salem asked if the replacement trees would be required to be planted in an easement along the street. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the proposal provides more options. PB: Member Blumetti asked if someone could plant a tree in the right-of-way in front of his house; and questioned how the city dictates where the trees are planted. Senor Planner Dobbs stated the location is decided on a project-by-project basis. PB Member Blumetti asked if someone on the North Trail could plant a replacement tree anywhere in the city limits. General Manager Schwarz discussed the process stating replacement trees can be planted in the right-of-way in a neighborhood if the city determines it could enhance the right-of-way in that particular neighborhood; and pointed out a random citizen cannot. PB Member Blumetti asked if the city has a plan. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the city has an app where you can sign-up for replacement trees. PB Chair Clermont stated the city would have a conversation with the homeowner first; noted the proposal is to expand the options to allow for planting within the neighborhood within the municipal boundaries; and pointed out the other standards are already in place. PB Member Salem stated the city has historically planted trees in right-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding the process. PB Member Blumetti asked if the city has identified areas that need enhanced. Manager Schwarz stated if the tree is being planted on private property and agreement with the property owner is required; and said if planted in the right-of-way it is considered part of the beautification plans. PB Member Blumetti asked for PB Member Halflants' thoughts noting he was a member of the Tree Advisory Committee. PB Member Halflants stated he was outvoted; said he finds the proposal to be a weird option; said he prefers a system where developers pay into the fund then the City uses those funds to beautify certain areas; said he was ok with the proposal as it adds flexibility; and noted the TAC strongly recommended that the City develop a plan. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich asked ift the process ensures the first consideration is on-site, and asked what the process is. Senior Planner Dobbs stated first consideration is on-site, then payment into the fund, then this option; and pointed out this option is not chosen very often. PB Member Blumetti asked for clarification that the planting had to occur within the city limits. Senior Planner Dobbs confirmed that was correct. 10:25:26 A.M. ZTA #13 Encroachments): Planner Webster stated the proposal is to allow covered front porches in single-family zone districts to extend up to six feet into the front setback and to allow balconies to extend up to five feet into the front setback of a multifamily dwelling, a motel or a hotel; said front porches and balconies help to put more eyes on the street and can increase safety in an area through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED); said the proposal is consistent with CPTED principles; and noted page 46 of the staff report has the minimum front setbacks for those single- family zone districts. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 24 PB Member Halflants stated hel likes the idea; said six feet is very small for a front porch and suggested ten feet would be better; stated porches that are closer to the street allow for better interaction between neighbors and improves the streetscape; and pointed out front porches are inexpensive to construct and expand the living area. PB Member Blumetti stated he felt the proposal was appropriate for some areas; stated it would not be appropriate for areas with RSF-E zoning as those are large lots and there is no need to violate the setbacks; said the Code does not protect building coverage; said the building coverage issue for smaller lots needs to be addressed first; stated new houses are being built in Arlington Park that are almost setback to setback; and said adding an additional six feet will increase the mass. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the maximum building coverage is 35% noting roofed porches will be included in that calculation. Discussion ensued regarding what portions of a structure fall under the building coverage requirements; the definition of building coverage; and the difference between a porch, overhand and eaves. General Manager Schwarz stated the building coverage requirements are a separate issue that will be addressed in future zoning text amendment. PB Member Blumetti stated he agrees with the proposal once the building coverage issue is under control; and reiterated his objection to including the encroachment provision in the RSF-E zone districts. PB Member Salem asked if the porch can be in addition to the 35% building coverage. Senior Planner Dobbs stated: roofed porches are: included in the 35%. Discussion ensued. Senior Planner Dobbs stated it is important to include the provisions in the RSF-4 zone district noting the Newtown Conservation Overlay District requires front porches for new single-family homes and they are having difficulty meting that requirement due to the smaller lot sizes. PBI Member Salem questioned where that district is noting two new structures in that area are being constructed that do not meet that requirement. Senior Planner Dobbs presented a graphic depicting the boundaries of the Newtown Conservation Overlay District. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti stated he thinks the front porches are a great idea; reiterated his concerns regarding building coverage calculations; and suggested the allowable building coverage be increased to 40% for porches once the overall building coverage issue is resolved. PB Member Halflants stated if the front porch is included in the 35% maximum coverage no one will build them; and said the provision should be included in the RSF- E: zone district to bring the porches closer to the street. PB Chair Clermont suggested the issue be readdressed in the future due to the PB's concerns. PB Member Halflants discussed the proposal related to balconies stating those encroachments need to be allowed in the side and rear setbacks as well. Planner Webster pointed out language that is proposed that does allow for that. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 24 PB Member Blumetti stated he felt the balcony proposal was great; and pointed out the RSF-E zone district is primarily Harbor Acres that already have large structures. Discussion ensued. PB Member Salem stated the porches should not be included in the 35% building coverage noting otherwise one is losing space inside the home. Discussion ensued regarding taking a break to allow for staff to develop revised language before motions are made. 10:49:05 A.M. ZTA #14 (Refuse & Recycling Storage Areas): Planner Webster stated the proposal is to establish a threshold that residential developments cumulatively resulting in eight dwelling units or more shall place solid waste on the premises or abutting alley for removal; said trash receptacles lining sidewalks hinders walkability; noted eight units or: morel have to go through the site plan process SO thatis where the proposed threshold came from; and stated this would minimize the unsightly staging of multiple trash receptacles and create more pedestrian friendly streets. Senior Planner Dobbs discussed the background of the issue stating there have been quite a bit of proposals that do not have a dumpster on-site and are instead placing roll carts along the street resulting in 30+ roll carts along large frontages. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the revised regulations would be applicable to projects that are already permitted. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the new regulations would only apply to new development. PB Member Blumetti asked if the regulations could apply to already permitted development. Discussion ensued. PB Member Salem stated pointed out it is a case-by-case issue noting roll cars are appropriate for banks. Senior Planner Dobbs noted a process to request an exception is included in the proposal. PB Member Halflants stated the requirements would not work for smaller projects in the downtown which tends to have smaller sites unless there is an ally. Senior Planner Dobbs conceded there is a sweet spot; said staff does not wish to discourage infill developments; and reiterated there is an exception provision. Discussion ensued regarding the negative impacts of having a large number of roll carts along the sidewalks; the potential of night pick-ups; using compactors on smaller sites; and access off alleys. Senior Planner Dobbs stated on-site pick-ups are already required for commercial uses; and said staff has had discussions regarding if apartments and/or condominiums should be considered commercial uses. PB] Member Blumetti stated he thought screening the roll carts was the issue; and stated he agrees requiring on-site staging/ pick-up is problematic for smaller sites. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 24 PB Member Halflants stated it is not reasonable to require going through the variance process for exceptions; stated the proposal would work in suburban areas but: not urban areas; and suggested the number of trash cans that can be placed along the street be limited. Discussion ensued regarding the use of roll-out compactors that are smaller than dumpsters and can be staged on-site. Development Review Chief Planner Christie appeared and clarified the exception is approved administratively rather than having to go through the variance process; and said staff is attempting to provide some: flexibility by providing the exception provision. PB Member Blumetti stated the proposed language is too limiting; and said more options need to be identified in the Code. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich stated she agrees options should be provide in the Code for certainty. PB Chair Clermont stated he agrees the requirement for a large truck to pull into a small site is not reasonable noting that would result in decreased density in areas the city is trying to increase density. PB Chair Clermont stated the PB would take a five-minute break. 11:03:10 A.M. PB Chair Clermont closed the public hearing. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out the PB preferred some changes to the language on banquet halls, covered porches, and refuse and recycling; suggested the PB take a twenty-minute break if changes could be made during that time that would address the concerns regarding those three issues SO that those could be resolved today; and suggested those three issues be continued if they can'tbe: resolved today. Senior Planner Dobbs and General Manager Chapdelain appeared and stated developing language that would resolve the issues during a 20-minute break would be difficult; said staff could propose changes before the City Commission public hearing based on the PB's recommendations; and noted Planning staff has to consult with the Development Services Department and City Attorney's office regarding proposed changes to the language. Discussion ensued regarding motions that would be needed. The Planning Board Took an Eight Minute Break 11:14:44 A.M. Discussion ensued regarding the process for making motions. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to approve the following items as written: Subdivisions; Interstitial Space; Accessory Kitchens; Nonconforming Structures; Swimming Pools; Permeable Parking Materials; Self-Storage Parking; and Tree Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 24 Mitigation. Attorney Connolly asked for clarification that the following were included in the motion to approve as written, referencing the table on page 8 of the staff report: Item #1 - Subdivisions Item #2 - Interstitial Space Item #3 - Accessory Kitchens Item #5 - Nonconforming Structures - Expansion Allowance Item #8 - Accessory Structures (Swimming Pools) Item #9 - Permeable Parking Materials Item #10 - Self-Storage Facility Parking Requirements Item #12 - Enhancements to Tree Mitigation Requirements PB Member Ohlrich confirmed that was correct. PB Member Halflants suggested item number six (Daylight Plane for Single-Family Homes) should be added. PB Member Ohlrich agreed. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti noted that left five items. Attorney Connolly confirmed the following items were remaining: Item #4 - Banquet Halls Item #7 - Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Screening for Single-Family Residential Homes Item #11 - Alternative Parking Ratio Item #13 - Encroachments Item #14 - Refuse and Recycling Storage Areas The motion passed 5-0. 11:19:23 A.M. Attorney Connolly stated the next item numerically is Banquet Halls; stated is a question of instead of 5,000 sq. ft. does the PB want to recommend a different number. PB. Member Halflants made a motion to approve the item with an amendment to allow banquet halls up to 10,00 sq. ft. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Member Ohlrich requested rationale for the motion. PB Member Halflants stated there is a need to make it easier to have banquet halls in the city; said 5,000 sq. ft. is too small; noted the gap between 5,000 sq. ft. and 20,000 sq. ft. would be reduced; and said more options are: needed. The motion passed 5-0. 11:21:28 A.M. PB Chair Clermont stated the next item is Item #7. PB Member Ohlrich stated she had pulled the item but has no recommendation; noted there was much discussion; and said she did not know what was being recommended that protected new owners as well as neighbors that have lived there for twenty years. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 24 PB Member Blumetti made a motion to deny Item #7 stating he felt it should remain in the Code with diagrams included. Senior Planner Dobbs suggested making an exception for generators SO that a noise mitigation wall would be required. PB Member Halflants suggested making the proposed language specific to condensers. PB Chair Clermont suggested making the proposed language specific to items that are not required to have the screening versus what does noting the PB can'tforesee all types of equipment the requirement would be applicable to. PB Member Salem stated the language should remain as is noting it is not as costly as some have indicated. Attorney Connolly recommended the PB act on the motion to deny that does not have a second then see: if anyone wants to make a motion as to what would be an alternative that would get three affirmative votes. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Clermont asked PB Member Blumetti to restate the motion. PB Member Blumetti said his motion is to recommend denial of Item #7 with regards to outdoor mechanical equipment. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. PB Chair Clermont asked if anyone has a recommended motion; said he is uncomfortable removing the requirement noting it keeps the peace between neighbors; said he agrees there should be a definition as to what is required for what; and stated clarity is needed. PB Member Blumetti stated the existing Code requirements are annoying because it is not clear what the City is looking for; said removing the requirements in totality favors new development; and said keeping the requirements prevents potential unforeseeable issues. PB Member Ohlrich stated the PB has recommended denial; said she does not think the issues can be resolved today; and suggest moving on. PB Member Salem stated he agrees with PB Member Blumetti; and said it is as simple as putting details in the Code regarding the type of materials that can be used. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated Mary McNish, Senior Zoning Analyst, wished to speak to the PB and noted thej public hearing was already closed. The PB agreed to hear Ms. McNish. Mary McNish, Senior Zoning Analyst, appeared and stated she had requested the requirement be removed noting the cost for elderly citizens that are replacing an existing air conditioner; said currently the Code requires someone with an existing privacy fence to put another fence three feet from the existing fence because it has to be a sound wall; said it is a practical issue; noted homeowners can get around the current requirements by placing the air conditioning unit in the backyard, mounting it on a wall, or putting it on the roof; and pointed out a sound wall is not going to buffer a generator. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 24 PB Member Salem stated a sound wall should be required when putting the equipment in the side yard; noted the option of putting it in the back yard; and said neighbors should not be negatively impacted because the homeowner does not want to bear the expense. PB Member Blumetti stated back yard setbacks are much more significant; suggested listing generators as a specific piece of equipment that can'tbei installed without a sound mitigating wall. Discussion ensued regarding screening versus sound mitigating walls. PB Member Blumetti stated if there is a site wall then a sound mitigating wall is not required; if there is no site wall then a sound mitigating wall would be required; said a sound mitigating wall is always required if installing a generator; said he wished to make that into a motion; and said to also include that drawings will be provided. Attorney Connolly suggest the motion would be that the zoning code would provide that the applicant will always need to provide a sidewall when the applicant is: installing a generator and the applicant would need to provide a sound wall for other equipment onlyi if there isn'ta a wall on the property line. After discussion the proposed motion was revised to say a wall or fence on the property line. Discussion ensued regarding adding diagrams and if the fence could be chain link. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti asked for a second sO the PB could discuss the motion. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the type of material the fence on the property line has to be. PB Member Blumetti asked Attorney Connolly to restate the motion. Attorney Connolly suggested the motion is "Recommend modification to the Zoning Code such that the Code would say you always need a sound wall when you are installing a generator and you would need to have a sound wall if there isn'ta wall or solid fence on the property line when you are installing any other outdoor equipment. - Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich called the question. The motion passed 5-0. 11:41:10 A.M. PB Chair Clermont stated the Alternative Parking Ratio is the next item; and stated the need for a motion to deny. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to deny the proposal. PB Chair Clermont seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti asked why. PB Member Ohlrich stated she does not like the administrative decision part of the recommendation. PB Member Blumetti stated he understood the alternative parking plan would still go before the PB. Discussion ensued regarding the process for and benefits to alternative parking plans in certain circumstances, and those projects that would be outside the context of site plan review. Development Review Senior Planner Christie appeared and stated this proposal expands the alternative parking plan option outside of the downtown; said the PB would see the alternative parking plan as part of the site plan review process; and noted there are instances where a site plan is not required such as commercial development less than 10,000 sq. ft. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 24 Attorney Connolly noted Section IV-501 of the Zoning Code lists a handful of situations outside of the downtown where a site plan can be approved administratively; and noted those situations are very rare. PB Member Ohlrich asked if there is a possibility those situations will increase once wel have the corridors. Attorney Connolly stated he did not think SO but possible. Staff noted attainable housing as a possibility. Attorney Connolly noted the parking ratio for attainable housing is already .5 parking spaces per unit SO not likely to be an issue. PB Member Ohlrich stated this proposal encroaches into single family residential areas which is exactly where citizens want to discuss parking; said the existing residents will not have an opportunity to participate in the discussions regarding the few situations where a site plan is not required, and the project won't come before the PB. PB Member Blumetti suggested language that if a site plan is not required the alternative parking plan would have to come before the PB. PB Member Ohlrich asked if there are any other situations where a reduced parking ratio would not have to undergo public review. Attorney Connolly suggested adding a sentence after "The director of development services, after consultation with the city engineer, shall be authorized to approve alternative plans for providing required off-street parking spaces in accordance with this section" that reads "In the event the project would not otherwise be required to go in front of the Planning Board that the approval by the Director of the alternative parking ratio would have to be affirmed by the Planning Board." PB Member Halflants suggested saying to use the alternative parking ratio you must apply for site plan approval. Discussion ensued regarding the types of projects that would avail themselves to the alternative parking plan option; the requirements for site plan approval; and ensuring public review for all alternative parking plans. PB Chair Clermont stated the need for a clarifying motion; said the PB was ok with the proposal when it is part of the site plan review process; and stated the issue is ensuring that when site plan review is not required the request must come before the PB. PB Member Ohlrich asked Attorney Connolly for proposed wording. Attorney Connolly stated the motion would be to recommend approval of the alternative parking ratio if staff adds a requirement to have the PB affirm an alternative parking plan if a project would have not otherwise come before the PB. PB Member Ohlrich stated she wished to make that motion. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 11:51:34 A.M. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 24 PB Chair Clermont stated the next item is encroachments. Attorney Connolly questioned if the PB wished to separate covered porches from balconies. The PB agreed that was their preference. PB Member Halflants made a motion to approve the encroachment language as it relates to the balconies on page 48 of the staff report. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Discussion ensued regarding covered porches. PB Member Salem suggested adding an addition 5% to the allowable building coverage: for front porches and add a requirement that the porch has to be 4" below the finished floor SO it is not easy to covert the space to air-conditioned space. PB Member Halflants noted that could cause ADA access issues. Discussion ensued. PB Member Salem agreed sloping would solve the issue. PB Member Halflants stated he felt the additional 5% was appropriate. PB Member Salem noted on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot that porch would be a maximum of 230 sq. ft. and asked Attorney Connolly to put that in a motion. Attorney Connolly stated would need to take the recommendations in steps; asked if the first would be that the covered porch would not count towards the building coverage limits in the Zoning Code. PB Member Salem confirmed that was correct. PB Member Halflants said an additional 5% should get added to the allowable building coverage for a front porch. PB Member Salem stated the additional 5% would be for the porch only and can't be air-conditioned space. Attorney Connolly questioned why the additional 5% was needed if the recommendation is that the porch does not count towards the allowable building coverage. PB Member Salem stated 5% is the largest the porch can be. PB Member Blumetti if the allowable building coverage is not increased the 35% allowable building coverage would include the porch; and noted that is not the intent of the ZTA. PB Member Halflants suggested exempting the porch from the 35% maximum allowable building coverage and adding a requirement that the porch cannot be more than 5% of the lot size. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for large lots to have large porches; and the size of porches being limited by the maximum allowable frontage requirements. PB Member Salem pointed out the percentage is relative to the lot size SO the 5% will keep things in check. PB Member Halflants noted 5% of 20,000 sq. ft. equals an allowable porch of 1,000 sq. ft. which is appropriate for a large house. PB Member Blumetti stated he felt there was no need to violate the setbacks on large lots. Discussion ensued. PB Member Salem suggested limiting the size of the porch to a maximum of 10,000 sq. ft. or less. PB Member Blumetti stated he would be ok with that in the context of understanding how building coverage is defined; said all of this is a no to him until that is clearly defined. discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti stated he was not comfortable moving forward on this until loopholes in calculating building coverage are resolved; stated building coverage needs to be clearly defined; and said once that is clearly defined as to how it is applied to the zoning standards during review. Attorney Connolly suggested PB Member Blumetti make a motion to deny and see if it passes. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 24 PB Member Halflants stated he does not like the six-foot limit sO wouldn't want to vote to approve the ZTA; and suggested saying a front porch does not count towards building coverage but is limited to a maximum of 500 sq. ft. regardless of the zoning. PB Member Blumetti stated that would be a disaster; and said there is a gray area in the zoning code where porches are not being counted as lot coverage. Discussion ensued regarding the need for proper, consistent interpretation of the zoning code. PB Member Ohlrich stated she supports PB Member Blumetti's chain of thought and would recommend denial; and stated that is her motion. Secretary Schwarz asked if staff could speak; said staff has some suggestions on how to resolve the issue today; stated the concern is the Development Services Director has just returned from maternity leave and has not had an opportunity to review the proposed ZTAs; and suggest the PB take a recess to allow staff an opportunity to discuss a possible alternative with a simple change to the definition of building coverage. The PB decided to move on to the Refuse and Recycling Storage Areas ZTA rather than recess. 12:06:10 P.M. PB Chair Clermont asked it anyone wanted to make a motion to deny. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to deny the Refuse and Recycling Storage Areas ZTA. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. PB Member Halflants suggested limiting the number of receptacles in the right-of-way, and letting the applicant find a solution if that number is not sufficient for their needs; and said that would provide flexibility. PB Chair Clermont noted PB Member Halflants had mentioned compactors and said a lot could be solved that way. PB Member Halflants stated projects with eight or more units could afford the compactor(s); and said there could be other solutions as well. PB Member Blumetti questioned what type of truck was need to pick-up trash if a compactor is used; stated he agrees with PB Member Halflants' suggestion that limiting pick-ups to on-site only is going to be the standard and said there should be other options; and suggested limiting the number of trash cans in the right-of-way at the same time. PB Member Halflants suggested additional pick-up days could be added; asked if staff would revise the language prior to the City Commission public hearing; and asked what that process is. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the materials staff provides to the City Commission will reflect the PB's recommendations. PB Member Blumetti stated there should be alternatives but he does not know what those would be. Senior Planner Dobbs stated it appeared the PB wishes to limit the number of receptacles on the road. Discussion ensued regarding the number of receptacles to allow. Senior Planner Dobbs pointed out currently there can be 30+ receptacles at time; and noted there are no existing regulations that address that sO staff can't require the receptacles be placed on-site. PB Chair Clermont stated the new requirements should be applicable to projects that are eight units or more. General Manager Chapdelain suggested different thresholds depending on the: number of units. Senior Planner Dobbs Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 24 noted apartments can generate more refuse and recycling than anticipated; and stated given that limiting the number of receptacles is a concern. PB Member Halflants stated the calculations must be provided in order to get a permit. PB Member Blumetti stated a container on castors would not be as near as offensive as 30 receptacles. Discussion ensued onhow the containers would be picked up;ift the staging areas for the containers would be on-site or on the street; and the potential for large containers to block the street. Senior Planner Dobbs pointed out that if the City is the service provider the roll out carts must be used; and stated she felt the issue required further discussion. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the issue is the number of receptacles and/or the space required for the number of receptacles; and stated it is a design issue. PB member Blumetti stated the issue is the visual clutter of having 30 trash receptacles on the road. PB Member Ohlrich asked it thei receptacles were currently being placed in the right-of-way. General Manager Chapdelain stated that was correct. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the use of the City right-of-way was the issue staff was attempting to resolve. PB Member Salem asked if the: refuse and recycling storage areas would be part of site plan review. General Manager Chapdelain stated it is now. PB Member Blumetti asked staff if it would be appropriate to kick this item out of the batch and come back with additional recommendations or it staff wished to resolve the issue now. General Manager Chapdelain stated the issue needed to be resolved now; stated staff needed the proposed additional language to incorporate into the recommendations before the City Commission meeting; and stated staff has some guidance in terms of] looking at thresholds for the number of receptacles; a and said staff would work with the Public Works Department. PB. Member Blumetti asked if staff had any suggestions. General Manager Chapdelain stated staff needed to discuss the issues with the Public Works Department to see what they are comfortable with; and suggested if the number of receptacles alllowed is exceeded the applicant would have to work with a private provider for additional pick-ups per week. PB Chair Clermont asked what the requirements are in terms of taking the receptacles in after pick-up. General Manager Chapdelain stated thati is generally handled by the Property Manager. PB Chair Clermont asked if screening is required. General Manager Chapdelain confirmed that was correct. Attorney Connolly pointed out screening requirements are only applicable to new developments. Senor Planner Dobbs noted there are standards in the Code that address screening requirements. PB Member Ohlrich asked if staff would be consulting with the Public Works Department staff today. General Manager Chapdelain stated those discussions would occur between now and the City Commission public hearing. PB Member suggested the PB deny the proposal today; and stated the goal is to add more flexibility in the code. OB Member Ohlrich asked if there was a motion to deny on the table. Attorney Connolly stated that motion had already passed 5-0; and pointed out this discussion was to see if the PB could come up with an alternative motion. PB Chair Clermont stated the PB would move on from this item. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 24 12:21:51 P.M. Attorney Connolly stated the remaining issue is Covered Porch Encroachments. Development Review Chief Planner Christie appeared and stated the Director of Development Services is not available SO no need for a break; and clarified the existing definition for building coverage includes covered porches. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti stated his concerns regarding building coverage calculations is nobody's fault, it is difficult to calculate; reiterated the definition of building coverage is the issue; said flexibility for covered porches is a fantastici idea; and said if the building coverage issue is not resolved the problem will be worse. PB: Member Halflants noted Development Review Chief Planner Christie has confirmed that porches are part of the building coverage; said he would rather it not be for smaller lots; and suggested a motion to approve then a separate motion that front porches should not be part of the building coverage for lots under 15,000 sq. ft. PB Member Blumetti stated there is a gray area in the definition of building coverage and that is where he is stuck. Discussion ensued regarding postponing the item until the building coverage definition is clarified and whether a gray area exists or not. General Manager Schwarz stated front porches are part of the building coverage calculation if it is covered by a roof; said the appearance of] larger buildings is the issue; said it is not simply a matter of revising the building coverage definition but also definitions for eaves on flat roofs versus pitched roofs; said concerns have to do with flat roof structures and how they expand with overhangs, and if overhangs are considered building coverage; noted it will take more than a 20 minute break to resolve; pointed out the intent of the proposed language is to bring more of a community feeling into neighborhoods; noted the encroachments only apply to the front yard setback; and said the building coverage issue is a different issue. PB Member Blumetti stated there is a discrepancy in the Code; said his issue is making buildings larger by adding a porch that goes beyond the setback creating a building that is potentially 40% of the building coverage when buildings are already, in his opinion, over the intent of the Code; said the discrepancy needs to be resolved first; and reiterated he thinks the proposal is a good one. PB Member Halflants made a motion to approve the proposal with an amendment to allow encroachments of ten feet rather than six feet. PB Member Salem seconded the motion. PB. Member Halflants stated he prefers that front porches not be included in the building coverage; said building coverage concerns can be addressed later; and stated the proposal would improve streets in general. PB Member Salem stated he would like to see more in the motion; said it is all part of the negotiations; and said he agrees with PB Member Halflants for the first time in history. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 24 PB. Member Blumetti asked Senior Planner Dobbs what area she was referring to earlier that could benefit the most. Senior Planner Dobbs stated it is the Newtown Conservation Historical Area; said it is an overlay district and has a front porch requirement as well as a requirement that the garage be recessed past the front porch; and noted the requirements are difficult to meet. PB Member Blumetti suggested approving the ZTA for that area only; said he would support that since front porches are already required; and reiterated he does not think the RSF-E zone district needs to violate the setback. PB Member Halflants stated he would amend his motion sO that RSF-E is not included. PB Member Blumetti stated the front porches should only be allowed to encroach into the setback where they are already required; and said the proposed ZTA could be expended after building coverage is better defined. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Clermont stated it was not clear to him what the gray areas are; said he did not want to hold this item up because of something he does not understand; stated building coverage is a separate issue; said he agrees the RSF-E zone district should not be included; and said he is generally in support of the motion. PB: Member Blumetti pointed out that PB Chair Clermont always brings up drainage as an issue; said if a building that is too big for a property drainage is directly affected for undeveloped neighboring properties; and discussed elevation requirements for new development. PB Member Salem stated it is not a coverage issue because the setbacks on both sides must be wide enough to properly swell the property. PB Blumetti stated it is also a pervious issue. PB Member Salem asked that the motion on the table be restated. Attorney Connolly said the motion is to approve the Covered Front Porch Encroachments up to ten feet in the front setback. PB Member Ohlrich asked if that was minus the RSF-E. Attorney Connolly stated that was not in the motion. PB Chair Clermont stated he prefers that be included in the motion. PB member Halflants stated he would amend his motion to exclude RSF-E. PB Member Salem asked if language allowing porches to be outside of the maximum building coverage was included. PB Member Halflants said he would make a separate motion regarding that. Attorney Connolly stated the modified motion is to approve Covered Front Porch Encroachments up to ten feet into the front setback but not in the RSF-E zone district; and pointed out Note 7 on page 46 will have to be deleted. The motion passed 3-2 with PB Members Blumetti and Ohlrich voting no. PB Member Halflants made a motion that in residential zone districts other than RSF-1 and RSF-E, the front porch does not count towards building coverage. Attorney Connolly stated the PB could not vote on that today because it was not advertised; and said the PB could request staff include that in a future ZTA. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated PB Member Salem had proposed saying a covered front porch does not count toward the building coverage limits; and said that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 24 amendment to this section could be done. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated the language would need to be tied to the language on page 48; noted page 46 has Note 7 that was taken out of the RSF-E zone district; said Note 7 still applies in the RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3, RSF-4 and RTD-9 zone districts; said Note 7 on page 47 says covered porches at a residential entrance may extend up to six feet into the front setback (now will be ten feet) plus an additional two feet for eaves; stated legally a sentence can be added that says either the entire front porch or this encroachment into the front setback (whichever the PB prefers) would not count towards building coverage. PB Member Halflants stated SO moved. PB Member Salem asked ifitapplies to the entire front porch. PB Member Halflants stated yes. PB member Salem seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti stated while the idea is a romantic one it will result in buildings that are too big for the being even bigger. PB Member Halflants said he does not view aj porch as a building. Attorney Connolly stated the motion is that the Note 7 on page 48 would be modified to add a sentence which indicates that the entire front porch is not to be counted toward the building coverage limits in the Zoning Code. PB Member Salem asked if a maximum of 5% of the lot area was added. Attorney Connolly stated not yet. PB Member Salem asked that that be added. PB Member Halflants agreed to add that to his motion. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly asked if the PB wished to add that. PB Member Salem said "no more than 5% of the lot area" is being added. Discussion ensued regarding limiting the ZTA to certain sized lots; existing lots with oversized buildings; a gray area in the building coverage detinition; and impervious surface limitations in the Code. PB Member Ohlrich called the question. The motion failed 2-3 with PB Chair Clermont and PB Members Blumetti and Ohlrich voting no. PB Member Ohlrich asked if there is a provision that the front porch cannot ever be included in the air conditioned portion of the home. Attorney Connolly stated the ZTAs don't regulate that. General Manager Schwarz said that would be evaluated when the permit went through review by zoning staff; noted since porches are covered they are already part of the building coverage calculations they could be enclosed; and pointed out the ZTA only allows the porch to encroach, not an air conditioned structure. Senior Planner Dobbs noted the definition of porch says is cannot be enclosed; and said if the porch were to be enclosed that would add to the floor area and would not be alllowed. PB Member Halflants made a motion to add to Note 7 that for lots under 7,500 sq. ft. a front porch would not count towards building coverage which would be for the RSF-3 and down zone districts. Attorney Connolly asked staff to verify that would be the RSF- 3,1 RSF-4 and RTD-9 zone districts. Staff answered from the audience and therefore their response was inaudible. PB Member Blumetti asked if a limitation to the size of the porch was included. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated he would add up to5% ift the lot size. PB. Member Blumetti asked ift there are design standards for porches. Staff answered from the audience and therefore their response was inaudible. PB Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 24 Member Blumetti stated SO essentially the porch could be a projection of the house. PB Chair Clermont stated that is where he is struggling. PB Member Blumetti stated the reality is the porches will not look like the graphic staff used to depict the proposal. Senior Planner Dobbs appeared and stated there are no design standards for porches, only the definition which is a roofed over space. Discussion ensued. Senior Planner Dobbs stated essentially there would be design standards because staff is proposing a maximum amount the porch can encroach into the setback; it has to be a covered space; and cannot be enclosed. Discussion ensued regarding maximum height restrictions. PBI Member Ohlrich voiced her concerns regarding the PB making recommendations to amend Zoning Text Amendments on matters that staff and the PB have not previously considered. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly pointed out that he always says an application is the applicant's s application and the PB'sjob is to vote it up or down; noted this is different because it is a legislative matter and involved City policy; pointed out the City Commission appoints the PB members to give recommendations on City policy; and said if a PB member was not comfortable with the proposed language they should vote no. PB Member Halflants presented language from the City of Tampa's code regarding front porches. PB Member Ohlrich questioned how that compares to the City of Sarasota. Senior Planner Dobbs pointed out the City does not have anything other than a definition for porches. PB Member Blumetti stated he was not sure how Tampa's language relates to this discussion. PB Member Halflants said it could be used to help with the definition. PB Member Ohlrich stated she agreed with PB Member Blumetti's concerns regarding putting the cart before the horse. PB Chair Clermont stated hel likes the provision in Tampa's code that a porch should be additive and not incised into the primary mass of the building; said he would recommend the porch as to be separate and a lesser mass; and noted the need for a clearer definition of a porch. PB Member Ohlrich suggested the PB recommend to the City Commission that development standards for front porches be established. Planner Webster appeared and presented the City of Sarasota definition of a porch; and pointed out roofed balconies cannot extend into the setback under this proposal. PB Member Halflants asked Attorney Connolly to state the motion that is on the table. Attorney Connolly stated the motion is to add to Note 7 that with regard to lots of 7,500 sq. ft. or less the entire porch does not count towards the building coverage and the porch size is limited to 5% of the lot area. PB Member Salem seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-3 with PB Chair Clermont and PB members Blumetti and Ohlrich voting no. 1:05:37 P.M. V. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICETOTHE 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. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 24 1:05:41 P.M. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 11, 2023 PB Member Ohlrich stated she had submitted one change to Ms. Grassett noting the word "Blumetti" was missing on page 5; and made a motion that the PB approve the minutes with that change. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 1:06:25 P.M. VII. 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. Secretary Schwarz noted there are two items scheduled for the March 8th meeting and both are expected to take a considerable amount of time; and suggested the possibility ofstarting at 9:00 a.m. Discussion ensued. The PB agreed to start the March 8, 2023 PB: meeting at 10:00 a.m. PB Chair Clermont asked what the subjects of the meeting will be. Attorney Connolly stated one is a street vacation on Marlin Drive and the other is the one we are not sure of due to pending litigation which is Quay 1 & 9 that was originally anticipated to be on today's agenda. 1:09:07 P.M. 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 Ohlrich stated she is very proud and honored to sit at this table with the other PB members; people that come prepared for meeting, are informed about the issues, and are very willing to participate in difficult discussions for good decision making; and thanked them. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:09:46 P.M. - ley, iClston Se Myra Schwarz Dan Clermont, Chair General Manager and Secretary to the Board Planning Board/Local Planning Agency