CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY May 12, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Chair Members Present: Terrill Salem, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Daniel Clermont, David Morriss, City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, AICP, General Manager, Planning Department David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner, Development Services Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services Department 1:31:07 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Ohlrich called the meeting to order and Director Cover [acting as the Planning Board' S Secretary] read the roll call. II. CHANGES TO' THE ORDER OF THE DAY Attorney Connolly stated that after consulting with the Applicant and staff it is recommended that the Legislative and Quasi-judicial public hearings regarding 2035 Wisteria Street be consolidated into one Quasi-judicial public hearing. The Planning Board agreed by consensus. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TOTHE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will bei required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Cover read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for the presentations that will follow and administered the oath for all present who intended to speak in the following public hearings. 1:34:07 P.M. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Ordinance No. 21-5368: An ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the Zoning Code of the City of Sarasota (2002 edition) to provide that temporary recurring Community Service uses are allowable by Provisional Use Permit in the following Office Zone Districts: OCD, ORD and MCI; in the following Commercial Zone Districts: CSD, CRD, CGD, CSC and CBN; in the following Production Intensive Commercial Zone Districts: ICD, IGD, IHD and CI; and in the following Downtown Zone Districts: DTNE, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 10 DTE, DTC AND DTB; subject to the regulations and limitations more fully set forth herein; amending Article IV, Division 18 on the Zoning Code entitled Provisional Use Permit regarding criteria for approval; providing for severability of the parts hereof; providing for reading by title only; providing for an effective date. (Robert M. Fournier, City Attorney) Staff Presentation: Attorney Connolly stated there was no staff recommendation since the petition was not initiated by the City Attorney's office or staff; noted the public hearing is legislative in nature SO the Planning Board needs to apply the Standards of Review in Section IV-1206; discussed the history of the issue stating an organization named Streets of Paradise provided temporary recurring community services during the pandemic; noted the definition of Community Service in the Zoning Code does not alllow for temporary recurring community services; stated the issue was brought before the City Commission and the City Commission requested a Zoning Text Amendment addressing the issue be filed; reviewed the zone districts Community Services are permitted in be either Major or Minor Conditional Use; said staff had recommended using the existing Provisional Use Permit process and allowing the temporary recurring community services to be permitted in the same zone districts as Community Services are permitted in; discussed the process for Provisional Use Permits noting the permits have to be renewed annually, are subject to revocation in accordance with Section IV-1803(12); reviewed proposed additional limitations outlined on pages six and seven of the proposed ordinance; pointed out the proposed change to the procedures relating to property owner notification was requested by one City Commissioner; and noted the additional standards for making the Administrative Decision in Section IV-1803(5) on page ten of the proposed ordinance. PB Member Morriss questioned the probability of the process being successful. Attorney Connolly stated he was not aware of any past issues with the Provisional Use Permit process. PB Member Clermont questioned how other jurisdictions handled these types of situations. Attorney Connolly pointed out no research had been done by staff, reiterating that the impetus is a third party. PB Member Blumetti requested an explanation of the difference in the two-step process for Conditional Uses and Provisional Use Permits. Attorney Connolly pointed out the Conditional Use process requires public hearings while the Provisional Use Permit process is administrative. Discussion ensued regarding the ability of the public to provide input. PB Member Blumetti questioned why temporary recurring community services can't be addressed solely through the emergency order process; and questioned what zone districts the temporary recurring community services would be permitted in that Community Services are not permitted in. Attorney Connolly stated the provisions being added to the zoning code allows for addressing the issue locally; and stated the Commercial Business Newtown (CBN) and Commercial Intensive (CI). PB Vice Chair Salem stated he had no questions noting he was satisfied that citizens can provide input on a case-by-case basis. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of10 PB Chair Ohlrich questioned if violations would be complaint driven; and asked why appeals would go directly to the City Commission. Attorney Connolly confirmed violations would be complaint driven, noting violations could lead to revocation of the Provisional Use Permit; and pointed out the Planning Board could include in their motion a recommendation that appeals go before the Planning Board VS directly to the City Commission. PB Member Morriss questioned the rationale for the increase in the property owner notification area from 500 to 1,000 feet. Attorney Connolly stated a City Commissioner had requested that. Citizen Input: There was no citizen input. 1:56:02 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to continue the public hearing citing the need for a staff analysis and recommendation. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the desire for a staff analysis, concerns with mobile showers being permitted, the proposed increase in the property owner notification area, and the provisions in the zoning code being more inclusive than what would be in an emergency order. The motion failed 2/3 with PB Member Morriss, PB Member Clermont and PB Chair Ohlrich voting no. PB Member Morriss made a motion to recommend approval with the property owner notification area changed to 500. PB Member Clermont seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the property owner notification area; using the Conditional Use process VS Provisional Use Permits; and only permitting the temporary recurring community services in areas that allow community services versus allowing those in neighborhoods. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Member Blumetti and PB Vice Chair Salem voting no. PB Chair Ohlrich asked if any of the PB members were interested in making a motion recommending appeals go before the Planning Board. Discussion ensued regarding all Provisional Use Permit appeals coming before the Planning Board; how frequently any issues with Provisional Use Permits arise; delays that would occur during an emergency; brick and mortar facilities shutting down during a state of emergency; and solidifying the provisions in the zoning code versus fast tracking an emergency order. 2:08:33 P.M. (Note: The below public hearings were consolidated into a single Quasi-Judicial public hearing under Changes to the Order of the Day) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 10 B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 20-PA-01: A request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to amend the Future Land Use Map from Single Family-Low Density to Neighborhood Office and Applicant has proffered to amend Future Land Use Action Strategy 1.10 to state the land use is limited to a surface parking lot as an accessory use to the adjacent Medical Office Building located at 2255 South Tamiami Trail (Parcel ID No. 0056-05-0051) and the parking lot will only be available for use by employees of the adjacent Medical Office Building and will be open Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning) C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. 2035 Wisteria Street: Rezone Application No. 21-RE-01 and Site Plan Application No. 21- SP-01 are a request for Rezone and Site Plan approval to construct an employee-only parking lot in order to provide additional patient parking on the existing medical/out- patient surgical center property with a street address of 2035 Wisteria Street. The site is approximately 8,476 sq. ft. on property zoned RSF-3. The applicant requests to rezone the parcel from the Residential Single Family-3 (RSF-3) to the Office Neighborhood District (OND). The parcel is currently a vacant residential lot. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing. Attorney Connolly called upon Richard Dear, Lisa Morano and Thomas Wierdsma who had requested Affected Person status. All three were present and the Planning Board members granted them Affected Person status by consensus. PB Chair Ohlrich requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications. PB Member Clermont stated he had discussed the proposal with Dr. Scott Engel, Manager of Wisteria Street Property LLC in addition to a citizen that lives on the street. PB Member Morriss stated he had none. PB Member Blumetti and PB Vice Chair Salem stated they each had done a site visit. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she discussed the project with staff and did a site visit. Applicant Presentation: Bruce Franklin, President, Land Resource Strategies, Agent for the applicants, appeared and introduced Dr. Graham, Dr. Engel, Dr. Mobley and Dr. Derby, Practitioners of the Sarasota Plastic Surgery Center. Dr. Braun Graham, President, discussed the history of the practice; reviewed the types of procedures performed; noted all of the physicians are Board certified; pointed out their community involvement; stated an increase in the number of patients has made parking at the facility difficult and as a result staff has been parking on the neighborhood streets; and said that has created a safety issue. Dr. Scott Engel stated their practice has grown since moving to their current location in 1999; pointed out that although the existing parking meets current codes, the increase in the number of patients has necessitated patients and staff park on the residential street in the area which has created safety issues as well as negative interactions with the area Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page5of 10 residents; discussed previous efforts to address the issue; noted area residents petitioned the City to put up no parking signs which the City approved, however now the residents cannot park on the street either; said people driving in circle has created additional traffic issues; said when the adjacent vacant lot became available for purchase the practice purchased it to use as an employee only parking lot; and said the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association, as well as a majority of the area residents have stated their support for the proposal. Mr. Franklin discussed the proposal stating the proposed use is an employee parking lot; stated Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Site Plan applications are required in order for that use to be permitted; noted proffers the applicants submitted ensure the use will be an employee parking lot only and specify the days of the week and hours of the day the employee parking lot would be operational; presented a graphic showing the Future Land Use classification and zoning of parcels along that area of US 41; reviewed the proposed Site Plan and pointed out the revisions that were made based on input received at the Community Workshop; stated area residents expressed concerns regarding the impact on property values in the area; said Bass Fletcher and Associates has performed an analysis that indicates there is no evidence that would occur; noted the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association submitted a letter of support and eleven of the thirteen area residents signed a petition in support; and said staff has recommended approval with conditions and the applicants agree with the recommended conditions. PB Member Clermont questioned what type of lighting would be used and what hours the lighting would be on; if there would be a camera in the parking lot to deter crime; and how the stormwater attenuation would work. Mr. Franklin stated the lighting would be low level landscape lighting that would be on a timer; noted a photometric plan showing the lighting will only be on-site has to be submitted along with the building permit; said there had been no discussions regarding installing a camera however the applicants were willing to install one; and said the stormwater runoff would be tied into the system on the adjacent medical building site; and noted the Southwest Florida Water Management District staff would have to approve the stormwater runoff provisions as well. PB Member Blumetti pointed out the Center does not only perform elective plastic surgery; noted he lives in the neighborhood; questioned if the Surgery Center's employees were now parking on Clematis Street; and asked if the house on the adjacent lot to the east that encroaches onto the subject site would be demolished. Mr. Franklin confirmed the Center's employees were parking along Clematis Street; and stated the house to the east that encroached onto the subject parcel is owned by someone else; and stated the owner has rectified that issue. PB Member Morriss questioned if the hours of operation the Applicant's proffered was adequate. Discussion ensued. Mr. Franklin said if parking is needed after hours that can be managed on the Medical Center site. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned if the number of parking spaces proposed would be adequate. Dr. Graham pointed out there is continuous rotation. Mr. Franklin noted patients that are having surgery are dropped off and picked up. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 10 PB Chair Ohlrich stated she is familiar with the area; noted she has experience with the difficulties wheelchair users encounter; pointed out the facility to the north has parking on both sides of their building; and said the no parking allowed on Wisteria Street has created a situation where staff and patients park on Clematis Street which creates issues with patients attempting to visit the adjacent facility. PB Member Clermont stated for the record that he is currently the President of the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association however he was not a Board member at the time the letter of support was submitted. 2:45:21 P.M. Staff Presentation: David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning and Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner appeared. Manager Smith discussed the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan stating the proposed employee parking lot is not permitted under the existing Future Land Use classification and zoning; reviewed the details of the proposal noting the amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Action Strategy 1.10 provide for a site specific use; pointed out the applicants were proposing to change the Future Land Use classification to the least intensive non-residential use; reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Guidelines and Standards for Review stating a chapter-by-chapter analysis had been performed; discussed the public benefits that would be furthered versus the public benefits that would not be furthered; stated if the application is approved in order to change the use in the future the applicants would have to go back through the public hearing process; and stated on-balance staff finds the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs discussed the proposed rezoning and site plan pointing out the existing Future Land Use classification and zoning of the subject parcel and surrounding area; noted the subject parcel was recently split from the parcel to the east; said an employee parking lot was proposed on the site; stated the existing parking for the facility met appliable code but not the demand; stated the use would be restricted to an employee parking lot with proffered hours of 6:30 am to 6:30 pm; said the rezoning is required because the proposed use is not permitted in residential zone districts; pointed out the existing access will be used sO no additional access would be provided along Wisteria Street; said all Zoning Code requirements have been met and the required Community Workshop has been held; noted the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association had submitted a letter of support and eleven area residents had signed a petition in support; said the traffic review found the proposal to be de minimus; and stated staff recommends approval with the proffers and conditions listed in the staff report. PB Member Blumetti questioned why overflow parking is not allowed on a residentially zoned lot. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated it is a requirement in the Zoning Code meant to minimize encroachment of non-residential uses into residential neighborhoods. PB Member Blumetti noted the inclusion of verbiage in the Comprehensive Plan versus a proffer that the use would be a commercial parking lot and asked if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would have to be processed to change the use. Manager Smith confirmed that was correct. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page7of1 10 PB Member Morriss questioned Attorney Connolly as to the definition of "on-balance" Attorney Connolly stated it is the balance between the criteria that has been met versus the criteria that has not been met. PB Member Clermont questioned if there are any standards for stormwater runoff. Manager Smith stated the standards are in the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM). Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated stormwater runoff is reviewed as part of the DRC process and noted the details have to be included in the plans submitted for a building permit. PB Member Clermont questioned if there had been any past issues with site specific criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and how that is monitored. Manager Smith stated there have not been any issues; and noted it provides for surety. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned if it would be a Code violation if a residential lot was used for parking butnot developed as a parking lot. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated it would be a violation noting commercial parking is not permitted on a residentially zoned lot in any case. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned if the applications are approved would the no parking signs on Wisteria Street be removed. Manager Smith responded that is a decision the Engineering Department makes, noting he would recommend the signs be removed. PB Chair Ohlrich said she has concerns with a precedent being set, noting in order to change the use another Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required. 3:18:56 P.M. Affected Persons: Mr. Richard Dear and Ms. Lisa Morano were present via ZOOM however due to technical difficulties were unable to speak at this time. Mr. Thomas Wierdsma appeared and stated he owned three properties in Arlington Park, one of which is across the street from the subject parcel; stated he believed the impacts on property values would be beneficial to him; requested a condition be added that the existing medical practice cannot be expanded; noted his name is on the petition area residents signed however his tenant signed the petition; stated his concerns with a precedent being set; noted the Comprehensive Plan is easier to amend than he anticipated when he purchased his properties; questioned why the medical facility was short on parking, noting their website indicates they operate as a beauty treatment facility; and stated that use in not permitted under their zoning. Citizen Input: Mr. Stephen Campion appeared and stated he owns the adjacent residential lot to the east; noted he split his lot into two and sold one portion to the applicants; said he is a thirty- year resident of the area; and stated he supports the proposal noting the parking issues had to be addressed. Affected. Persons (continued - ZOOM technical issues resolved): Mr. Richard Dear stated he supports the proposal as long as any access off of Wisteria Street is prohibited; no additional commercial uses are permitted on the subject parcel; and any lighting is prohibited from shining into the neighborhood. Mr. Dear noted his previous Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page8 of1 10 concerns with the landscaping had been addressed in the site plan that was revised after the Community Workshop. Ms. Lisa Morano stated her previous concerns had been addressed however she requested additional information regarding if there would be a fence or wall and how high the fence/wall would be; and stated she was requesting the fence/wall be eight feet high. PB Chair Ohlrich stated her questioned would be addressed by either staff or the applicant during rebuttal. 3:36:16 P.M. Affected Person Rebuttal: There was none. Staff Rebuttal: Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs pointed out any expansion of the existing medical facility that exceeds 500 sq. ft. would require a public hearing before the Planning Board; and noted a recently adopted Zoning Text Amendment allows for an 8' fence or wall or the rear and side yards of a parcel. PB Member Morriss questioned what the likelihood of the corridor being rezoned was. Manager Smith stated any rezoning request from a residential use to a non-residential use would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. PB Member Blumetti questioned of an expansion of the medical facility would have to meet parking requirements. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated all code requirements would have to be met. PB Member Blumetti questioned why staff indicated in their staff report that approval could set a precedent if these requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Manager Smith stated future applicants could cite this approval as a basis for approving their request; and reiterated applications are analyzed on a case-by-case basis. PB Member Blumetti asked Attorney Connolly if approval of this application would provide a legal basis to argue similar requests in the area should be approved. Attorney Connolly stated it would not; noted Comprehensive Plan Amendments are legislative versus quasi-judicial matters; and pointed out one could argue that their proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan once the Comprehensive Plan is amended to allow the use. PB Member Clermont questioned if there would be a fence along the street. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated a six-foot fence along the street is proposed. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Franklin clarified the lighting would be on 8-10 foot poles; pointed out light shedding onto adjacent properties is prohibited; noted the lights will be on a timer SO will not be on overnight; said the landscape buffer is proposed to contain a 6' fence with a hedge that will be 5' at planting and grow to 6; stated he felt an 8' high fence or wall was incompatible in a residential neighborhood; stated as a professional he has never used the "you did it for them sO you have to do: it for me" argument, noting the time and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 10 money it takes to provide adequate documentation to justify a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request; said the code was changed many years ago to prohibit non- residential uses on a residentially zoned parcel; said approval of this application would not open the door for the entire corridor to be rezoned; pointed out the purpose of the request is to solve a site specific issue; and requested their request be approved based on the on-balance analysis. Dr. Graham noted going through the process was an arduous task and stated the applicants take safety very seriously. Dr. Engel reiterated they were attempting to solve a site-specific issue; stated his respect for the neighbors; and pointed out the increase in patients coincides with the population growth in this region. 3:51:16 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly pointed out the motion/vote on the legislative public hearing needed to occur prior to the motion/vote on the quasi-judicial public hearing. PB. Member Blumetti made a motion to find that Petition No. 20-PA-01 is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and in the public benefit or interest and recommend that the City Commission approve the petition. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti stated the proposal on-balance benefits the applicants and the community; and said the applicants have done a good job accommodating the neighbors and requirements. PB Member Morriss stated the quality of the solution was commendable. PB Member Clermont stated he supports the project noting the neighborhood benefits. The motion passed 5/0. PB. Member Blumetti made a motion to find Rezone 21-RE-01 consistent with Section IV- 1106 of the Zoning Code, find Site Plan 21-SP-01 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the Rezone and Site Plan to the City Commission, subject to proffers 1-2 and conditions 3-5. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti stated his reasons are the same as for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. PB Member Morriss stated the proffers are carefully written and mitigate any problems that could occur. PB Member Clermont stated the neighborhoods needs are being considered. The motion passed 5/0. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICETOTHE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed atl Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen input. 3:55:58 P.M. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 14, 2021 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting May 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 10 PB Chair Ohlrich stated she had submitted some non-substantive changes to staff and questioned if any other changes were: requested. There were: no additional revisions and the PB members approved the minutes with PB Chair Ohlrich S revisions by consensus. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by staff. 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 Morriss stated this meeting was his next to last and read a statement into the record (attached hereto). PB Chair Ohlrich noted the City Commission's current schedule consists of evening meetings with hard stop times and questioned if any discussions had occurred regarding the Planning Board holding afternoon meetings, noting there was no vote on changing the PB meeting schedule to the afternoons. Secretary Cover stated there had not been any discussion and said staff is pleased with the afternoon schedule. PB Member Blumetti stated he thought the change to starting meetings in the afternoon was due to thel backlog of petitions and stated he too was ok with meeting in the afternoon. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she liked the afternoon meetings; she was just wondering if there had been any discussions regarding the change in start time. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:03:50 P.M. bus bm (Steven R./ Cover, Planning Director Kathy Keley Ohlrick, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]