CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Eileen Normile, Chair Members Present: Damien Blumetti, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Robert M. Fournier, City Attorney Timothy Litchet, Director, Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Normile called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.m., and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll; and read the Pledge of Contact. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. III. 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 the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge of Conduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly conducted the oath for all who were present to speak this evening; and explained that he will discuss the procedures for the Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings later this evening prior to Item IV which is a Quasi-judicial Public Hearing. B. Non-Quasl-udicia. Public Hearings 1. Ordinance No. 19-5275: An Ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida amending Article IV of the Zoning Code of the City of Sarasota to provide that a Notice of Filing shall be sent to all persons owning property within 500 feet of a property which is the subject of an application for Administrative Site Plan approval in the Downtown Zone Districts; to provide that all applications for Administrative Site Plan approval in the Downtown Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 51 Zone Districts shall be referred to the Development Review Committee and to provide that a Notice of Approval or Denial of the Administrative Site Plan Application shall be sent to all persons who received a Notice of Filing; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for reading by title only; and providing for an effective date. (Robert M. Fournier, City Attorney) Attorney Fournier introduced himself for the record; stated that the proposed Ordinance relates to Administrative Site Plan approvals in the downtown; said that the genesis and the history of this is very well documented on the record, and he will not spend time going into that, he would rather move forward with the substance of the Ordinance; pointed out that two Zoning Code Sections are relevant and he would like to mention them first; noted that the first one is Section IV-501(c) which contains development thresholds that are size thresholds; explained that, currently it only applied to site plan applications that are located outside the Downtown Zone Districts; explained that if the site plan is above the size thresholds, then the site plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning Board; said that if the site plan is below the size thresholds, then the site plan is reviewed and approved administratively; pointed out that this section is not changed by this Ordinance; clarified that this Ordinance only applies to the Downtown Zone Districts; added that the second Zoning Code Section, the ground zero" section this, is Section IV-1901(a), on page 9 of the Ordinance, and that addresses site plans in the Downtown Zone Districts, which currently are approved administratively; explained that there are no thresholds above which site plans are reviewed by the Planning Board; said all site plans in the Downtown Zone Districts are currently approved administratively; pointed out that this is not changed by this Ordinance, but he called this section to the Planning Boards attention because it describes two different administrative site plans within the Downtown Zone Districts; explained that first is the type of site plans that the Code states can be processed in advance of the building permit, or specifically, the application for site plan is approved and the developer may have two years, with a possible two year extension, to apply for a building permit and actually build; said that the second type of site plans can be processed in conjunction with the building permit, meaning, at the same time, simultaneously, if the applicant is ready to get the building permit right at site plan approval, and the approved site plan is the equivalent of having the building permit issued; pointed out that, in practice, what happened is that the later type, in conjunction with the building permit, for a long time, since the 2006-2007 time frame, in the old Planning Department, this later type started to get treated as if someone wasj just coming in to get their building permit, and the site plan aspect fell by the way side; pointed out that the Code clearly is saying that the site plan is still required, and it is a prerequisite for the application for a building permit; added that with these two Code sections as background, and the two types of site plans in the Downtown Districts explained, he wanted to point out that this Ordinance has two major changes and six minor changes to the Code; said that he will discuss first the two major ones and later the six less significant ones which warrant mention; stated that the two major issues that are addressed here have to do with the Notice of Filing that is required under the Code; that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page3 of 51 the City Auditor and Clerk's Office sends out to owners of property within 500 ft. of a proposed development; explained that the intent is to tell the neighbors that there is a pending site plan application for this property; pointed out that the second change is to determine which applications are referred to the Development Review Committee (DRC); explained that the current practice for the Notice of Filing is that it is sent to property owners within 500 ft. of a proposed development that is the subject of an application for Administrative Site Plan Approval for those site plan applications that were intended to be processed in advance of the building permit; added that the Notice of Filing was not sent out to notify people when the applicant was applying for a building permit that had a site plan associated with it; noted that the issue was raised and he was asked if what was happening in practice was consistent with the Code; stated that he concluded that it was not consistent with the Code because the Code clearly specifies that one can get a site plan approved in advance of the application for the building permit, or simultaneously, but either way has to file an application for site plan approval; stated that what this Ordinance does is require the Notice of Filing be sent out for both types of applications for site plan approval in the Downtown Zone Districts, sO that the people who would be potentially impacted would have notice that the application is pending; added that the Ordinance requires something that is being done now as a courtesy, again only for those applications that arei filed in advance of the building permit, and that is to tell the same people who originally received a Notice of Filing when a decision is made on the application for administrative site plan approval; explained that at the end of the process, when staff makes its decision, those people who were notified that the application was filed, now they are notified whether the application has been approved or that it has been denied; added that this will no longer be done as a courtesy, it will be done because it will be a requirement of the Zoning Code; noted this will only be sent out for those applications that exceed the size thresholds and would be reviewed by the Planning Board if they were outside of the Downtown; explained that the rational is that the smaller site plans are sO small they do not warrant sending the Notice of Filing; ;noted that this is the first way that Code Section IV-501 (c) will be applied if the Ordinance is passed as written; said that currently it is not applied, because it pertains only to public hearings outside of the Downtown Districts; added that this section will also be used as the threshold of who gets Notice of Filings in the Downtown Districts; stated that the same thing applies to which applications for site plan approval in the Downtown Districts will be referred to the Development Review Committee (DRC); explained that the former practice was to refer to the DRC only the applications for site plan approval that were filed and processed in advance of the application for the building permit; pointed out that if one was ready to get the building permit, the site plan never went to the DRC, it was handled entirely administratively; added both types now will get referred to the DRC if the Ordinance passes as written; stated that he would characterize those as the major changes in the Ordinance; and briefly reviewed the minor changes, as follows: first he referred to page 3, Section IV-201, Applications and Administrative Review; stated that there is an exception there for applications for building permits, and the requirement is that all applications for development approval are filed with the City Auditor and Clerk's Office; noted that there is another reference at the bottom of page Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 51 [3] regarding filing for your building permit; stated that the building permit does not get filed with the Clerk's Office, rather it gets filed upstairs in the Building Department, but the Code did not reflect that; explained that the building permit is an application for development approval, SO there is an exception curved out for building permits, and that is something that he thought needed to be corrected in the Code; referred to the bottom of page 3, and said that the second minor change is the sentence "If the application is complete, the application shall be forwarded to the DRC, if otherwise required by the terms oft these regulations;" stated that this is unnecessary, because the Clerk's Office actually takes the application and sends it to staff, the Clerk's Office would not send it directly to the DRC; noted that under the Code as written now staff had discretion to send these applications to the DRC, but as he just explained, that discretion will be taken away, and all site plans will go to the DRC; stated that the third minor change is to tell the Planning Board what the Notice of Filing is, and who gets it, and that is found on page 4, where the current Code reads that "A notice offiling is a letter sent to persons zoho may be affected by a development application pointed out that the notice is not in the form of a letter, it is more in the form of a notice, they will call it a notification; stated that it was always sent to persons who owned property within 500 ft. of the subject property proposed for development, sO they thought rather than state vaguely that the notification is going to persons that may be affected, they should state, in an objective way, that it goes to all the people who own property within 500 ft of the site proposed for development; stated that the fourth minor change is on page 5, in Section IV-301. Purpose and Applicability, Subsection 1; said that they tried to make the sentence more clear, it was one sentence that tried to address three things, buildings, structures, and changes in uses of structures; added that they broke it down to three different sections, because there was a reference "if applicable" and they couldn't really tell what was not applicable, or if applicable only applied to "ifa use zDas being converted to another classification ofuse, " and in some cases, that required a building permit, and in other cases it might not SO it was pulled out and separated into three sentences; noted that the fifth minor change appears on page 6, Section IV-501. Purpose and Applicability, Subsection (b); said that he thought it would be important to clarify here when site plan approval is required prior to the issuance of al building permit, it includes both types of site plans, (those that go to the Planning Board and those processed Administratively), and it means that site plan needs to be approved before the building permit is issued; said that the same change is in Subsection (c), where they added the word "admimistratively," referred to the bottom of page 7, in the threshold section, noting there are actually three types of site plans that will go to the Planning Board, but the Planning Board does not make the final decision because they will go to the City Commission as well, such as site plans filed with an application for rezoning because that requires an Ordinance adopted by the Commission, site plans filed with an application for Conditional Use, or a site plan that is on "G" zoned property; and said that it would be clearer to enumerate that in three different paragraphs; and finally, stated that there is a ten-day appeal period, as it stands now, to appeal the approval or denial of an Administrative Site Plan; pointed out this Ordinance does not Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 51 change that, but it explicitly provides that the City will not issue a building permit during that ten day period; added that the ten day count starts to run from the day the Notice of Decision is mailed out to people who receive the Notice of Filing; and said that there is assurance in the Code now that the building permit will not be issued during the appeal period. Attorney Fournier stated that he could say more, however this is a lot, and he feels that what he said crystalizes what the Ordinance does, as best as he could summarize it. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she is interested in the ten-day period time; and asked if the same people who receive the initial Notice of Filing also receive the notice for the ten-day period. Attorney Fournier said that what they actually receive is a Notice of Decision, which is a notice that the site plan has been administratively approved or administratively denied; added that then if the applicant or anyone who received that notice wants to appeal that decision, they have a ten-day period to do that. PB Member Ohlrich asked if that is ten days after: it was mailed, not when they received it. Attorney Fournier referred to page 10, Article IV-1901. Site Plans, Subsection (g) and read the following excerpt: : within ten calendar days after the date the Notice of Approval or Notice of Denial is mailed by the Ofice ofthe City Auditor and Clerk, as required by Section IV-1901(a). 1 PB Member Ohlrich asked if that information is also available on the City's website, sO that people who doi not receive the mailing also have the information. Attorney Fournier stated that there is a section in the Ordinance stating that interested parties can register to receive notices via email. PB Member Morriss referred to Subsections IV-1901 and IV-1901(h) regarding the thresholds; said that the notices are out and people have ten days to question the permit; asked if frivolous things are addressed differently, or was there a period of time when these can be dismissed out of hand or do they have to go through the entire process of going to the Planning Board. Attorney Fournier stated that they have to go to the Planning Board, but there is a requirement that someone appealing it be an aggrieved person that has suffered some detriment if it is approved and it gets built, sO the Planning Board would have to determine that prior to the hearing being held, if that is changed by this Ordinance. PB Member Gannon followed up on the notification, referred to page 10-35, the added language 'Notice of Approval or Notice ofDenial is mailed by the Office ofthe City Auditor and Clerk as required by Section IV-1901(a), 1 and asked if it is ten days after that is mailed. Attorney Fournier stated that this is the period within which one: can appeal the administrative approval or denial of the site plan. PBI Member Gannon questioned even though the mailing date maybe two weeks from the filing date of the decision. Attorney Fournier said that the ten-day period does Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 51 not start to run until that decision is made, it might get mailed out a few days after the decision is made, and there is a little more time than if it ran from the date the decision is made and it was not mailed, sO the ten-days start after people were notified. PB Member Gannon agrees that it should be the mailing date, because going back and looking at recent notices, even the site plan notifications, that some of those go out seventeen to eighteen days after the file date. Attorney Fournier said that he was not sure what PB Member Gannon meant when he referred to "filing date," because the file date should have occurred several months earlier, when the application was filed, then the Notice of Filing would have been mailed out; added that the mailing date he acknowledged might not be the same date as the date the decision was made, it could be the same date, but most often it is a few days subsequent, and that is the reason they did not make the appeal period run from the date of the decision, it runs from the date the Notice of Decision is mailed out, SO that people would not lose days. PB Member Gannon asked if the mailing of the notice is different that the mailing of the application. Attorney Fournier clarified that the application is not mailed, the application is filed, and subsequent to that, there is a Notice of Filing that tells people that the application has been filed, then a period of time goes by, when the application is administratively reviewed and a decision is made, then, at the conclusion of this process, the decision to approve or deny is made, and shortly after that a notice will be mailed out, this would be either a Notice of Approval or a Notice of Denial, that would trigger the running of the ten-day period to appeal to the Planning Board. PB Member Gannon referred to the new language on page 4 -35, where it states that - . A Notice of Filing shall also be mailed or e-mailed to and it lists the organizations.. Attorney Fournier stated that this was requested, and he decided to include it SO that the people who wanted to know, would also get the notice. PB Member Gannon agreed, and, for the sake of clarification, he repeated that everyone who gets the Notice of Filing will also get the Notice of Approval or Denial. Attorney Fournier concurred. PB Member Gannon pointed out that the language in this section says that the Notice of Filing is mailed or e-mailed, while the Notice of Decision is only mailed out, and asked if this gives the Clerk the option to email out the Notices of Decision. Attorney Fournier said that this could be discussed with the Clerk, however he thinks it would be done the same way, they would have a uniform practice, there is no basis to distinguish between the two, sO if they put it on the website for the first notice, they will put it on the website for the second notice, the decision would be posted, SO one can look it up, and it would be e-mailed to these organizations, probably their preference would be to get it by e-mail, because it is easier and less expensive; and concluded that it still requires mailing within the 500 ft, and he thinks that is how it is done, because there is a form that goes out. PB Member Gannon stated that if we put in the Code that the City is emailing the notices it would be appropriate, where it mentions "mailing" the Notice of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 51 Decision, to be the same, it should say "mailed or e-mailed, Attorney Fournier agreed, said he will use parallel language, and noted that is a point well taken. PB Member Gannon referred to the bottom of page 5, Section IV-302, where it states that "Applications for zoning approval and building permits shall be filed in the Development Services Department" versus submitted to the Clerk; and asked for clarification. Attorney Fournier stated that this conforms the Code to what the practice is; explained that the Code states that applications for development approval are filed with the Clerk's Office, under the Code a building permit is included in the applications for development approval, sO technically it is required to be filed with the Clerk's Office, but the Clerk' s Office does not review it;, noted it is a different process and historically it has been filed in the Building Department; said that this change acknowledges what has been happening for a long time, the Clerk's s Office never got applications for building permits, SO there is no reason to change the practice; and stated that in this case he changed the Code to conform to the practice. PB Member Gannon stated that his question does not relate to building permits, his question relates to Zoning Approval; and asked what is classified as Zoning Approval. Attorney Fournier stated that zoning approval is required to accompany, to be given to every application for a building permit, sO that they can check the use; noted that the Code requires that zoning approval and building permits applications go together; and explained that before one can get a building permit, one needs zoning approval to show that what is requested is allowed according the Zoning District regulations. PB Member Gannon referred to page 7, Section IV-501 Purpose and Applicability, (c) (3) and (4), and stated that he realizes these subsections are not changing, but there is SO much other reference to these sections, these subsections talk about developments that are less than 10,000 sq. ft. if not within 100 ft of a residential zoning district, and there are two or three references to residential districts; and said that he searched in the Code to find the definition of "residential district," and he could not find it. Attorney Fournier stated that it is in Article VI, where the residential districts are described, including all the Residential Single Family (RSF) and all the Residential Multi Family (RMF) zones. PB Member Gannon said that the Zone Districts are listed in the Tables, but he did not see anything that specifically says that this set of Zoning Districts are Residential Zoning Districts. Attorney Fournier said that he is not sure if there is a definition, as PB Member Gannon stated, but he believes there is a statement that says that there is an aggregate of Zone Districts, and there are classifications, there are Commercial Districts, Office Districts, Residential Districts, Mixed Use Zone Districts, and they are listed; said that is what would be applied here to the term "residential zone districts, as they are in Article VI, and this would include all the RSF and RMF Zone Districts. PB Member Gannon asked if the Downtown Districts that have Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 51 multifamily are considered among these zones. Attorney Fournier stated that those are classified as Mixed Use Districts; pointed out that these thresholds apply to the areas outside the Downtown Zone Districts, sO the Downtown Districts are not an issue here; added that these thresholds determine whether you go to public hearing or you don't, but they only apply outside the Downtown, where there are RSF and RMF Districts, where in the Downtown they are all Mixed Use Districts; noted that this may be relevant to the discussion that is coming along in a few months, but for the purposes of whati is being done here this evening, we are going to apply the same thresholds, as opposed to devising new ones, to determine who will get the Notice of Filing Downtown, if you are above the threshold you get it, and the thresholds are pretty low SO it would not be sent out for the very small ones, and also to determine which applications for site plan approval in the Downtown, which, again, are all administrative, will be referred to the DRC; and said that he gets PB Member Gannon's] point, but he thinks therei is no real reason to change that now, because we are not talking going to public hearings on the Downtown, although it is coming up. PB Member Gannon said that his question is the definition, since there is a reference to the term, he was trying to find out how it is determined, and he would like to see somewhere specific reference to that. Attorney Connolly, Deputy City Attorney, introduced himself for the record; stated that he accessed the City's Zoning Code electronically; noted Article VI, Division 2 is Single Family Zones, Division 3 is Multi-Family Zones; stated the names of the districts all start with Residential," SO they are all Residential Districts, and if you were to go to Division 2, you would find the same thing, these are all Residential, SO all these Residential Single Family and Residential Multifamily are the Residential Districts;" and added that as you go down, you can see the Office Districts, etc. Attorney Fournier added that there is no definition, there is an enumeration of which districts fall in which categories, and that is what applied in practice to determine what is a Residential Zone or what is an Office Zone, or what is a Mixed-Use Zone. PB Member Gannon referred to page 9, Section IV-1901. Site Plans, (a). Authority; read the first sentence "Site Plans for properties in the downtozn zone districts shall be processed administratively without regard to the thresholds for administrative site plans in subsection IV-501(c)... and asked why the phrase "for properties in the downtown zone districts" was added in the first sentence. Attorney Fournier stated that right now Section 1901 is under the Section of the Code that pertains to the Downtown Zone Districts; added that, for the sake of clarity, to specify that Section 1901 is only applicable to site plans for development of properties within the downtown zone districts, it is in the title but he thought it was worth saying it, to be explicit, to make this Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 51 a more user friendly Code, and to make it clear for someone reading this section what it is talking about. PB Member Gannon asked if it is Attorney Fournier's understanding that the addition of this text does not in any way change what gets applied. Attorney Fournier agreed and said that this is not a substantive change, it is only for clarification, and it is providing a little more information. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he has five very specific things to discuss but he will wait to do that during the Planning Board members discussion; and asked if the underlined text represents Attorney Fournier's changes. Attorney Fournier said the additions and deletions were. his language when he drafted the Ordinance. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if the Planning Board can recommend changes to the parts that are not underlined. Attorney Fournier concurred. PB Chair Normile stated that there is a fee component to the change. Attorney Fournier agreed and referred to the section where he discussed the two types of administrative approvals downtown, one in advance of the building permit, the other simultaneously or in conjunction with the building permit; added that the other thing that was happening in the site plan applications in conjunction with the building permit, as he said earlier, they were treated as if they were applications for a building permit, and building permit application fees were collected while the fees for the separate site plan application were not collected; noted that this is supported by the Code because these are two different types; stated that he addressed it in his memo and said that, in his opinion, going forward, these fees need to be collected; explained that this is already covered in the Code, it did not require in his judgement, any amendment to the Zoning Code, that is the reason it is not explicitly addressed in the Ordinance, but it was addressed by memo, and those fees will be collected. PB Chair Normile stated that going forward these fees will be collected. Attorney Fournier concurred. PB Chair Normile asked if there is any accounting of how many of those fees were not collected over the years, or how many site plans were processed with thel building permit. Attorney Fournier stated that the only thing he is aware of is the STOP! letter in the supporting materials, there was some effort to do a study but he is not aware if they had caught everything. PB Chair Normile said that the STOPIStudy of unpaid fees was very minor in scope. PB Chair Normile asked if there is any way to collect in the arrears for those which were issued site plans without paying a site plan fee. Attorney Fournier stated that it would be difficult, and it would be best to move forward, noting that this memo was written in August [2018]. PB Chair Normile stated that it is probably a substantial amount of money. Attorney Fournier stated that it may be, however legally, they may be considered waived. PB Chair Normile referred to the timing issue; and asked if the day the mailing occurs is the date they take it to the post office, or the date shown on the post office stamp. Attorney Fournier said he would think is the first day after that, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 51 the Clerk's Office would have a record of the date the mailing was made, and the first of the ten days will be subsequent to that. PB Chair Normile said that the individual receiving that really has eight days to appeal, if they have not been camping out at City Hall. Attorney Fournier said unless they received it in their email. PB Chair Normile noted that the City Commission has started to ask the people if they live in the City or not; and asked if the Planning Board should be doing that, as well. Attorney Fournier stated that the City Commission's rules do not apply to the Planning Board, the Planning Board has its own Rules of Procedure, and, if the Planning Board wants to amend their procedures, they may do SO, but nothing the City Commission has done SO far would require the Planning Board to do that. Public Input 1. Kate Lowman - representing the STOP Steering Committee appeared, spoke in support; and expressed appreciation to City and Staff. 2. Dan Lobeck - attorney for STOP, spoke in support of the proposed Ordinance. PB Member Ohlrich thanked Ms. Lowman and the STOP group for identifying this flaw, and for pursuing it to what she hopes is the appropriate conclusion; added that she found the communications between Mr. Lobeck and Attorney Fournier very thorough and very helpful to her in understanding this issue before the Planning Board this evening; and expressed her appreciation. PB Member Morriss moved to find Proposed Ordinance 19-5275 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Section IV-1206 and recommend that the City Commission adopt Ordinance 19-5275, thereby amending Sections IV-201, IV-301, IV-302, IV-501, and IV-1901, Zoning Code (2002 edition). PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that it was common sense, it was well written, bookkeeping in a lot of ways, it is a step in the right direction, and he thinks this is a step towards some other changes, SO it is appropriate. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said thatjust on the surface this Zoning Text Amendment seems benign, but he thinks it is much more complex than that, sO he wants to discuss the following five points: 1. referred to Section IV-501 (c) - Thresholds stated that he does not think that the same thresholds for administrative reviews used in the rest of the City should apply to the Downtown Zone Districts; noted that there should be a sliding scale, based on the use Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 51 intensity, location, and the scale of the proposed structure; added that the standards for development and scale on projects in downtown zone districts are much different, and he does not think a blanket threshold for the entire City is applicable; pointed out that the Form Based Code had a threshold of 30,000 sq. ft., however he thinks it is incompatible and too general; and suggested the matter be referred to Mr. Litchet and City staff, and request recommendations of appropriate thresholds; 2. referred to Section IV-301(e), on P 4 of the packet, and noted that it reads - Upon determination that the application is complete, a Notice ofFiling is required to be mailed for the following types ofapplication: site plans; administrative site plans, for properties within the Downtown zone districts that exceed the threshold set out in Section IV-501(c) of this Code, etc.;" recommended that the words "site plans" be stricken out, because this is confusing and suggests that all site plans should bei noticed; added this is not the intent of the ZTA; 3. recommended that, in the same section, the Planning Board should reconsider the distance of 500 feet, and suggested that this also should be a sliding scale for several reasons: a. the grid of the downtown districts is much tighter b. in some areas there are minimum or no setbacks C. typically, property sizes are larger outside the downtown zone districts, otherwise less dense, and therefore more appropriate to have larger notice area d. 100% building coverage which decreases proximity to nearby development e. to mitigate the potentially overwhelming amount of affected person's S status delineation; 4. referred to Section IV-901 (g). Appeal to the Planning Board, and stated that it is important to re-evaluate the appeal process, as defined, since there will be a considerable amount of people being noticed that were not in the past; added that the system could potentially implode with appeals; recommended that, since an aggrieved person is defined in Section II-201, the appeal should go to the City Attorney's office first, he/she should make the distinction, and advise that a Planning Board hearing is required by right; 5. referred to Section IV-302 Application Regurementy/Bulding Permit; noted that it states 1 An application for a building permit shall include construction plans drawn to scale.. stated construction plans drawn to scale is al big description of the requirements needed for a building permit; suggested that a more detailed outline of professional standards would be appropriate; pointed out that at the December 12, 2018 Planning Board meeting, Planning Director Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 51 Cover informed the Planning Board members that all future submissions of plans to the City will require signed and sealed documents from the appropriate licensed professional; said this is consistent with Florida Building Code - Section 106, Construction Documents, Florida Statutes Section 471, Engineering, and Florida Statute - Section 481, Architecture, Interior Design, and Landscape Architecture, and should be reflected in Section IV-302 of the Zoning Text Amendment; and stated that, as a reference, he is entering into the record a copy of the Building Official's Guide to the Professional Practice of Architects and Engineers in Florida, which gives a more complete description of the requirements and responsibilities of licensed professionals who should submit contracts and construction documents for review. PB Member Gannon stated that Mr. Blumetti's comments are ones we are thinking up and most likely would be more appropriate under the initiative Director Cover has undertaken to review the site plan process; added that there are some major issues that have to be reviewed, these points are well taken, rather than this cut at that, which is before the Planning Board this evening, he would like to understand in more depth the background of some of these changes, in light of other changes that arel being proposed as tol how public input is acquired, etc., sO he thinks that it is part of a bigger process. PB Member Ohlrich agreed with PB Member Gannon's comments; added that PB Vice Chair Blumetti had a number of very valid issues that should be discussed, but perhaps would be better going first to the Planning Department for discussion within the Department, and then come to the Planning Board, instead of amending the document that is before the Planning Board this evening. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that his only issue with these suggestions is thatit could be six months to a year from now, this is what the Planning Board is amending now, and this document is in front of the Planning Board members now. PB Member Ohlrich stated that none of the Planning Board members has seen what PB Vice Chair Blumetti read into the record this evening, nor has anyone had time to think about it and offer any additional changes; noted that she is not comfortable amending the motion on the floor right now, but she would be comfortable forwarding PB Vice Chair Blumetti's information to the Planning Department, and have them come back to the Planning Board. PB Member Morriss noted that PB Vice Chair Blumetti's comments raise questions that need to be answered, for example he said proximity is much denser in the downtown, but there are situations where it is not as dense, such as in the perimeter; added that it is a really long process; asked if PB Vice Chair Blumetti feels this is an immediate need and needs to be addressed with the proposed "bookkeeping" amendment; and asked Planning Director Cover about the timeframe to raise these questions for the next step. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 51 Planning Director Cover stated that for the Administrative Review they were given four months by the City Commission to come forward with recommendations, which would be in May at the latest soit could be six months from now, maybe more depending on the feedback staff gets; and concluded that it definitely would be happening this year. PB Chair Normile stated that one thing to keep in mind is that this [Ordinance] is not changing very much, it is really explaining what is in the Zoning Code right now; added that the City has not been overwhelmed with appeals; and asked Attorney Fournier how many appeals have there been in the downtown. Attorney Fournier responded that the right to appeal currently exists, and perhaps after this Ordinance, more people may be aware of their right to bring one, but they have not been deluged with appeals. PB Chair Normile stated that there are almost none; added that this makes the Code more clear, the City collects more fees, because if one is filing a site plan, in her opinion, no matter how one is filing the site plan, they should be paying the same fee; pointed out that this creates a level playing field; and stated that the issues PB Vice Chair Blumetti brought up are quite valid, but probably not in reference to this particular Ordinance. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he agrees on some levels; said that his comments are part of a bigger discussion, however he cannot support not striking out the words "site plan," which is confusing, and it is a very simple change; and added that it is a play on words. Attorney Fournier addressed each of the five issues presented by PB Vice Chair Blumetti. 1. Thresholds Attorney Fournier stated that we have apples to apples, the thresholds are there now to apply to site plans outside of the downtown, to determine what goes to public hearing and what does not; added that the thresholds are used for different purposes in the downtown, they are used to determine who gets the Notice of Filing, and which applications go to the DRC; said this will be re- discussed when the issue of administrative site plan approval, or public hearings for downtown properties comes forward; stated that the point is very well taken; said that, at that time is when this issue should be addressed, because at that point the Planning Board may want to keep the thresholds the same or make them different. 2. Striking the words "site plans" Attorney Fournier pointed out that he does not want to strike those words from the text; noted that as he initially drafted this Ordinance, and the way this is interpreted, that applies to applications for site plan approvals that are outside the downtown; stated that he had promised STOP and he had a change to conform that with current practice, because there needs to be a reference to the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 51 thresholds in Section IV-501 (c); stated that there was a misunderstanding. that this would address properties outside the downtown, and this Ordinance and the appeals thereto apply to site plans in the downtown; said that there was some discussion initially, and he promised STOP that he was going to address and fix what he perceived to be a glitch in that section, but he would not do that now, to keep the scope of this section on what was originally addressed back in the June 28, 2018 letter from STOP, and not expand it outside the downtown; stated that is the reason it has not been done; concluded that it goes beyond what this Ordinance was about, sO he would not recommend that now; and he agreed that maybe, for clarification, it can be addressed in the future. 3. Notification distance of 500 ft. Attorney Fournier noted that this distance was chosen because that is what is being done now, sO just in the interest of uniformity, it is the same requirement that applies to notices for public hearings, and everything, and they did not want to change that standard. 4. Appeals Attorney Fournier said that the issue was addressed earlier. 5. Construction Plans being drawn to scale Attorney Fournier noted that the point is well taken, however it is outside of the scope for this particular amendment. PB Member Gannon stated that he has a question that may be an amendment to the motion, regarding the earlier discussed issue about "mailed" VS. "e-mailed;" said that he would like to have that edited in this document, before it goes to the City Commission; and asked if that is best done as an amendment to the motion, since the motion was for the document, as presented. Attorney Fournier stated that he understood PB Member Gannon's earlier comments, but if he wants to include it in the motion; noted that PB Member Gannon wanted the language "mail or email" that applies to the original Notice of Filing to be parallel and the same as the language that applies to the Notice of Decision, which is sent out at the end of the process, and there needs to be an explicit reference to "e-mail" there as well. PB Member Gannon moved to amend the motion to include the following changes on page 4: Section IV-201. Applications and Administrative Review, Subsection (e) on page 4, 15th line should read: .application for development approval. A notice of filing shall also be mailed eF and lemailed... Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 51 Attorney Fournier pointed out that the Clerk does not have the email of all people within 500 ft., rather they email the notices to those people who have registered their email with the Clerk's office for this purpose, SO if the word "and" is inserted, it will not be possible to do. Discussion ensued. Attorney Fournier suggested that the revision should happen in Section IV-1901, pg. 9, and he will find a way to reference in that Section that the same people will be notified the same way and use the same language. PB Member Gannon suggested a revision to Section IV- 1901 Site Plans, Subsection (a). Authority, the last sentence of the first full paragraph to read as follows: - The Office ofthe City Auditor and Clerk shall mail or email a Notice of Approval or a Notice of Denial to those persons or entities who were entitled to receive a Notice of Filing pursuant to Section IV-201(e); for this Code. Attorney Fournier concurred. Both PB Member Morriss, the maker of the motion, and PB Member Ohlrich, the seconder of the motion, accepted the amendment to the motion. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he should have prefaced his earlier comments by saying that he generally agrees with the Amendment; noted that now Attorney Fournier has assured him that it is coming through; added that he knows it is a part of a larger discussion; said that maybe it was premature to bring all this up right now; and concluded that he has no problem going forward with this Ordinance SO long as he knows that his comments will be taken in the next iteration moving forward. The motion to approve passes unanimously, (vote 5 to 0). C. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. Airport Hotel Phase 2 (965 & 975 University Parkway and 995 Airport Circle): Rezone Ordnance Amendment Application No. 18-ROA-01 and Site Plan Application No. 18- SP-10 are a request for Rezone Ordinance Amendment to amend a previously: approved Ordinance (No. 07-4767) which approved certain development limitations upon property located at the northeast corner of University Parkway and Airport Circle in the Intensive Commercial District (ICD) Zone District. Applicant is requesting to reduce the approved square feet of professional office space from 200,000 to 171,250 with a concurrent increase in the approved hotel rooms from 200 to 300 for the subject area through approval of Site Plan No. 18-SP-10 to construct a five-story hotel with 132 guest units at 965 University Pkwy and a four-story hotel with 60 guest units at 995 Airport Circle. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Attorney Connolly pointed out that this is a Quasi-judicial Public Hearing, and that there is an application for affected person status; explained the procedures for Quasi- Judicial Public Hearings; recommended time limits for presentations; called Mr. Jeff Antonaccio, representative of Hospitality Investor's Trust which owns properties within Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 51 500 feet; and recommended that the Planning Board grant affected person's status to Mr. Antonaccio, who is in attendance. The Planning Board accepted by consensus both recommendations. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all present who intended to speak this evening but had not yet been sworn. Applicant's Presentation: Mr. Donald Neu, Agent for the project, introduced himself for the record; noted that this is the second phase of the project; pointed out that this request is not to change the zoning, rather it is for a revision to the ordinance that rezoned the property previously; stated that the location is the north side of University Parkway, near the main entrance to the Airport; stated that there are three hotel parcels as you enter Airport Circle, the Airport Authority is the owner, and there are approximately 7.8 acres; said that two of these parcels will be discussed this evening, one is under construction, and the other is vacant; explained that there is a table in the Zoning Ordinance that allows conversion of square footages from one category to another while staying within the matrix, which is very common practice when developing large areas; said that they are converting 28,750 sq.ft. of office to 100 hotel rooms; added that the site plan request is for 132: rooms on one parcel and 60 rooms on the other, and there is an existing Hampton Inn already there; pointed out the location of the parcels on an aerial map; noted that about a year ago, the Planning Board approved 92 rooms on the parcel located east of the Hampton Inn; explained that now they are increasing the number of rooms on this site, and putting the other rooms on the third parcel, located north of the Hampton Inn; referred to the previously approved site plan on the parcel east of Hampton Inn, and mentioned that they are preserving all the trees along the east side of that site; added that the previous design included adequate parking for the additional rooms; pointed out that there is no significant change on that site plan, other than the additional rooms; referred to the Site Plan of the parcel north of the Hampton Inn, which has no trees right now, and stated that they are proposing to build a 60-room hotel; referred to the Conversion of Exiting Square Footage Determination, in the staff report; noted that the Airport itself is a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and it has a cap of 300 hotel rooms; pointed out that even though there is more square footage, they can only add 100 more rooms without changing the DRI, sO they are converting approximately 28,000 sq. ft. of office to 100 hotel rooms; stated the existing Hampton Inn has 108 hotel rooms and remains at that, the University Parkway parcel which is approved for 92 hotel rooms increases to 132 hotel rooms, and the northern parcel on Airport Circle gets 60 hotel rooms; referred to Exhibit Cof Ordinance No 07-4767, and the proposed changes to the Matrix; said that conversions are common practice in DRIS which develop overtime, because you are not sure what you will locate where, but as you go along you can make adjustments, and come to the Planning Board for approval; added that 300 rooms is the cap, and if they want to change anything else on the site plan, they have to come back before the Planning Board and request approval; summarized his presentation stating that they have completed all traffic studies, completed all applicable regulatory processes, the application is consistent with all Airport requirements, they believe this is a modest use for the Intensive Commercial District (ICD), and they respectfully request the Planning Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 51 Board's approval SO that they can move forward; and noted that there was an error on the address on the Architectural Plans and they have corrected it. PB Member Ohlrich followed up and suggested a condition be added to this project requiring receipt of the correct plan, and asked if there is a Master Plan for the three parcels. Mr. Neu said the parcels were vacant and a year ago they presented the plan for the first hotel, now they are working on this parcel, and if they need to do anything else, they will be happy to do it. PB Member Ohlrich said that as she was reading this, she was shocked to see that the applicant had gotten approval for a hotel, and is now in the middle of construction, and the applicant has come back to the Planning Board to request approval for internal changes, and an additional hotel; and asked Mr. Neu how he found himself in this situation. Mr. Neu explained that they built what was allowed under existing zoning, the conversion factor had not happened yet, because they had to follow a process, including going to DRC, in order to amend this Ordinance and get the conversion factors approved. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she read the email chain dated December 7, 2018 starting with Mr. Kammerer to Mr. Dan Bailey and then to Mr. Trescott, in which they discussed the allowable number of rooms, and concluded that if you reduce the square footage of the office space you could have 300 instead of 200 total rooms. Mr. Neu agreed, and explained that 300 is the cap on the [DRI's] Master Development Order. PB Member Ohlrich said that she has not seen anyone from the City, especially Legal Counsel, concur with the conclusion of the three gentlemen. Attorney Conolly stated that he concurs with the decision of the three gentlemen. PB Member Ohlrich stated that it should be on the record; added that the email chain happened in December 2018, prior to the January 10, 2018 approval of the rezoning; and asked why the applicants did not pull their application at that time and delay the approval SO that they would not have to be before the Planning Board this evening to make the change. Mr. Neu pointed out that he had to be here for approval on the third parcel. PB Member Ohlrich said that the applicant knew on January 10, 2018 that he would probably come back to make changes to what was considered on that date. Mr. Neu said that they are not changing the site plan, they are adding the rooms; noted that they were exploring the possibility, they were not sure, they decided to go ahead with worst case scenario of what they were allowed to do on that date, and that is why they moved forward with that site plan. PB Member Morriss asked, if it is the same site plan, how do they add 40 rooms to the same footprint. Mr. Neu stated that they had a design with great big rooms, and they basically split the rooms, and mentioned that the architect is in the audience and he can provide additional information. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 51 Mr. Chancellor, Project Architect introduced himself for the record and explained that the original design was to create a hotel with 90 suites, the business model of the owners was for large scale rooms, rooms to accommodate kids and families, and after the documents were submitted to the City, they decided to look into the possibility of creating more rooms and fewer suites. Mr. Neu added that the footprint stays the same, the plan stays the same, and they had allowed for the parking; and noted the change is from suites to normal hotel rooms. Mr. Chancellor said that the parking was provided because they anticipated the option for this change, there was an Option A and an Option B, he presented both of them to the owners, and they decided Option B was better for them. PB Member Gannon referred to Ordinance No. 07-4767, Exhibit C, and asked where the 28,750 ft. of office space comes from. Mr. Neu stated that this Matrix is in the Zoning Ordinance, and the 300 hotel rooms is the capfor hotel rooms in the Development Order of the DRI; explained that the owners did not know what they would build exactly, back then, under the old Ordinance, would it be hotels or office spaces; added that is common practice in large developments like a DRI, when you do not know at the beginning what is going on each parcel, they offer the range, the impact analysis addresses all the uses in the range, but within that, the developer has the option of converting one use for another. PB Member Gannon asked about the location of professional offices. Mr. Neu stated that at this point they are proposing to do only these hotels, and if offices area added at a later date they will come back to the Planning Board; and explained that the overall DRI is for the entire Airport. Discussion ensued about the conversion of office square footage to hotel rooms. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if any of these buildings are built. Mr. Chancellor said that the University Parkway building is under construction. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked about the entrance to the building. Mr. Chancellor stated that there are two entrances, one on Airport Circle Drive and one on University Parkway, and there are also two entrees to the building, one on the east side and the other on the west side of the building. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if some of the additional rooms could go in the building with the 60 rooms. Mr. Chancellor stated that the limitation came from the parking calculations, and that they wanted to maintain the appropriate landscape buffer and the parking count. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that there is a lot of shade on the Airport Circle building but on the University Parkway building there is none. Mr. Chancellor explained that it has to do with the product, the property on University which is under construction is a boutique, not flag, however there are possibilities that the north property will be flagged property, and they have certain requirements. Mr. Neu added that they did not want to change the site plan, the landscape or the parking for the east property on University Parkway. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that is unfortunate, because we are in Florida, it rains a lot, but he understands the matrix and has no issue with that. PB Chair Normile asked what made the applicants make this change, was there a market study or needs analysis that made the applicants make this change. Mr. Neu stated that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 51 he understands that the vacancy rate in the hotels in this area indicate that there is demand, the financing is there, the owner's market analysis shows that the demand is there, and the smaller rooms rent at lower rates; added that the original plan had more suites to accommodate families, more beds, more space; and said he agreed with PB Chair Normile's comments about revisions to the building permit, if this is approved, because they have more bathrooms, etc. Mr. Chancellor stated that the bathroom count will not change, the bathrooms were there, because the suites had two bathrooms, one in the bed area and one in the living area; stated that they worked all along with Option A and Option B, and it was after they had submitted to the City their plans that it became clear which option the owners wanted; and pointed out that this was the reason they had designed the parking and landscaping to accommodate both options. PB Member Ohlrich asked if they need to declare ex-parte communications. Attorney Connolly agreed. PB Member Ohlrich declared that she did a site visit with Planner Panica, and during the visit she received clarification on the topic PB Member Gannon was questioning, because she was confused about office square footage as well; she referred to the First & Second Floor Plan A201 dated 11/02/18, which showed guest offices, and explained that these are not the office spaces in question, the office spaces in question, and the square footage that would be reduced would bei in a separate building. Mr. Neu added that those office spaces are for lease, but the ones shown on the floor plans are auxiliary spaces for the hotel. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she was very concerned about the mislabeling of the drawings; explained that when there is an error on the drawings it makes her question everything else that is submitted; and added that she trusts that staff has reviewed the application thoroughly, and there are no other errors. PB Member Morriss stated that he had a conversation with Jay Patel, a hotel owner on the North Trail, and he suggested that the North Trail hotel owners show up and testify on the capacities of the hotel industry. PB Chair Normile declared that she just spoke with Mr. ? unintelligible). Staff Presentation: Planner Greenberg introduced himself for the record; stated that the 7.8-acre site consists of three parcels, is zoned Commercial Intensive District (ICD) and the Future Land Use classification is Metropolitan Regional #1, for airport activities, car rental agencies, hotels, motels, developments consisting of office, entertainment, commercial retail services, and church uses; noted that the subject area is located southeast of the Airport and north of existing hotels which are. located on the south side of the University Parkway; said that the parcel addresses are 965 and 975 University Parkway, and 995 Airport Circle; pointed out that the existing hotel with 108 rooms, known as the Hampton Inn is located at 975 University Parkway and nothing is proposed on that site, it is simply a party to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment application; added that the 92 room hotel is currently being constructed at 965 University Parkway; noted it was approved under Site Plan 17-SP-13, and, if this application is approved this evening, Site Plan 17-SP-13 will be superseded; stated nothing substantial is proposed on that site Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 51 other than an additional crosswalk to supplement the pedestrian connections internal to the site, and they modified the floor plans to add more units, as the applicants explained earlier; and stated that the new hotel proposed is the four-story hotel with 60 units and covers the site plan portion of this application; added that the other aspect of this evening's application is the Rezone Ordinance Amendment, prior Rezone Ordinance No. 07-4767, that capped the number of rooms in the subject area at 200 and the office use at 200,000 sq. ft., as well as a 150 seat restaurant; added that these caps were included in the applicant' S proffers in the prior rezoning in 2007, that is where the caps came from, which is the reason the applicants were required to amend the Rezone Ordinance; added that when the applicants came through in January 2018, had they wanted to do more [than 200] rooms with the prior approval, they would have to modify, at that time, the Rezone Ordinance; explained that they did not do that and they capped at 200 hotel rooms; stated now they are coming to do that, to modify the Rezone Ordinance and cap out at 300 hotel rooms in line with the DRI; referred to the land use equivalency conversion matrix, explained the information in the DRI and the Rezone, and llustrated that there is a change from the "Office" use to the "Hotel (Room)" use, for every 1,000 sq. ft one has to use the factor [3.4921] shown in the Hotel (Room) column; and added that is what the applicants did to arrive to the 100 additional hotel rooms, at the expense of 28,750 fewer square feet of office use. PB Member Morriss asked who made the proffer of 200 hotel rooms that Planner Greenberg mentioned in his presentation. Planner Greenberg stated that it was the Airport owners and the people involved in their long-term leases, in the prior rezone application. PB Member Morriss asked if there was any substantiating information behind that proffer, such as the market for hotel rooms, or something that reflected why they thought [200 hotel rooms] was an appropriate number at that time. Planner Greenberg stated that he is not aware of what the proposal was based on, that is what they wanted at that time and proffered it in the rezone, sO staff is looking at that as "not maxing it out," with the DRI, not going to 300 hotel rooms; added that possibly that was appropriate at the time, given that we are now coming back to this more than ten years later; pointed out that the applicants are requesting to amend the prior Rezone Ordinance simply to change the cap of 200 hotel rooms to 3001 hotel rooms, and to reduce the amount of office that could be allowed; noted that there are no offices or restaurants proposed at this time, and the intensity of development in the area is capped in the DRI; explained that if the applicants wanted to modify the site plan, they would have to come back with another site plan request to be processed in accordance with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code; for example, if the applicants wanted to do an external office, not office space accessory to the hotel for the use of the guests, they would have to come back to the Planning Board for approval; stated that staff has recommended conditions for approval which clarify that the office and restaurants are accessory hotel uses, to be used by the hotel guests, they are not principal uses, which would count towards the maximum intensity limitations; added that the private driveway that runs through the property connects with University Parkway, and provides significant access for pedestrians and vehicles; noted that a transportation study was performed, the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 51 Transportation Impact Analysis was completed, and it was determined that the traffic in the study area road network and the study area intersections were anticipated to operate at acceptable Levels of Service with the project traffic; pointed out that a Community Workshop was held on January 9, 2018, pursuant to Section IV-201(1)(b) of the Zoning Code; said that staff reviewed the subject petitions and found them to comply with all review standards for site plans and rezones; spoke about the mislabeling on two of the architectural sheets that referred to the wrong addresses (995 instead of 965); stated that staff will make sure that the error is corrected on the plans when they are approved; and confirmed that the rest of the information has been reviewed and it is accurate. PB Member Ohlrich stated that her questions have been answered. PB Chair Normile asked if the same review standards apply to all properties, regardless if they are under private ownership or public property like this which is Airport property. Planner Greenberg stated that the standards for review apply to all applications, regardless if they are public or private. PB Chair Normile stated that she is looking at #12, which states "whether the change suggested is out ofs scale with the needs of the neighborhood, or the City;" added that, in her mind, this seemed to be carrying more weight when the land is governmentally owned as opposed to privately owned, and it may not carry like every other one in the law; and asked how one determines if something is out of scale for the needs of the neighborhood or the City, when there is nothing to back that up. Planner Greenberg stated that staff goes by the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use classification, the pattern for long term development, the ICD district is the implementing Zoning District for the Metropolitan Regional #1 land use classification, therefore the uses that are permitted in that district are believed to be appropriate for that Zoning District for that long term build-out; noted that, in addition to the fact that the hotel uses are allowed in this zone, the DRI set forth an impact study for this area that says that the intensity of uses on the matrix, the conglomeration of the different intensities of these uses, and the maximum impact of these, were studied, and it was determined they were appropriate for that area; pointed out that this was done a while ago, and, since then, the applicants were required to do another traffic study, based on the time that has passed; noted that the applicants have done that; stated that part of that traffic study, is the 92 room hotel that has been approved and is currently being constructed; added that the traffic study evaluated not only what is proposed in this application, but also looked again at thei impact of the 921 rooms that have been approved but are not in operation yet. PB Chair Normile asked if this application is approved will the applicants max out all the numbers that they can use for the rezone. Planner Greenberg stated that the applicants will max out the number of hotel rooms. PB Chair Normile asked what is left. Planner Greenberg stated that what is left for this site, under the DRI, is the 171,250 sq. ft. of office and then the 150-seat restaurant, sit-down not a fast-food restaurant, without having to modify the DRI, however the applicants would have to come to the Planning Board for site plan approval. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 51 PB Chair Normile asked if there is a more intense rezone that also comes under this land use classification. Attorney Connolly explained that the applicants are not changing the zone district, rather they are here to change the proffer, which limits them to 200 hotel rooms; and noted that the site was rezoned from Governmental (G) to Commercial Intensive District (ICD) in 2007. Planner Greenberg added that they want to modify the prior rezone, they are not asking to rezone, they are requesting to modify a prior approval. PB Chair Normile asked, if this request is approved, is there any room for further modification. Planner Greenberg stated that if they need additional modifications, they will have to come back to the Planning Board again. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if the proffer at 200 hotel rooms applies to other properties in the DRI. Planner Greenberg stated that the DRI is capped at 300 hotel rooms, adding that the rezone was for this specific subject area and only these three parcels are subject to the 300 hotel rooms. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if, outside of these three parcels, can someone have 300 hotel rooms. Planner Greenberg stated that there is no density limitation on the hotel rooms outside the DRI, they can apply, they can have a study. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that the applicants need to change this proffer to get the 300 hotel rooms. Attorney Connolly stated that going back in history might help; pointed out that a DRI is a Development of Regional Impact, and in the City the DRIS are the Hospital and the Airport, these are developments that do noti impactj just the people within 500 feet; stated the DRI process was put in the statutes in the 1970s, and is no longer there; noted that, in 1985, the Airport received approval as a DRI, within that DRI there was a maximum of 300 hotel rooms for the entire Airport property; clarified that all the Planning Board is talking about this evening is the three parcels located at 965 and 975 University Parkway, and 995 Airport Circle; explained that, in 2007, these parcels were zoned Governmental (G) because they are owned by the Airport Authority, and were rezoned to Commercial Intensive District (ICD), and as part of that rezone approval, the. Airport allowed some but not all of it DRI rights to go to these three parcels; added that these three parcels were allowed, in 2007, to be developed, cumulatively, to 200,000 sq. ft. of professional office space, 200 hotel rooms, and 150-seats in restaurants; pointed out that all the applicants are doing now is to change two of those, they want to reduce, for these three parcels, the maximum of 200,000 sq. ft. of office space, to a maximum of 171,250 sq. ft., and concurrently increase the number of hotel rooms from 200 to 300; added that it is his understanding that there are no hotel rooms anywhere else on the property owned by the Airport, but for these three parcels there will not be any morehotel rooms; noted they could have had 300 hotel rooms in 2007, but they only wanted 200 hotel rooms at that time but now they would rather have hotel rooms than office space. PB Member Gannon asked if, under the DRI, there is any other space where they can build a hotel. Attorney Connolly said, "No." PB Member Gannon stated that with this increase to 300 hotel rooms, we are not taking units away from someone else. Attorney Connolly agreed. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked how many hotel rooms someone can have outside of the DRI. Planner Greenberg responded that it depends on the site. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 51 Attorney Connolly stated that the City does not have a density regulation anywhere, it is the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that will decide the number of hotel rooms. Planner Greenberg explained that it would depend on the FAR, concurrency, parking requirements (depending on the Zoning District), and the site would be subject to all the development review standards. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there is a number of hotel rooms per acre;and explained that he is trying to determine if this proposal can hurt someone next door who cannot build as many hotel rooms. Attorney Connolly stated, "No." PB Member Morriss referred to item #12 of the criteria, relating to the scale, and said he would like to know the inventory of hotel rooms then [2007] and now, and what the hotel demand is, because there are hotel owners in the audience who are concerned; added that he does not totally agree that this does not harm someone else, to build hotel rooms and basically make up other ones go fallow, which creates blight; asked if the City has an inventory of hotel rooms in the City, noting a lot of hotel rooms are being built downtown; and asked if staff has any information on this, or if this has been factored in. Planner Greenberg stated that he is not aware of a hotel inventory. PB Chair Normile stated that this speaks to item #12; asked how the Planning Board knows if this is out of the scale or the needs of thei neighborhood or the City. Planner Greenberg stated that staff gets guidance from the Future Land Use Plan, and the DRI as to what is appropriate scale for this area. PB Member Morriss said that #12 mentions "City," 1 and the entire City needs to be factored into this. Planner Greenberg stated that staff looks at the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use classification, the ICD zoning, noted this is a permitted land use, it is an implementing district, it is next to the airport, and it is in a land use designation that is specifically designated to hotels, motels, airport auxiliary services. PB Chair Normile asked for clarification, because the Planning Board is not "rezoning," but they are asked to use the Standards of Review for rezoning. Attorney Connolly referred to Section IV-1108 of the Zoning Code, which talks about changes to rezonings and rezonings with site plans; and read the following excerpt: "A modification to any Ordinance that rezones real property shall require a public hearing before the Planning Board, and a separate public hearing before the City Commission in accordance with public hearing requirements in Section IV-201 and IV-202 of these regulations. 1 Attorney Connolly explained that this is the reason for the application that is under review this evening; added that the rezone happened in 2007, but the rezoning had proffers, and the applicants want to change the proffers; and pointed out that, according to the above quote, to change the proffers the applicant must go through the same process. PB Chair Normile said that one has to wonder why there were proffers in the original rezone. Attorney Connolly said because it was part of the DRI process, and because the Airport wanted to protect their rights; added that the Airport is a huge property owner, Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 51 this was only 7.8 acres, the Airport property is in the hundreds of acres, so the Airport, being aj prudent proprietor ofits property, did not want its then tenant to take too much. PB Chair Normile noted that there is no one in the audience speaking for the Airport this evening. Attorney Connolly agreed, and explained that the Airport is the owner, however, there are three long-term leases, one for each parcel. Affected Persons Testimony: 1. Mr. Jeff Antonaccio, representing Hospitality Investors Trust, appeared and stated they manage the Residents Inn and the Courtyard Marriott on University Parkway; read a letter by Mr. Mark Fowler into the record; and stated they were opposed due to declining hotel occupancy rates. Public Input: 1. Mr. Bharat Patel - hotel owner on the North Trail, considers himself an expert in the hotel industry; shared information about the increasing inventory of hotel rooms in Sarasota; spoke in opposition because there is no demand for additional hotel rooms; and stated that there is need for office spaces in the vicinity. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Neu stated that competition is a good thing, it keeps everyone honest and keeps prices down; added that the demand is there, this is an up and coming area; noted that this is not connected to the North Trail, it is a different market, there should be a variety ofa accommodations in the area, and he welcomes the office development in the area. Mr. Innocenzo Gagliardi, long-term lease holder of the subject parcels, introduced himself for the record; stated that they owned the Hampton Inn during the BP Oil spill and during the recession, SO they are well aware of the drops in occupancy; referred to the STR report, and he showed (on his cellular phone) the STR report for average hotel occupancy rates in this area; stated the STR report showed that the Year-to Date average occupancy rate for the Sarasota Airport Holiday Inn was 92.5%; noted that demand can vary from property to property and that is competition; added that it is a slippery slope when we start to protect markets in fear of competition; stated that there has been a huge increase in VROBS which have also affected the market; stated that the proposed is good for tourists and for Sarasota, because not everyone can stay at the Westin and pay $30.00 dollars for parking, or $20.00 for mandatory valet parking; argued that there is need for "luxuries" outside of the downtown core market, wherei it is $200.00 per night during season; stated that they have considered office space, they have been paying rent and property taxes on this vacant parcel for ten years now; stated they also own office space downtown, and unfortunately the need for additional office space is not there due to the increase in home offices, co-working, etc.; stated there is a massive amount of office space downtown in a much better location than this location where there is not much to do, there are no restaurants; and noted when in downtown one can walk out of the office and do a lot of things, sO they took office space off the table. Mr. Neu pointed out that this is not a complete rezone, this is changing something within the ordinance, it is within the matrix and the DRI, adjustments like the proposed Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 51 are very common when one is dealing with large developments, and they believe there is a need for this in the area, and they request the Planning Board's approval. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked to see the STR Report again; and asked for clarification on the earlier statement of paying taxes on the property. Mr. Neu stated that the property is leased for office space and they are paying taxes for office space, now they are trading it in for hotel rooms. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked for clarification on what the STR Report shows. Mr. Gagliardi pointed to the Running 12 Month Occupancy Rate for the Holiday Inn adjacent to the Airport which is 92.5% occupancy as compared to 69% in the other hotels in the area; added that it begs the question if the customers go there because they like quality; and stated that it is a slippery slope when one tries to protect the market and not giving the consumer the choice. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked to see the STR report for the Hampton Inn. Mr. Gagliardi said that he does not have the Hampton Inn report because they sold it some time ago. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked how he got the report for the Holiday Inn. Mr. Gagliardi said the: information is available because the property is listed for sale currently; added that they have a great relationship with the owners of Hampton Inn, and they have actually signed off on this application. Mr. Neu explained that, in their effort to make this application clean, they included the entire legal description, including the parcel where 108-room Hampton Inn is located, sO the owners of the Hampton Inn had to sign on this application. PB Chair Normile said that the Holiday Inn by the Airport is located in the middle of nowhere, it is an older building, and she does not think it is comparable, but she does not know what the rates are, and she would not consider that in the area because no one... it is pretty hard to find. Discussion ensued. Staff Rebuttal: PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if Planner Greenberg is familiar with the STR report. Planner Greenberg stated that he is not familiar with it. PB Chair Normile asked both Planning Director Cover and Planner Greenberg if there is any additional planning involved when something like this becomes available and it is on a governmental piece of property; added that on a private property it is difficult to tell people what they can do, but on a governmental property she would think that there could be some additional planning that relates to managing the types of businesses, the types of buildings that are entering the City. Attorney Connolly stated that it would be the proprietary capacity of the Airport, not the City of Sarasota; explained that, just because it is governmental property it does not mean that the City of Sarasota has some proprietary rights to it, it is the Board of the Airport that would decide, in a proprietary capacity, what they want to see on their property. PB Chair Normile stated that she thinks the City of Sarasota has proprietary rights in the other hotels built in the area. Attorney Connolly disagreed, explaining that the term "proprietary" means that one owns the business. PB Chair Normile stated that she is probably using the term 'proprietary" incorrectly; stated that the City has no information about hotel units in the City, how many there are, how many are coming, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 51 how many the City allows; and suggested that this might be something good to know in the future. PB Member Gannon asked to which extent, if any, does economic planning, economic development, and other staff within the City who look at the projections for economic development within different zones within the City.. does that come into effect in terms of any other site plan for.. like a hotel, if you were looking for it in downtown or any other neighborhood, would the economic analysis be a part of the consideration that staff has to look at for the impacts for the City. Planner Greenberg stated that the standards for review do not deal with an economic impact related to market share or competitive markets in economics, or if there is a need for more hotel rooms at that specific site; added that there has been a lot of back and forth with this application, they just came through with the prior site plan, they are in for a building permit right now, and what they are proposing is three different styles of hotels, there is the four story, 60-unit hotel on the north parcel with lots of parking, on the other site, what is being developed are a lot of smaller units, a different type hotel, and both are different than the existing Hampton Inn Suites, again a different type of hotel; pointed out that simply looking at a hotel room as a unit, it may not be the best thing for staff to do, because, as the applicant stated and as Mr. Patel explained, there are different types of markets, designed for different clientele; stated that what staff sees is that there are three different types of hotels proposed, all located next to the airport but serving different purposes and different clientele; and concluded that the City could use some affordable hotel rooms. PB Member Gannon referred to item #12 of conditions for consideration for rezoning, which states "whether the change suggested is out ofs scale for the needs oft the neighborhood or the City, and asked Planner Greenberg to address how he feels the proposal is in scale. Attorney Connolly noted that this is the third person [Planning Board Member] asking the same question, sO. he wants to put the following on the record, because it is explained on page 10 of the Staff Report in the PB packet; and read the following staff report excerpt into the record: (12) Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city; Staff Response: The Comprehensive Plan sets a pattern for overall scale, intensity and types ofuses allowed. The proposed Rezone Ordinance Amendment implements the intent of the Future Land Use Chapter and allows for future development to be consistent wuith the Comprehensive plan. The ICD zoning is intended to provide areas for a wuide range ofe employment opportunities without potential conflicts from interspersed residential uses. The emphasis is on intensive commercial and industrially related uses. Other commercial uses are allowed to support a wide range ofservices and employment opportumities. The development standards for the ICD zone are intended to allow nezu development, which is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 51 similar in character to existing development zohile promoting viable and attractive intensive commercial areas. PB Member Gannon stated that he understands that, but his question is how to understand the scale across the City, based on which the Planning Board is asked to judge the application. Attorney Connolly stated thathe felthe had to put this [the above quote] on the record, because this question was repeated; added that if the Planning Board had additional questions for Planner Greenberg to go ahead and ask them, because he is not a Planner. Planner Greenberg noted that the language in the passage comes from the Zoning Code definition of the ICD District, which is an implementing zoning district of the Future Land Use Classification of Metropolitan Regional #1, with airport activities and other uses; added that it is already determined that this is an appropriate use on that site; noted that it is the zoning that implements the allowable uses that would be appropriate for the scale and the needs of the City in that area; pointed out that the needs of the City are manifested in the Comprehensive Plan, and the long range implementation of the zone districts; added that if we have an outlook for 2030, and the zone districts are helping implement that long term vision, one can argue that the long term vision is to suit the needs of the City. PB Member Morriss stated that this means that the Comprehensive Plan is able to foresee the market, which it is not, and that is where we are; added that he has a question about item #13, which states "Whether it is impossible toj find other adequate sites in the city for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use, " and added that clearly there are, this is a uniquely contained location, how should he navigate this question SO it does not become an automatic "No." Planner Greenberg stated that the proposed uses, as outlined in the application for site plan approval, would result in a vacant lot being converted into a hotel use; pointed out that the applicant explained that they have been holding this lot for approximately a decade, and no office uses are going in; added that at this point the applicants are expressing that there is a need for a hotel; pointed out that the adjacent hotel owner, a competitor, agreed to be part of this application, and agreed to have more hotels in the area; stated that with respect to whether there are other adequate sites in the City, almost always there is another adequate site in the City, because there is not only one zone district for one parcel; noted that the use is compatible with the area, and has been approved as part of the DRI; and said that there are other sites in the DRI which would also be appropriate sites for these types of uses, sO it is determined that this is an appropriate use in this general area. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she agrees with staff that a hotel is appropriate at this site, the Planning Board approved a hotel on this site in January, 2018; said that she keeps coming back to the proffer for two hundred rooms, and that, one short year later, the applicant is coming back to the Planning Board for an additional 100 hotel rooms, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 51 that is what she is having trouble figuring out if that is appropriate, not the hotel in itself, but the impact on the entire greater neighborhood, and the City, notj just the North Trail, but the existing properties across the street; referred to one statement Mr. Patel made earlier, "old hotels compete with newer hotels;" added that she understands competition is good, but to increase the number of rooms from the original proffer is what the Planning Board is here to discuss and decide upon this evening; and said that is what she is having trouble with. Director Cover stated that a lot of it is simple economics; added that in this DRI, they are allowed to go up to 300 hotel rooms, which is what they are doing, and it is totally allowed; explained that when you own a piece of property and it has multiple sites, and you come in with a certain use, and as the time goes on, there is no market for that kind of use, such as office space, the next logical step is to ask what use is economically viable and can be productive; stated that this is what is happening here, the office market has been dry for a very long time, it is like if you owned the property, would you wait until the office market was good, or would you move ahead with another kind of use that would be successful; added that, he thinks, this is what the applicant is presenting to the Planning Board this evening; noted that there is competition, there will always be competition, and if he were a nearby hotel owner, he would also come out and testify against it too, because it is competition; pointed out that 2018 has been a very unusual year in this market, red tide is a big part of that; stated that during the entire year staff received calls from hotel owners saying that this is an awful year, people are: not coming to stay in our hotels; said that no matter what type or hotel you had, you would see a dip between 2017 and 2018, anyway, for any hotel just because of what happened this past year; said that, as a result, he does not recommend to base a decision on the lower occupancy numbers, because they are lower everywhere, just because of the bad year we have had; pointed out that the applicants are changing their project because there is no market for office space, and they are coming in with hotel rooms that still meet the requirements of the DRI; added that any property outside the DRI they can do whatever they want, this does not affect the properties outside the DRI; and added that the Planning Board's evaluation of this obviously has to be in meeting the Zoning Code requirements, but the Planning Board has to take into consideration all these other factors as they are thinking through this application. PB Member Morriss stated that he understands all that, it is basically Capitalism 101, but does anyone know the reasons behind that proffer to begin with; argued that there is some intelligence behind those numbers, and he wants to understand why they arrived at 200 hotel rooms; added that he understands that the applicants want to have the flexibility to expand if necessary, but what was the 200 room cap based on and what was the history of that; and asked if there is anyone who knows the institutional history of that. Attorney Connolly stated that he was here for the public hearing, but he does not have an independent recollection. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that the applicants have 300 hotel rooms available, regardless of the proffer, not just 200 hotel rooms. PB Member Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 51 Morriss disagreed, arguing that they would then be required to build that office space and restaurants indicated in the DRI. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that the pieces can move around; and asked the Planning Board if someone was building and 100-room hotel on another site, would the Planning Board have the same discussion. PB Member Morriss said "Yes, if the Planning Board were asked to rezone the property." PB Member Blumetti disagreed; and said that this is not about the rezone it is about the 100 hotel rooms, the rezone is not the issue, it is the number of hotel rooms. PB Chair Normile said that it is a much different situation, because of the proffer, and it is complicated in every which way. PB Member Gannon stated that if hotel rooms are being built downtown, the Planning Board does not get to comment, because they do not come before the Planning Board; asked, in terms of economics, if there is anything to be put on the record in terms of the expected increase in air traffic, because, anecdotally, he has seen many notices coming from the Airport Authority saying that here are all the new flights, that X, Y, or Z airlines are adding to their agendas, and he was wondering if the City has any projections that say that with these new flights the City is expecting.. or maybe it is the County tourism that has these numbers; and asked again, if there is any economic data addressing the increased traffic at the airport. Director Cover stated that his staff does not have that, but if airlines are expanding and coming to new cities, there is a demand, and that means more people coming to and from Sarasota, and therefore there would be more interest in hotel rooms, but staff does not have the exact numbers. Attorney Connolly stated that he will try to address PB Member Morriss' concern; said that he was present at the public hearing but he has no independent recollection of the reasons they did things, but transportation concurrency was probably the driving factor, explained that when you are dealing with a rezone, and you have these proffered uses, you have to do a transportation analysis, to determine how many trips the infrastructure will support; added that, he is presuming, the traffic engineer said thatit would support 200,000 sq. ft. of office space, 200 hotel rooms, and an 150-seat restaurant, sO that was the envelope that was approved; added that they also included the equivalency matrix, SO that if one wanted to move items from one pile to another pile, one had to figure out equivalent values, and Planner Greenberg demonstrated earlier the formula to be used; and stated that this is what the applicants have done, moved widgets from the pile of office space square footage to the pile of hotel rooms, but still staying in that same concurrency envelope. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if the Comprehensive Plan dictates the maximum number of hotel rooms. Planner Greenberg stated "No." Affected Person Rebuttal: Mr. Jeff Antonaccio introduced himself to the record; suggested that the Planning Board should explore this further and look at some other statistics, or maybe order a report, or he could forward a report to the Planning Board; added that he does not think the Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 51 information that was presented was factual, he thinks that one of the Planning Board members challenged that as well; added that the information did not show the actual number for year to date, if one were to look at 2018 as a whole, you would see. that demand was down almost 8% and added that he has January's numbers from his two hotels showing that they are down 12%, which is scary, and they are forecasting to be down in February as well; concluded that, simply stated, there is too much inventory in Sarasota now; added that he was able to book a room at the employee rate at the Embassy Suites last Wednesday for $49.00 dollars in season; said that you would never see that in February, in Sarasota, and he has worked in this market for ten yearsi and said it is crazy, absolutely too much inventory. PB. Member Morriss asked for Mr. Antonaccio's credentials. Mr. Antonaccio stated that hel has been in this business over thirty years, worked for Marriott for twenty-five years, worked for McKibbon for ten years, he has a relationship with Smith Travel that Mr. Patel mentioned earlier, they have an account representative assigned to their McKibbon Hospitality Account, he orders the reports from them, pay him $175.00 dollars and the report shows exactly what is going on; stated that the history will not lie, it is all in black and white, as Mr. Patel stated; added that everyone sends their stuff in independently, you never know who is what number, they do not know the hotel numbers, they do not show that, what they see is competitive sets, and it is an average, for instance, an average of the eight hotels that he has picked. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing and called for discussion or a motion. PB Member Ohlrich wondered if additional data would help; noted that there have been references sort of nebulously here this evening, except the one month that we saw on the Iphone, and asked if additional data is warranted, and if it would help the Planning Board make a decision on this. PB Member Morriss argued that this is additional frosting on the cake, the issue is #12. PB Member Gannon stated that even though he would be interested, he does not know how the Planning Board can determine how that economic forecast, or economic trending data, would change a decision based upon the criteria; added thathe: is looking at the criteria, and it was testified that under the DRI there was a 300 hotel room capacity, and originally they chose not to use it; added whether the Planning Board would get involved to determine to allow new additional developments, or not, it is based on market, and he does not know that the Planning Board can gage the market conditions. PB Vice Chair Blumetti agreed with what was said, and asked if the affected persons would have the same discussion if this was for a 100-room hotel somewhere else, SO is it about the number of hotel rooms or is it about the rezone, and he thinks that is the conversation right now. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 51 PB Member Morriss stated that the Planning Board is being asked to change a proffer from 200 hotel rooms to 300 hotel rooms, and he will use the criterion asking if this meets the needs of the City or the neighborhood; added that he would argue that it does not, and that in fact it could be detrimental to that part; added that there is an inventory of hotels downtown, and the Planning Board does not know what the impact is, and asked why add to that; and stated this is a circumstance where by right you are allowed to build 200 units on that site. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that the Planning Board is looking at an isolated year, and he does not think it is fair to look at 2018 only, you have to go back to the conception of the hotel to see if it were profitable all the way up to 2018. PB Member Morriss asked if, even with that data, would item #12 apply. PB Chair Normile stated that Mr. Patel's numbers were from 2016 - 2017, it was notj just one year. PB Member Morriss moved to find the petition inconsistent with the applicable section for the Zoning Code and deny the request or recommend denial of the request. PB Member Ohlrich seconded this motion. Attorney Connolly asked what this motion is about; pointed out that there are two proposed motions, one on the Rezone Ordinance Amendment, for which the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Commission, and another motion on the Site Plan, for which the Planning Board has the final authority, therefore the Planning Board has to make two different motions and say which one is which. PB Member Morriss, the motion maker, stated that his motion is associated with the Rezone Ordinance Amendment. PB Ohlrich, who seconded the motion, concurred. PB Member Gannon stated he understands the motion but will not supporti it. PBI Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he does not agree with the motion. PB Chair Normile stated that she also has concerns with #12, it is hard to understand the word 'needs," she understands that the Future Land Use tries to anticipate what the needs are, and iti is not clear if #12 is referring to the Future Land Use or the actual needs; added that there is #7, which states "whether change or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary, and asked what are the conditions, what conditions are they dealing with here, that is also not entirely clear in her opinion. PB Member Morriss referred to #7 and argued that the conditions clearly show that there has been an abundance of hotel rooms created in Sarasota, and that, in fact, we are showing that, in a five-year period, the market has declined; and concluded that #7 supports his motion. Per PB Member Ohlrich's request, Attorney Connolly repeated the motion: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 51 Adopt a motion to find Rezone Ordinance Amendment 18-ROA-01 inconsistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission denial of the petition. [The electronic voting system malfunctioned twice; Attorney Connolly recommended to the Planning Board conduct a voice vote.] The motion to recommend denial of the Rezone Ordinance Amendment was approved with a vote 3 to 2 (PB Vice Chair Blumetti and PB Member Gannon voted "No.) PB Chair Normile asked if the Planning Board should continue with the other motion about the Site Plan. Attorney Connolly responded "Yes, they have to, because they [the applicants] are going to have to appeal it, sO the Planning Board has to take action on it." PB Member Gannon asked if the Rezone Ordinance Amendment is disapproved.. Attorney Connolly explained that the approval of the Rezone Ordinance Amendment is decided by the City Commission, according to the Zoning Code; explained that, if the Planning Board denies the Site Plan with a similar vote (3-2), the applicants have to file an appeal for the Site Plan, sO that, when the City Commission hears the Rezone Ordinance Amendment, then the applicant will have the opportunity to set the appeal hearing at the same time, and the City Commission will be dealing with both at the same time. PB Member Gannon asked if the approval of the Site Plan includes the extra 100 hotel rooms. Attorney Connolly said "Yes." PB Member Gannon asked for clarification, asking what happens if the Rezone Ordinance Amendment is not approved. Attorney Connolly stated that he does not know how the Planning Board can approve the Site Plan. PB Member Ohlrich moved to deny the Site Plan. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Blumetti pointed out that the site plan is not changing, it is only the number of rooms that is changing. Attorney Connolly stated that the Site Plan before the Planning Board this evening has 100 additional hotel rooms, and that is where the violation would be. PB Chair Normile asked if they can vote to approve the Site Plan, because the site plan would work if the rezone were approved; added that it is the rezone that has the problem. Attorney Connolly explained that the Planning Board has the authority over the Site Plan, and if they approve a Site Plan with 192 rooms, we have an Ordinance from 2007 that limits you to 92 rooms PB Chair Normile stated that the Planning Board is voting [about the Site Plan] based on the decision they just made [about the Rezone Ordinance Amendment. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 51 The motion to deny the Site Plan 18-SP-10 was approved with a vote 3 to 2 (PB Vice Chair Blumetti and PB Member Gannon voted "No.") The Planning Board took a 10-minute recess; the meeting resumed at 8:48 P.M. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: ATTHISTIME CITIZENS MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING BOARDO ON TOPICS OF CONCERN. ITEMS WHICHHAVE BEENI PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. AT PUBLIC HEARINGS MAY NOT BE ADDRESSED AT THIS TIME. (A MAXIMUM 5-MINUTE1 TIME LIMIT.) There was no citizen's input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 9, 2019 NOTE: additions are underlined; deletions are strieken-threugh: Page 11 of 23, first line should read: - .under the City Auditor and Clerk, where the listing of Adviser Advisory Boards is.. Page 9 of 23,3rd paragraph, last three lines should read: 1 Planning Board can get documents with the background information ahead of the time; added that this document is nicely done; and concluded that the Planning Board has a lot of questions, SO it would be helpful to have the documents ahead of time." The minutes of January 9, 2019, as revised, were adopted by consensus. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Planning Board Annual Report Secretary Cover stated that there is one: item, the Planning Board Annual Report; noted that last year, the Planning Board expressed interest in seeing the annual report and providing comments before it goes to the City Commission; pointed out that staff included a copy of the report in the meeting packet; and noted that there is an internal deadline for completing this report and of March 1st, SO the Planning Board can approve it this evening, or forward comments to staff to include in the report before forwarding it to the City Manager's Office. PB Chair Normile thanked Secretary Cover for remembering that, last year, the Planning Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 51 Board expressed interest in reviewing this report before it is forwarded to the City Commission. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the first sentence of the Sarasota City Code, Section 2-259. Reporting and review ofboard activities, which states: "Each board or committee shall forward a written report to the City Commission, annually. and asked if the this requires that the Chairperson of the Committee come to the City Commission to present the report. Attorney Connolly stated that it is usually done on the Consent Agenda; noted the City Auditor and Clerk's Office submits the reports, usually at the April meeting, and there is a Consent Agenda that has a lot of pages behind it, because there are thirty-some boards; referred to the document before the Planning Board; and said that there are similar documents for each Board. Secretary Cover stated that it is on the Consent Agenda, and if, for some reason, there is a question, PB Chair Normile might want to attend, however it is up to PB Chair Normile. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the PREP Board comes to the meeting frequently; ;and asked why they go to the Board often and others just submit an annual report. Attorney Connolly explained that it depends on the type of Board, for example when the Planning Board was talking about Code Compliance, the only way to do that is to be scheduled on Board Presentations; added that most Boards, like the Board of Adjustment, never come to the City Commission, because, just like the Planning Board, they do what they do, and you do what you do; noted that the PREP Board is more involved in making recommendations to the Commission on a more frequent basis, and they have to come with their reports. PB Member Gannon stated that they had an Action Item from the City Commission regarding the Parks and Recreation District Master Plan, and it was a request from the Commission to come back and report on those issues. PB Chair Normile stated that she would like mentioned in the report that the idea for the Tree Advisory Committee originated with the Planning Board; noted that she does not know if it fits in anyone of the categories, but she thinks that it was a worthwhile recommendation and it has worked out. Secretary Cover asked when the Planning Board made the recommendation. PB Member Gannon stated that it was in 2017 that the recommendation was denied. PB Chair Normile referred to the Sarasota City Code, Section 2-259. Reporting and reviez of board activities, (e), which states: "whether the ordinance or resolution which created the board is in need of any amendment to better enable the board to serve the purposes for which is zuas created. PB Chair Normile stated that there is a question as to whether or not the Planning Board would want the Ordinance altered to allow the Planning Board to make reports to the City Commission on issues that iti investigates; and added that there was some discussion on the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 51 fact that something should be changed in the enabling ordinance if people wanted that to happen. Attorney Connolly pointed out that Section 2.259 is not the Planning Board's enabling Ordinance, it is dealing with every Board, sO PB Chair Normile is talking about changes to Section III-201 of the Zoning Code. PB Chair Normile clarified that she is not talking about Section 2.259 (e), she is talking about the enabling Ordinance; added that she did not know if it is something the Planning Board Members want to do right now; and added that the Board Members may know by the end of this meeting. PB Member Gannon asked if this report is for the period ending in 2018, should it beincluded in this report. PB Chair Normile stated that the wording of subsection (e) does not make it retroactive. PB Member Morriss stated that the Board Members will know better after the following agenda item. Attorney Connolly referred to the Sarasota City Code, Section 2-259. Reporting and review of board activities, and pointed that the last sentence of the full paragraph states, 1 Review of board activity shall include consideration of the following:. and added that, in his opinion, it is the City Commission that decides whether there should be a change to the enabling ordinance. PB Chair Normile responded " All right, I will take your word for it." Attorney Connolly said the reports are under the Consent Agenda, and if the Planning Board has something they want to talk about, this is not the place to talk about it, it is the next item. Secretary Cover stated that if there are no further questions on this report, staff will forward it to the City Manager's S Office. The Planning Board concurred by consensus. 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. 1. Study of Current Code Enforcement Practices PB Chair Normile stated that the next thing is the discussion of the Code Enforcement Report; added that there have been a lot of written papers going back and forth; and asked PB Member Ohlrich to discuss what she wrote. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she numbered her document to facilitate the conversation; noted that she tried to keep her comments on one page and she is not sure if this format or the spacing are appropriate for a document to be forwarded to the City Commission; pointed out that she submitted this document because she really likes this format for resolutions that have a lot of background information which helps the reader and the voters of the motion understand the rationale; added that one can make this kind of motion SO easy to read and easy to amend by inserting additional "Whereas" clauses, deleting existing "Whereas" clauses, or amending the "Whereas" clauses; directed the Board Member's attention to item #4 in the document and pointed out that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 51 it is very succinct, it refers the readers to the Zoning Code and allows them to go to the Zoning Code to identify the powers and duties of the Planning Board, the nice long list that Attorney Connolly referred to at the last meeting, or, one could do as she did in #5, referring to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services appointing a Building Official; noted that in item #5 she identifies all the criteria there, sO one could doite either way to make the motion more concise or more complete; stated that she likes this format because the reader can go directly to the "Be it resolved" section to understand what is being recommended; and said, as mentioned earlier, one can add or delete "Whereas" sections when refining the motion. PB Member Morriss stated that this is a very elegant system PB Member Ohlrich put together. PB Member Ohlrich noted that she did not start with the first "Whereas" section, but she started at the beginning, establishing the City Commission as the governing body of the City, and taking it all the way through the establishment of the Planning Board, the powers and duties of the Planning Board, and conflicts and problems the Planning Board has heard about Code Enforcement; and noted that she did not, in item #6, talk to the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services to confirm that he, too, has received complaints. PB Member Gannon stated that he likes the build-up on the "Whereas" section, he wondered if items #1 and #2 are necessary or starting with items #3 or #4 would be appropriate; referred to item #6 and noted that many of these things can be enumerated but he does not know if the comments need to be included in this statement; added that multiple complaints have been filed, there is no need to be enumerated there; noted that the spelling needs to be checked; said that the actual damage that was happening with One Watergate was not due to the Westin, it was due to the Vue, which was the closest building; and concluded that, for clarification purposes, it is best to remove them. PB Vice Chair Blumetti expressed appreciation for the report; stated that he assumes when capitalized the "Whereas" is taken verbatim, and when it is in lower case the "Whereas" reflects PB Member Ohlrich's words. PB Member Ohlrich explained that this is the common format used, the first "Whereas" is capitalized, and it is lower case for the remaining ones. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked what PB Member Ohlrich was proposing in items #1 through #7. PB Member Ohlrich explained that most of it is text lifted from City documents, the Charter, the Zoning Code, etc. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that #1 is not. PB Member Ohlrich responded that it is in one of the City's legal documents, that the people established the City Commission as the governing body. PB Vice Chair Blumetti explained that he is trying to find out which portions are verbatim and where PB Member Ohlrich has added things. PB Member Ohlrich stated that items #1 through #5 are copied and pasted; explained that she tried to include information about complaints, and she did that SO that she gave an example of how she thought it could/should be done; added that it would be very easy to amend #1 or #6, or however many, deleting, amending, and actually, even #7, the "Now therefore be it resolved... said she had never thought about an ad-hoc committee, like PB Member Morriss recommended, comprised of people from the City, from the Planning Board, from other Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 51 committees, she wrote what she thought the Planning Board had talked about at the last Planning Board meeting. PB Chair Normile recommended that they not get into the wording at this time. PB Member Morriss spoke about what he wrote; stated that obviously this conveys a transmission of frustration from his neighborhood and the people of the North Trail; referred to the last bullet, and added that the problematic relationship between staff and offenders, to construe that as any kind of implication with corruption evident anywhere, is absolutely nonsense, but there is no shortage of paranoia and conspiracy theories in his neighborhood, sO that question, whether it can be shouted out or not, is going to come up again and again, until the Planning Board can say, "No, in fact.. ". ; added that many people think that the Code is not enforced, but he thinks it is, however there are some questions the Planning Board needs to ask bluntly and point blank, it is not necessarily pleasant to ask; said that until the Planning Board gets those answers, clearly and steadfastly put out there, they will have conspiracy theories saying that there is corruption and money changing hands; added that he gets that a lot, his neighborhood is a very diverse group, and the idea of the ad-hoc committee, with a multi-disciplinary approach, will help answer the questions to the satisfaction of anybody in the audience; said that this is what it is all about, it is to answer the questions and concerns the Planning Board gets from the audience; said that when the people from the audience say that they do not believe this is being enforced, or that they believe that something funny is going on, the Planning Board will be able to say that thereis a group comprised by all these disciplines saying that it is fine; said that maybe there needs to be more staff, or more money, maybe there needs to be a different set of directions to somebody, but the questions need to be asked in public and the answers the Planning Board gets need be solid; repeated that that is all he is asking; and addressed Director Lithe and General Manager Schneider who were in the audience telling them that he likes them and he thinks they are wonderful people, and he does not like the idea that there are some people who think otherwise; added that he likes PB Member Ohlrich's structure and approach, in terms of the question; and suggested that an ad-hoc committee would be useful. PB Member Gannon stated that he likes the "Whereas" section; pointed out that the key question is what is the Planning Board recommending: added that the reason the Planning Board is discussing this is because they had: incidents of where there are public complaints, but staff says they track stuff and they have been reported, etc., which indicates a disconnect between the public and staff, and this process will help bring that out, reinforce it, and the public will be better educated about it; noted that he had sent out an email when. he was trying to track how to file a complaint, or submit a suggestion, he found different web sites, etc.; said maybe the IT Department is in the process of merging those, there was some feedback to the IT Director, and he was going to look into some of that, SO that could be an outcome of this, how to improve the public knowledge; referred to the document PB Chair Normile has put together and suggested that the DeMarcay be added to the last section of the Appendix where there is a list; said that this is where citizens have said there are violations, and there are no sidewalk Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 51 closing signs up on Pineapple, for example; added that he would also add in that Appendix another section called Public Input on "Violations;" explained that, as part of this study, the Planning Board could look at the Public Input side, how were the citizens able to provide input, how were they able to see, in a given area, what kind of complaints there have been, what other complaints have been filed about a given property address, things like that; and said if somebody is thinking about "What is happening here?" that information is available and they can look that up. PB Chair Normile distributed copies of a document and directed the PB Members' attention to the second page, stating that the Florida Statutes has a mandate for Planning Boards, which is to monitor and overview and oversee the effectiveness and status of the Comprehensive Plan, it is part of the Florida Statutes, and she originally had made the argument to Attorney Connolly that the Planning Board has the power to do that because it is in the City Code, but if your look down under City Code, it just mirrors the wording from Florida Statutes, sO the mandate comes from the state. Attorney Connolly pointed out that the mandate from the State and the City regulations are about the effectiveness and status of the Comprehensive Plan, and what he has understood the Planning Board is trying to talk about is far beyond that; explained that the Comprehensive Plan is just a document, and if the Planning Board wants to suggest changes to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Board has that authority, however the Planning Board has no authority to go beyond that, the Planning Board has no authority to go into Code Compliance at all. PB Chair Normile argued that she does not know how one monitors if one does not have information; added that if the Planning Board is going to monitor and oversee the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan actually talks about Code Compliance, etc., the Planning Board cannot tell if the Comprehensive Plan is actually effective if they are not privy to information that allows them to monitor it; said that she knows they do not have the ability to alter the methods for code compliance or to force people to do anything, but she believes that the Planning Board has the power to write a report, that is what she is asking for; referred to the document she distributed and said that this whole thing gives you the authorities upon which she is depending, the second section discusses it, and the conclusion is the argument that she is making to the City Commission for the need for some sort of understanding of how Code Enforcement is being done, and whether or not there is any improvement that needs to be done; and pointed out that at the end there is "insert request, which is whatever this Planning Board wants the request to be; and added that, of course, the plan is to go to the City Commission, because the Planning Board has to, in order to speak to staff, no matter what, that is just how it works. Director Cover pointed out that yesterday afternoon staff got a copy of what PB Chair Normile distributed, which gave staff one day to respond to it, and he thinks that it is not fair to staff; explained that everything staff is required to do for the committees, boards, the Commission, staff must have the information in the packages and distribute Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 39 of 51 them well in advance SO that the members of these bodies have enough time to review the materials; said that, for staff to. have basically 24-hours to look at something like this and not really have a chance to respond to it, he does not think it is fair; added that staff has looked at it, it is Director Litchet's Department and General Manager Gretchen Schneider, they should at least be able to provide some feedback on what PB Chair Normile has written; noted staff has scrambled in the last 24 hours, and it is only fair that the Planning Board hears from staff on this before the Planning Board goes forward and sends this to the City Commission; and repeated he does not think it is fair. PB Chair Normile stated that this is a fair comment. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he feels the same way; added that he hoped this would be part of the packet SO that he would have time to respond to some of PB Chair Normile' s points, which are valid and worth taking time to understand and respond to; said that hej just had a chance to go through it, and he thinks he is the odd man out here; stated that he agrees with the boundaries of this Board, and noted that he and PB Chair Normile have a difference of opinion; pointed out that in Major and Minor Conditional Uses, he feels that the Planning Board'sjurisdiction and decision power ends when their decision is made, explained that if the Planning Board does not agree with the Conditional Uses they do not approve the project; added that if there are Conditional Uses that the Planning Board does not know if they are regulated or not, then the Planning Board has the power not to approve the project; and noted that to deny a project based on the argument that Code Enforcement might not be carried out the way that the Planning Board thinks it should be carried out, he does not think that is a reason to deny. PB Member Morriss stated that this does not come from the Planning Board it comes from the audience's comments. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that the Planning Board cannot deny a project because they think the Code may not be enforced. PB Member Morriss stated that he does not recall the Planning Board has ever done that. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he thinks this is the way it is going, because this is what this document is about. PB Member Gannon stated that this is about reviewing the effectiveness of what is driving that, and the Planning Board is saying that they have evidence of the ineffectiveness, anecdotally, and they want to find out if that is just anecdotal and should be dismissed, or if there are systemic changes to be considered. PB Member Ohlrich noted that there is a difference between violations of Conditional Use Permits and violations that occur during the course of construction, with unkept construction debris, and things flying into windows, sO, really, this discussion is about two different aspects of Code Enforcement. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that it is the job of the Building Department to regulate, it is not the job of the Planning Board. PB Chair Normile stated that the Planning Board monitors the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan, and they are in the Comprehensive Plan. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked how the Building Department's site inspections are part of the Comprehensive Plan; added that construction and safety site inspections, roadway closures, sidewalk closures are not part of the Comprehensive Plan, those are specific construction issues, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 40 of 51 they are dealt with at the DRClevel, and through the Building Department; and pointed out that OSHA is the authority that governs site safety. PB Chair Normile stated that may be what is found out, that OSHA is not coming around enough, for instance. PB Chair Normile stated that she loves the idea of an advisory board and not having the Planning Board do this. PB Vice Chair Blumetti agreed. PB Chair Normile said that if the Planning Board wanted to do that, then the Planning Board can ignore all the legal mumble jumble on what she just distributed, because that takes it out all-together. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he would like to hear from City Staff on that. PB Member Morriss stated that he wants to remove what he presented; explained that it was pointed out to him that it casts a shadow on City Staff, and he does not want to do that; pointed out that his only real point was that there is an ad-hoc committee to ask these questions; that is a simple way to phrase what he would like to contribute; said that questions are asked in these meetings, and he wants to be able to give a confident answer that "Yes" or "No," there is a group that has done this study and the Planning Board has full knowledge that what the Planning Board says will be enforced, that is all he wants; added that if there is a way to remove from the record what he submitted, he would like to do that, and maybe revise it and send it back in; and requested Attorney Connolly's advice. Attorney Connolly stated that if he wants to, he could submit another one, because this is a public document, and it has been entered in to the record forever. PB Member Morriss stated he will override it with an explanation. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the Planning Board should discuss this at another meeting. Attorney Connolly pointed out that the next PB Meeting includes a public hearing that, he suspects, will last 6 hours. PB Chair Normile asked what the Planning Board thinks about an Advisory Board, or an ad-hoc committee. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he would like to hear about it and what it means, and he also would like to hear from Director Litchet. PB Member Ohlrich explained that an ad-hoc committee is convened for a single purpose, and when they are finished with their job, the committed is disbanded. PB Member Gannon stated that the Tree Advisory Committee is making recommendations for changes to the Code; added that the Planning Board can say that they have seen issues, and they feel that they can be researched and addressed, not necessarily by the Planning Board, and recommend to the City Commission some action, such as an ad-hoc committee; stated that it would be helpful to get staff's input on this at the next meeting, and it can be continued beyond that. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if the ad-hoc committee will include City staff. PB Member Morriss stated that it has to include City staff. PB Vice Chair Blumetti agreed; and stated that this essentially takes the Planning Board out of it. PB Member Gannon added a PB representative should be there who could speak to these issues and inform the other people, that these things really happen, they come up, and that is the reason this is a topic to be discussed. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she likes that PB Member Morriss recommended a time frame, within six months; added that it is not uncommon when an ad-hoc committee is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 41 of 51 established, to say that the committee will specifically focus on this, this, and this, and it will be done with its job within this period of time. PB Member Gannon noted that the Tree Advisory Committee was told to finish their work by January 2019, but they were not finished, they are not disbanded, they are still continuing. PB Member Morriss stated that this is a charged issue, everyone is upset about this. PB Vice Chair Blumetti disagreed, pointing out that not everybody is upset, maybe the people that speak with PB Member Morriss are upset, but the general statement that everybody is upset, is not true; added that he can guarantee that everybody is not upset that Cask and Ale's garage door is open at 11:00 P.M., some people are, but not everybody, and whether that is a violation or not, he agrees, it needs to be resolved, but to think that everybody is upset about this, it is not true. PB Member Morriss said enough people are upset with that, let's put it that way. PB Vice Chair Blumetti disagreed with that. PB Chair Normile stated that PB Vice Chair Blumetti has to come to some of the Community meetings, CCNA and other meetings. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that he has his own community and hears what people say, it may not be a formal group but he is still part of the community, he is active in AIA, and he attends other group functions, and these particular issues do not come up, or if they do, they are not that big of an issue, or people feel opposite about it. PB Member Ohlrich stated that even if they are not upset about it, it is a violation of the establishment's Conditional Use Permit, and that is worth something for sure, if it is even happening. PB Chair Normile stated that looking into things is all about determining where the disconnect is. PB Chair Normile invited Director Litchet to speak. Mr. Litchet, Director of Development Services, introduced himself for the record and said he has been sworn; stated that he is confused after the last two meetings; said that he wants this Board to understand that staff welcomes the opportunity for process improvement in both construction staging and Code compliance, because staff is always looking to get better; added that he also has an understanding of how a successful proces-improvement process looks and works, and it includes good communications between staff and those suggesting the review; stated that there needs to be joint agreement on the issues that will be reviewed, there should be specifics and a joint determination of who has the skills and expertise to make the recommendations; added that he needs to know what staff members need be involved, and there needs to be a reasonable timeframe for the review; pointed out that he does not think there should be predetermined outcomes; added that he does not know of a process with predetermined outcomes that has been successful; stated that what has been utilized to this point has not been successful, in terms of how this is going on; noted that the issue was put on the last Planning Board agenda, no back up materials were provided to staff untill hours before the meeting, staff received a document from PB Chair Normile, which she called a stream of consciousness, he sat in this Commission Chamber, the only person here... PB Chair Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 42 of 51 Normile interrupted and asked if Director Litchet was referring to the last meeting. Director Litchet said that at the last PB meeting, PB Chair Normile described the document she handed out, which came in three hours before the meeting, she described it as a stream of consciousness that she wanted to discuss; said Planning Director Cover let Director Litchet know, sO he came to the meeting; said he was the only person here, the Planning Director, as the Planning Board's Secretary, and the Attorney suggested that maybe the Planning Board wants to hear from staff, but he was not invited to participate in that conversation; added that communication is important; stated that the document seemed to cover both construction safety issues and also the City's Code compliance formal process; said that the matter was continued to this meeting, and again, as Planning Director Cover just said, no information was available until yesterday; added that he didn't even have the document PB Member Ohlrich was reading from earlier this evening; said that now he is confused, is the Planning Board pursuing just process improvements or something else, and part of that comes from the discussion PB Member Morriss just had; added that he appreciates what PB Member Morriss offered, but again, PB Morriss sent out a statement that says that he wanted an investigation as to whether there were problematic relationships between staff and offenders. PB Member Morriss stated that he suggested that be one of the questions to be asked, because those questions are asked of him; added that all he is saying is that the Planning Board cannot really have this conversation with staff without the City Commission's: approval, that is what this is supposed to be about. Director Litchet stated that when PB Member Morriss said, "is there a problematic relationship between staff," Director Litchet spoke with PB Member Morriss and asked him if he is implying any sort of corruption, to which PB Member Morriss responded, "No, not with your staff, but people are concerned and they are gossiping because of the timeframe it is taking for certain buildings to be demolished, and they wonder if there is improper relationship between a Magistrate and the property owner. - Director Litchet stated that he wants to be clear on the record that this is related to that Code Compliance Order, because he thinks it is important, as this moves forward, in case it gets appealed up anywhere; noted that, Mr. Ellis, who is the Magistrate who hears many of the City's cases, has property holdings on the North Trail, and he recused himself from the Beg's cases because he wanted to avoid even an appearance of impropriety; added that he [Director Litchet] also has recused himself from prosecuting that case because Mr. Beg said that he [Director Litchet] was unfair and too harsh, and when that happens, he recuses himself and turned it over to other staff members, who actually coordinated with the City Attorney's office in that matter, again to avoid any appearance of impropriety; noted that it is important to have this on the record, when he sees a public record that includes such a statement; added that he is sure that Mr. Rothstein is very aware, and he will want to respond to it; stated that Compliance does not have to be a political process, each case is unique and decisions need to rest on evidence and mitigating circumstances presented, due process has to be followed, and the result has to be fair; pointed out that he has been here for 31 years, he has handled over 20,000 code compliance cases, and he only had one case overturned in Circuit Court, SO he thinks that the City has a fairly good process, it can certainly can be looked Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 43 of 51 at, and it can certainly can be made better, however, any allegations of any impropriety like that has to be addressed, and it has to be addressed on the record and that is clearly his intent; stated that he wanted to discuss the DeMarcay but that comes later; said that he feels that he is getting beat up; noted that he brought this up to the Planning Board, because he did not feel they were following the rules that the Planning Board had adopted;said that the last thing he wants to say is that he would also like to encourage this Local Planning Agency to take a look at the root causes of some of the things Planning Board Members have brought up; stated that he did not create zero-lot-line development, and now the City has zero-lot-line development where there used to be big setbacks before; it is a zoning issue; said the City has an excellent Planning Director, who has already stated that he will take this on; said this [the Planning Board] is the Local Planning Agency, SO get to the root of the problem; said that is the root of the problem, not that the City cannot do better construction wise, and construction staging; repeated that the Planning Board has to look at that; pointed out that the City has a Board of Rules and Appeals, which can be broughti in on that, because they have a group of experts; said that staff is looking at that every day, they are trying to work on that, but there is a root problem, and the Planning Board can be part of the solution; said that there has been talk about economic vitality on the North Trail, he can knock down all the buildings and leave all the vacant lots the Planning Board wants, but that does not make the North Trail economically viable, because it does not offer an incentive for redevelopment; added that the City has two Overlay Districts that have not been successful; pointed out that this is on Planning Director Cover's list, and he [Director Litchet] is working with Director Cover's S staff on this; stated that it has to happen, it is a key part of it; added that the City has some Development Standards that staff has to review; said the City used to do Zoning Text Amendments, and every time staff noticed a problem staff would bring it forward; noted staff has not done that for four years because of the pending adoption of the Form Based Code which is now not moving forward; noted that staff is frustrated too about that; pointed out that staff also gets frustrated when they look back and see Special Exceptions from the 1990s, Conditional Uses from the 2000s, that have condition after condition after condition on them, and, as PB Vice Chair Blumetti rightfully said, maybe at some point, if something has to have sO many conditions to be approved, maybe we should take a stronger. look at it, and ask if that is really what we want to do, or can we change some of the Zone District standards, and say to the applicant that they cannot ask for some of these things; said if the idea is that the City has to have an inspector out every night to monitor every condition, PB Member Gannon is right, he has a packet that General Manager Schneider provided him that shows all of the conditions; said that there are hundreds of conditions on things that span for twenty five years; staff would love to enforce each and every one of them; stated he has five inspectors now, he used to have many more, and now he concentrates a lot on residential areas heavily impacted by the crisis with all the foreclosures; added that staff focused on the residential areas, that is what he thought the City Commission wanted, he made that report in his budget presentations, and he asked if they wanted additional inspectors; stated that he welcomes the opportunity, if the Planning Board says more compliance inspectors are needed, they can help get that, and if the community wants more let's do that, but let's do it together; pointed out that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 44 of 51 we cannot do it in this type of a system, where staff does not get to participate; and concluded by expressing appreciation for the opportunity to speak. PB Chair Normile apologized for not asking Director Litchet to speak at the last meeting because she did not think that he wanted to be on the spot, it was her error; said that she knew he was in the meeting but she did not know if he wanted to speak, because the Planning Board would have liked to haveheard from him; added that she does not think this is aimed at him, or his Department; said that she knows that he handles a lot of Code Enforcement, but she thinks that right now he has hit on other reasons that these codes are not having the effect that they might have; added that this conversation from the experts, which is his Department, who can say lot-line to lot-line causes these problems, then that becomes a higher priority; stated that he and his Department are the people who know what needs to be looked at, and that is part of what this conversation is about, sO he should not feel that this is aimed at him; said that, she knows that he is in charge of Code Enforcement; added that the thoughts that he just shared with the Planning Board point at fifteen different places to look; noted that his Department in her mind would be the first place that the Planning Board would go to talk; said that she does not want to get off on the wrong foot about this, because his Department has the experts on this issue; noted that there are some issues that are: not working well, and the Planning Board and his staff can work together to make them better; added that if he needs more people, maybe the Planning Board can help him get that, she has no doubt that he needs more people; and stated that the impetus here is to make things better for the City, not to make things worse for his Department, and he probably has more ideas than anybody on how to do that. PB Member Ohlrich stated that maybe the way the Planning Board went about this was not exactly the best, but she can assure Director Litchet that her personal intentions are to be helpful to the citizens as well as his Department; added that it may be that ad-hoc committee or study will conclude more staff is needed; said that all Planning Board Members mean to be helpful, not harmful; explained that the reason he did not have the document she prepared, which was a simple "Whereas" motion resolution with a "Now therefore be it resolved... 1 conclusion, is that it did not occur to her that she should send it to him, but she is not SO sure she should have sent it directly to him if she had thought of it; and said she would have thought that staff would have forwarded it to him. Director Litchet stated that he has seen some but not all, it may have to do with when things come in. PB Member Ohlrich said she sent it to staff yesterday. Director Litchet stated that timing is important to give people the opportunity to review it. PB Member Morriss stated that he thinks they are all in this together, trying to get things better for the City; noted that Director Litchet has the level of expertise, and maybe the Planning Board is as frustrated with this as he is; apologized for anything he may have said that may have been disparaging; added that maybe he got hypersensitive to the degree of paranoia and conspiracy theories that are going on nationwide, and he wants to quiet those voices SO that everyone can get to work to solving these problems. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 45 of 51 Director Litchet stated that everyone has to be careful in a public setting as to what type of allegations, or whatever they want to call it, they throw out there, because everyone reads this stuff, and you cannot take it back; stated that he wants to be very clear that when PBI Member Morriss says "staff" and it looks like a corruption or allegation charge, he, Director Litchet, will be all over: it, because he has been with the City thirty one years, and he is not going out with anything like that; added that he has a good staff; thanked PB Member Morriss for recognizing that, and added that the City has a good Magistrate; stated that people gossip; and asked if a Planning Board Member should write things this way. PB Member Morriss said it was a mistake, and he understands it to be. PB Member Gannon concurred with Director Litchet's statement that the Planning Board needs to get to the root of the problem; stated that the genesis of this was that the Planning Board was seeing a disconnect, they hear staff saying all the things are being done, they hear from the public making comments that put that into doubt; added that the Planning Board wants to put that to rest, they want to reinforce that staff is really doing good, and if they find areas where things can be done more effectively or more efficiently, then those recommendations should be made; noted that he thinks that is what Director Litchet is saying, to identify the root causes sO that things can be improved; said, lets improve it, whether it is just operational changes or whether it is Code changes; noted that the way to get there, he thinks, should be a collaborative way; pointed out that the Planning Board is trying to understand the problem sO then they can have a discussion about ways to move forward; expressed appreciation for what Director Litchet is saying; said that he thinks they are in agreement that there should be aj joint approach to doing this, and whether it is the same model that was done with the Tree Advisory Board, or a different model like an ad-hoc committee, it is open; recommended that the Planning Board ask staff to bring at the: next meeting suggestions on how best to frame this and discuss the issue going forward; and asked if the Planning Board needs City Commission approval to take certain actions. PB Vice Chair Blumetti thanked Director Litchet for bringing clarity to this issue; stated that Director Litchet has a thirty one year career and he has a lot to offer to this discussion; said that he asked if City staff will be in the ad-hoc committee because you cannot have an ad-hoc committee without City staff regarding this issue; noted that Director Litchet gave the Planning Board the avenue that the Planning Board should highly consider, including amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; added that the Planning Board is looking at the effect of a bigger problem; repeated that Director Litchet pretty much spelled it out for the Planning Board, it is changing the way the City is creating overlay districts, changing the setbacks and things like that, those are things the Planning Board can recommend, people have issues with these things, and that is where the Planning Board can make a change, not with the enforcement of the Code, that is their [Director Litchet staff's] job, and he wanted to reinforce that; and thanked Director Litchet for the clarity. PB Chair Normile asked if the Planning Board can invite Director Litchet in general to be part of these conversations, whether he wants to have something to say or not that is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 46 of 51 up to him, she just does not want to put him on the spot, because the Planning Board Members are just discussing things among themselves trying to figure out where they are going, but he is invited every time there is discussion about this, and be part of that, because he can offer guidance, and clearly the Planning Board needs some guidance. Director Litchet stated that he was confused because the last time both Attorney Connolly and Planning Director Cover suggested that staffs speak, and it did not happen. PB Chair Normile said that she is new at this, it was her first night as the Chair, and she did not pick up on their suggestion at all. Director Litchet stated that he and his staff will be happy to work with this Board in any way the Board wants; added that he thinks it will be a combination of both operational and other changes that need to be looked at, and he thinks that the Planning Board and City staff have to work together for things to get better; emphasized that this requires communication, and that is all hei is asking. PB Chair Normile said if Director Litchet has any suggestions that he wants to submit in writing, sO that the Planning Board can work with them, that would be terrific. Director Litchet thanked the Planning Board and said he hopes to have this opportunity next month. Attorney Connolly asked to take a moment to refocus, because in his opinion the Planning Board has greatly exceeded their authority, and he wants to bring them back; referred to the January 9, 2019 Minutes that were included in this evening's agenda, under Presentation of Topics by the Planning Board, and read the following excerpt: PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY THE PLANNING BOARD Study of Current Code Enforcement Practices Planning Board Chair Normile discussed again, zohat she brought up in the last meeting, which coas the potential for the Planning Board to assist the City in Code Enforcement difficulties and/or procedures; stated that all Planning Board Members have been approached by the audience at Planning Board meetings, and she zuas approached by the Police Department about difficulties regarding Code enforcement. Attorney Connolly stated that this is what started all of this, and that is why he said from the beginning that the Planning Board has nojurisdiction over Code Enforcement; said that he is going to beg the Planning Board one more time, please, not to talk about Code Enforcement again; noted that Director Litchet put something on the table that is in the Planning Boards bailiwick; said that namely Director Litchet spoke about the fact that when Duany came to town about twenty years ago, he talked about this zero-lot- line, and, twenty years ago, that is what was approved; noted that for the first ten years there were no buildings coming out of the ground because of the recession, and now you are seeing buildings coming out of the ground with zero-lot-line and nobody likes that, sO are we talking about Code Compliance; and said please, he is begging them to throw that out, and take Director Litchet's S suggestion, and start talking about zero-lot- lines which is something you have jurisdiction over. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 47 of 51 PB Chair Normile asked if the Planning Board should not be discussing or recommending a committee to look into this. Attorney Connolly said that this is what he said last month too, that is his opinion; added that he and the Planning Board have a difference of opinion, and that is fine, he is not taking it personally; added that this is what happens when one gets off the Reservation; noted that there is a lot anxiety at the table right now, because we have gone places we have noj jurisdiction and authority to be, we are doing things that we have never done before, and we do not know who is protecting our back, and we are all a little anxious; suggested to go back to what the Planning Board is here to talk about, and one of the things we are here to talk about is the Zoning Code; repeated that Director Litchet threw to the Planning Board a very good bone, and he suggested they take it. PB Chair Normile stated that this has been brought up and Planning Director Cover is working on those issues, how to change the Zoning Code, what he wants to recommend, and she thinks that will be coming their way; pointed out that the Planning Board is reacting to what they are hearing at these meetings; added that the Planning Board has the right to react, and see if they can initiate something, or at least give some advice to the City Commission, or alert them to the need for something; stated that she was not feeling anxiety, she said she felt really good at hearing from Director Litchet, because staff has come before the Planning Board, and they have spoken about these issues before, but nobody came back, as the Planning Board had asked them to come back, to tell Planning Board how things can be improved; noted that the Planning Board never heard anything; added that the conversation is really valuable, and if it takes some anxiety to get that conversation going, she will take it all day long, because Director Litchet has a lot to offer and the Planning Board can help with what he offers that needs to be done; and concluded that this is the point. PB Member Morriss stated that another bone the Planning Board can throw back is that they are hearing that there is lack of staff, maybe the Planning Board can help with that; added that this may be well out of the Planning Board's jurisdiction, but the Planning Board, in addition to plan approval, has a voice, and that is what they are trying to exercise, that they have a connection to the rest of the community. PB. Member Ohlrich asked if the Planning Board went to the City Commission, and they acknowledged that it is beyond their jurisdiction, but said what they have heard, described what they were hoping help to do, and suggested that an ad-hoc committee comprised of a Planning Board representative, might be a good way to go; explained that it is sort of a performance review, it is good on both sides, and if a person needs some improvement, the performance review identifies that, if the person is doing well, then you get the merit and the accommodation from a good solid performance review, SO let's do an ad-hoc committee. PB Chair Normile said it is not the person, it may be the surrounding circumstances that are conspiring against whatever good intentions people have, and that can be obvious. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 48 of 51 PB Member Gannon stated that he was thinking not SO much about Code compliance; noted that, initially, what was driving this was the Conditional Use compliance, and those are decisions the Planning Board makes when they grant the Conditional Use; added that this is where he saw the Planning Board's ability to make decisions on whether to grant a Conditional Use be impacted by what the Planning Board thinks is affecting the intensity of the neighborhood, and the impact on the: neighborhood; added that the Planning Board is asked to make those decisions, and that is what was driving his suggestion to do a study; said that it may be classified as Code compliance but it is more for the Conditional Uses, and the impacts of a zero-lot-line on construction staging; and said that trying to get to the root causes, the public is responding, the Planning Board is hearing that, SO let's start to sort it out. PB Vice Chair Blumetti pointed out that the Planning Board has the authority to deny the project, SO if there is a Conditional Use that you do not agree with, you can deny the project; added that Attorney Connolly is begging the Planning Board to drop this, and the Planning Board needs to: reevaluate what they are trying to do; said that the Planning Board needs to take a look at the Zoning Code, and what is in the Planning Board's jurisdiction, and come up with some suggestions for the Planning Department and even, perhaps, the Building Department, but the Planning Department, about what is the root cause of these problems; concluded that he agrees with the City Attorney on this. PB Member Ohlrich recommended that the Planning Board bring this up for discussion again at the next meeting; added that the Planning Board has a lot more information to think about and they officially invite Director Litchet to the table to participate in the discussion; and said that maybe the Planning Board will end the next meeting with a totally new recommendation than they have thought of SO far. PB Chair Normile said that she would like to hear a recommendation from Director Litchet as to what is the best thing that he can see that can assist with the mountain of things he and his department need to get done. PB Member Ohlrich asked if she needs to put her recommendation in a motion. Secretary Cover asked to which upcoming meeting she was referring. PB Member Ohlrich: said the next regular PB Meeting. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if there are going to be back-up materials. PB Member Morriss said yes, his own corrected letter. PB Member Gannon said that the Planning Board should be looking for input from staff, what is staff's S recommendation on what is the best way to address the issues and move forward. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he thought the Planning Board were not allowed to ask staff. PB Member Gannon responded that the Planning Board cannot ask staff to do a study, but they can ask what staff's reaction to the issues are; added that this is what he thought Director Litchet was saying, when he said that he did not have time to evaluate this and say this is a good suggestion, or this is not; and concluded that they should defer to staff and ask them to give some suggestions on this. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 49 of 51 Attorney Connolly said that the Planning Board knows his feelings about that. PBMember Morriss stated thatitis agreed that this will be on the March 13,2019 agenda, to finalize what the Planning Board will do, or ask the City Commission, if anything, and asked if the Planning Board needs to take action in order to put this on the Agenda. Secretary Cover said he will put it on the agenda. PB Member Gannon stated that he had an item that involves Director Litchet and General Manager Schneider; said that he. had a question about an item that was brought before the Planning Board on September 12, 2018, the Lido Beach Pavilion Planning Board Special Meeting; stated that he went back through the materials that were provided to the Planning Board, and it turns out that the material that was provided at the City Commission meeting included items that were not provided to the Planning Board, namely materials of the Lido Key Residents Association Ad-Hoc Lido Pool Committee, which, he understands, was the origination, dated January 17, 2012; noted that when this was presented to the City Commission, it was pointed out that the residents, through this Lido Pool Committee chaired by Carl Shoffstall who was president of the Lido Residents Association, handed in recommendations such as there should be cabanas available at market rates; said that this was a huge contentious issue that the Planning Board Members had to discuss, but they did not have this evidence in front of them, and he is baffled as to why. Attorney Connolly stated that he does not recall what was in the Planning Board package, but he recalls that it was discussed during the public hearing. PB Member Gannon stated that he could not find it in the evidence submitted. PB Member Ohlrich said she did not have that. Attorney Connolly recalled that General Manager Schneider testified about that, she is nodding affirmatively [from her seat in the audience], and he recalls that being part of the conversation. PB Member Gannon stated that this was not the substantial evidence put into the record, it might have had an influence on the decision, and he was appalled when he was going through the City Commission background material, since the Planning Board had already looked at that, and saw that this was not in the Planning Board's packet, he even looked at the downloaded agenda packet, and it was not in the records on line either; and said he would ask staff, when presenting, if there is information like this, that is provided to the City Commission but was not provided to the Planning Board, he felt lost there. Attorney Connolly stated that whoever was the case planner is the person who puts together the packet, and he/she has to make the decision of what to put in; and added that he has independent recollection that this was a topic of discussion. PB Member Gannon said that he did not have time to go back to the minutes, he was talking about this document, and asked if General Manager Schneider has any comments to offer about that. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 50 of 51 General Manager Schneider introduced herself for the record, agreed with Attorney Connolly that this proposal was discussed at the meeting; said, in fact, she gave testimony about sitting in the living rooms of the residents of Lido Beach Association at the time all these things were discussed; added that, at that time, this document was linked to the Lease Agreement, and staff was advised not to discuss it because the meeting was not about approving the Lease Agreement; added that staff was not able to produce that document until after the Planning Board meeting, that is when staff was finally able to track that specific document down; and noted that it was discussed, staff talked about the elements of it, and talked about how what was proposed is what the community had asked for. PB Member Gannon stated that it would have been helpful to have it as part of the background material, because as she said, there was public testimony about it, but having the actual bulleted item and seeing the recommendations would be helpful; and thanked General Manager Schneider for explaining this. PB Member Gannon stated that he had another item; referred to the January 2019 PB Meeting; said that there was a lot of discussion on transportation planning, and the Planning Board had a lot of questions about the previous work that was done, which was called "Get Moving Sarasota;" noted that he found it, there was a whole website around that, and that is no longer there; pointed out that the "Sarasota In Motion" website is not there yet, and asked if there is an update as to when the "Sarasota In Motion" website will be up. Planning Director Cover stated that the kick-off meeting with the consultant is in late February, SO the Planning Board will be seeing it coming up shortly thereafter. PB Member Gannon noted that in the presentation there were also references to other documents, and questioned whether they were added to the website; explained that, since this was an action item for staff, staff said they will look into it and will provide the Planning Board with an update, and that has not been provided, he just wanted a confirmation as to whether or not this is still a pending item and the Planning Board will receive information. Planning Director Cover said that staff will be able to bring an update to the next meeting, March 13th, because, as hel has already said, there is an upcoming meeting with the consultant who will be doing a lot of the work on the website and after that meeting staff will have those answers to the Planning Board. PBI Member Gannon referred to the January meeting and said that the Planning Director Cover had talked about the selection of a vendor for bike sharing, and he was expecting to have that shortly; and asked if this is still pending. Planning Director Cover stated that they will have to go out again because from the time they sent out their requests for proposals to the time they had the interviews, the technology had changed SO much that staff felt they had to go out again noting the shift is going to electric bikes, which do not need the permanent docks any longer, they need technology and staff has to identify Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 51 of 51 locations to be able to control where these things are. PB Chair Normile asked if these are scooters. Planning Director Cover said that every company they spoke with also does scooters, sO probably staff has to make this a component of the RFP, SO right now staff is looking at a 90-day trial on scooters; stated staff knows they definitely want to do bike sharing, but for scooters they have received a lot of positive feedback and a lot of negative feedback, and they will try it out in a 90-day trial; and said staff thought by now they would have the company selected and be off and running, but it is coming. Everyone wished Attorney Connolly a good couple of weeks. Attorney Connolly reminded everyone that there are two meeting S in March, on March 6th and on March 13th. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:02 PM. 2 honice Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Eileen W. Normile, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]