CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE. PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Vald Svekis, Chair Members Present: Robert Lindsay, Vice Chair Members Chris Gallagher, Patrick Gannon, and David Morriss Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Neghborhod & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager-Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Svekis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were: no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICETOTHE 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 ofConduct General Manager Smith, (as Secretary oft the Planning Board), recited the pledge of conduct. B. Non Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings ELAN ROSEMARY APARTMENTS (BLVD OF THE ARTS/NORTH LEMON AVENUE/7m STREET): Application 15-SV-08 requests approval to vacate and relocate a City utility easement for a sanitary sewer line which runs through the property located between Boulevard of the Arts, North Lemon Avenue, and 7th Street, in the Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district and the Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD). The purpose of the vacation is to allow for construction of an apartment complex with a structured parking garage, to be known as Elan Rosemary Apartments. (Lucia Panica, Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2of 17 Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez introduced herself for the record and stated that she was making the presentation because Planner Panica was in a conference; briefly described the application stating it was a request for an easement vacation in regards to the planned project Elan Rosemary Apartments; stated that the subject area was located at the northwest quadrant of N. Lemon Avenue and 6th Street, and continued north on Lemon Avenue past 7th Street; pointed out that the easement was placed there in 1984 for a waste water utility line; using an illustration she pointed out the current easement was running through the property where the applicants plan to locate a building, and they are requesting to relocate it and to move it along the northeast, and the east property lines of the subject parcel; noted that the two parts of the easement would be connected utilizing 7th Street right-of-way, and the entire easement will be connected to an existing City line located midway between 7th and 8th Streets; added that the proposal had been reviewed by the City Utilities Department who had no objections; added that the project was submitted as an administrative site plan because it is in the downtown area and does not require a public hearing process; pointed out that staff recommends reordering the recommendations to better reflect the processes to be followed; and submitted additional documentation with the revisions to staff recommendations, which are: Adopt a motion to find Easement Vacation 15-SV-08 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Easement Vacation subject to the following conditions: 1. 2 Prior to the abandonment or removal oft the existing wastewater line and utility easement, the existing utility easement and wastewater line must be relocated to the location acceptable and approved by the City Utilities Department. The new waste water line must be fully. functioning at the time the existing wastewater line is abandoned or removed. In no way will service be disrupted for any of the properties serviced by the existing wastewater line. 2. 3. Prior to recording a Release ofl Easement) for the existing easement; the applicant shall deliver afully executed Grant of Easement in recordable form to the Cityfor the replacement easement. 3. +. Prior to or concurrent with the issuance ofa vertical building permit for development approved by 15-ASP-04, eenstFwCtiON on the subject property, the existing wastewater line must be removed or properly abandoned by means acceptable to the City Utilities Department and the main must be capped. Department shall be provided prior to issuance of a certificate ofo occupancy for any unit or structure onsite. Certification of completion and acceptance oft this work by the City Utilities. Applicant Presentation: Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting & Development, agent for Greystar GP II, LLC, introduced himself, Lewis Stoneburner, the developer/ owner of Greystar, and Kurt Jensen, the project's civil engineer; explained that this application was an easement relocation, they had reviewed staff's S recommended conditions and understand that the new easement has to be fully operational prior to vertical construction; and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 17 referring to the Architectural Site Plan for Elan Rosemary Apartments pointed out the location of the current easement and the proposed location of the new easement. Since the new easement will be located on both private land and public right-of-way, PB member Gallagher asked who would have the responsibility to respond to potential problems in the sanitary sewer line that will be built in the easement. Mr. Jensen stated it is the City's responsibility to address problems with the line. PB member Gannon asked if there was a sewer line along 7th Street, and where the existing line would be capped. Mr. Jensen responded that there was no line there now, the applicant would put the line in, the street would be torn up and would be restored by the applicant; and pointed out on the site plan the locations where the existing line would be capped. PB member Gannon asked how long of an interruption of service would be required by this process. Mr. Jensen explained that once the new line was tested and ready to operate, the flow would be diverted to the new line, and then the existing lines would be capped; and added that this was usually done overnight, handled within a few-hour period, thus resulting in minimal disruption of services. There were no affected persons or citizen testimony. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. PB member Gallagher moved to find Easement Vacation 15-SV-08 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the zoning code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Easement Vacation subject to the conditions are revised by staff during this public hearing, with the new order of conditions and the corrected language regarding "vertical permit" in Condition 3, as follows: Adopt a motion to find Easement Vacation 15-SV-08 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Easement Vacation subject to the following conditions: 1. 2 Prior to the abandonment or removal of the existing wastewater line and utility easement, the existing utility easement and wastewater line must be relocated to the location acceptable and approved by the City Utilities Department. The new waste water line must be fullyf functioning at the time the existing wastewater line is abandoned or removed. In no way will service be disrupted for any of the properties serviced by the existing wastewater line. 2.3. Prior to recording a Release of Easement for the existing easement; the applicant shall deliver a fully executed Grant of Easement in recordable for to the City for the replacement easement. 3. +. Prior to or concurrent with the issuance ofa vertical building permit for development approved by 15-ASP-04, censtFHetien on the subject property, the existing wastewater line must be removed or properly abandoned by means acceptable to the City Utilities Department and the main must be capped. Department shall be provided prior to issuance of a certificate ofoccupancy for any unit or. structure onsite. Certification of completion and acceptance of this work by the City Utilities. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 17 PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion PB member Gallagher stated this was a simple pipe realignment, a straight forward process, and all parties involved were in agreement SO he had nothing to add. Mr. Morriss had no further comments. The motion passed unanimously. C. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. HARVESTTABERNACIE CHURCH OF SARASOTA (3650 17rH STREET): Applications 15- SP-16 and 15-CU-03 requests Major Conditional Use and Site Plan approval to allow the expansion of the Harvest Tabernacle Church of Sarasota on property located in the Residential Multi Family-1 (RMF-1) zone district. The proposed development includes construction of a recreation center as an accessory to the church use and the applicant has proffered that no drug or alcohol counseling or treatment will occur at the facility. (COURTNEY MENDEZ, AICP,SENIOR PLANNER) APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Donald Neu, AICP, Neu Consulting, appeared and presented a PowerPoint presentation; identified the project team and the location of the project, stated the existing use was built in approximately 1980 and will be brought up to code, noted the conditional use requested is allowable under the existing zoning, stated the proposed use was a recreational center consisting of a gym floor, Christian classes and studies, a kitchen, after school tutoring, Pastoral counseling, a day care facility, an outside playground, theatrical training, and arts activities; stated the future land use classification and zoning were compatible with the surrounding area; stated based on input received at the Community Workshop the size of the proposed building had been scaled back and moved south on the site from what was originally planned due to the line of trees, and the playground area was moved north on the site away from the residential use; stated the arborist for the project had met the City arborist on-site on a couple of occasions; noted the standards in the zoning code had been exceeded; discussed the floor plan stating the building would consist of a recreational floor with al basketball court, a stage, offices, classrooms, and a day care center; discussed the landscaping plan noting the entire site would be brought up to code, the perimeter would be extensively landscaped, a code compliant modern stormwater system would be installed, additional trees would be planted in landscaped islands, and parking would be constructed per code requirements. Mr. Neu further stated the proposed use was more compatible with the surrounding area than the higher density multi-family that could be built, noted staff had stated in their report the proposal minimized the impacts to the site; stated a stipulation had been proffered that precluded community service uses such as rehabilitation, homeless shelter, and drug/alcohol treatment and/or counseling being offered on the site; and summarized by stating the project complied with all applicable regulations, water and sewer service was available, reclaimed water was available on site and would be used for Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 17 irrigating the landscaping, and noted the applicants had been sensitive to the neighbor' S concerns. PB member Gannon questioned if alternative plans had been considered that would further minimize the use of the site. Mr. Neu stated the proposed site plan was the smallest possible that accommodated the desired uses. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay questioned if the proffer not to offer drug and alcohol counseling included AA meetings, noting AA meetings are generally held in churches with no disruption to the: neighbors. Mr. Neu stated staff could provide better insight into that question. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated he did not want AA meetings precluded. Attorney Connolly stated AA meetings were likely not precluded however Ms. Mendez as case planner would make that code interpretation. PB Chair Svekis questioned if the grass parking area would be improved. Mr. Neu stated additional parking was being added to the site bringing it into compliance, noted hard parking and handicap parking would be located in a separate area, and stated grass parking areas were common for churches since those areas are not used on a regular basis and generate less runoff, pollution, etc. PB Chair Svekis questioned what mechanism would be used for draining the 80 parking spaces in the grassy area and where that was shown in the plans. Matt Morris, engineer for the project, appeared and stated the grass parking area was existing, no changes were being proposed to that area, the asphalt parking area that was being added would include catch basin inlets to collect runoff and direct it to the existing stormwater ponds, and noted if deficiencies were identified by SWFWMD those would be corrected. PB Chair Svekis stated he had visited the site, 40 of the 80 parking spaces and the playground were a lake, noted if the parking area is under water the parking requirements would not be met, and stated he was concerned that the plans didn't indicate drainage improvements for that area. Attorney Connolly stated drainage issues would be analyzed by SWFWMD and City staff during the building permit review process rather than the site plan process, and noted code requirements would have to be met prior to the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. PB Chair Svekis questioned how SWFWMD and City staff would know the parking area was covered in water at certain times noting if half of the parking spaces are unusable the code requirements would not be met. STAFF PRESENTATION: Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner, appeared and stated she agreed with the applicant's conclusions regarding staff's findings of consistency for the site plan and conditional use and the recommendations based on those findings; discussed the proposed conditions stating community services such as rehabilitation, homeless shelters, and drug/alcohol treatment or counseling are prohibited; noted the differentiation between community meetings (such as AA, which could be allowed) and formal drug and alcohol centers that provide active treatment by medical professionals; stated the uses are limited to those that are considered an accessory use to a religious institution which include day care centers; stated mass sheltering or overnight accommodations were prohibited; stated the conditions relating to the hours of operation for the day care and outdoor play area were based on information provided by the applicants and code requirements; stated additional documentation Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of17 would have to be provided prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit; and noted the last condition was a standard condition. PB: member Morriss stated the proposed proffer statement contained a double negativeand questioned if serving food to the public was considered a community service. Senior Planner Mendez stated the double negative had been corrected and confirmed serving food to the public would be considered a soup kitchen and therefore a community service. PB member Gannon questioned how two oak trees with a D.B.H. of greater than 30" compared to the standards in the code that talks about grand trees being larger than 24". Senior Planner Mendez stated of the two oak trees one was a laurel oak and one a live oak and noted only the live oaks were considered grand trees. Discussion ensued regarding the minimum size for oak trees to be considered grand trees, the number of grand trees proposed for removal, and which species are eligible for grand tree designation. PB member Gallagher questioned how a conditional use was different than the special exception that was granted approximately 20 years ago to an organization that has been problematic recently and what remedies were available now that are different than before. Senior Planner Mendez stated the conditional use process provides for a specific process for revocation of the conditional use that can be issued by the City Manager and appealed to the City Commission noting staff would pursue any issues via code enforcement before pursuing revocation of the conditional use. PB Chair Svekis requested Senior Planner Mendez comment on his concerns regarding the parking situation he discussed with the applicant. Senior Planner Mendez stated the grass parking area was existing; she understood Mr. Svekis' concerns regarding the standing water; stated preliminary review of drainage issues were conducted at the site plan level while detailed analysis were part of the SWFWMD permitting process and the City's stormwater requirements; noted the City's engineering staff performs the drainage analysis and she would make them aware of the concerns; and noted a condition could be included that addressed the concerns. AFFECTED PERSON TESTIMONY: Scotty Ledford appeared, stated he was a homeowner in Glen Oaks Manor and works with the Homeowners Association on various matters; stated there has been a lot of concern from the residents regarding the proposed project; the residents have been studying the issues and feel good about some findings but still had some concerns; stated he was also a realtor and had sold a lot of homes in Glen Oaks Manor; stated twelve homes overlook the site and have concerns regarding noise, etc.; stated the residents appreciated the applicant moving the playground and planting additional trees as requested by the residents; stated residents had attended meetings where proffers had been discussed; expressed concerns that the proffers address the issues of housing and overnight stays; reiterated the resident's opposition to a drug and/or alcohol treatment center being included especially since there would be a day care center also; stated the residents are happy the use is remaining a church and they want to be good neighbors but want to be sure the proffers address housing and substance abuse issues; and questioned if the proffers would apply to the building Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 17 only or the entire property. Attorney Connolly stated the proffers apply to the entire property and run with the land. CITIZEN INPUT: Maryellin Kirkwood appeared and stated her brother had considered purchasing in Glen Oaks Manor but declined when he found out a mega church was being constructed; stated many people routinely take a short cut from Beneva to 17th to Honore to get to University and I-75; questioned if the traffic study took into account the construction of the diamond at University and I-75 as well as the new mall; requested left hand turns onto 17th from the church be prohibited; stated she had been on the property in the springtime and there was a lot of standing water;; and questioned how the drainage would work. APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Mr. Neu appeared and stated a low 20 something percent of the allowed floor to area ratio was being used; the building footprint had been downsized to save some live oak trees; any trees that were proposed for removal were being replaced; they needed the parking to be functional; noted it was the height of the rainy season however he had been on the site earlier in the summer and there was no standing water then; stated if the detailed analysis indicated drainage improvements were needed those would be completed; and stated the church wanted to be a good neighbor. PB: member Gallagher questioned if municipal codes typically allow for standing water in a grass parking lot. Mr. Neu stated fill is not put in floodplains unless necessary; most codes have generous allowances for standing water in grass parking areas that are used sporadically; noted the parking area has to be usable for the church; yard drains would be installed if needed; and stated it would not be appropriate to install additional fill and/ or asphalt based on the conditions at the peak of the rainy season. PB member Gallagher requested Mr. Neu address the traffic concerns that were discussed, noting staff had found the traffic impacts deminimus. Mr. Neu appeared and stated staff had reviewed the traffic impacts, noted the day care center was the biggest use and it was not a large one; and stated church uses tend to be sporadic and not a peak time. PB member Gallagher questioned when peak time was. Mr. Neu stated peak time was 6-8 am and 4-6 pm. PB member Gannon questioned if grading would be an option to correct the drainage issue; if there was anything to prevent a left turn onto westbound 17th Street. Mr. Neu confirmed grading was an option and stated there were existing openings in the median on 17th Street to allow for left turns and noted traffic on Beneva would be right turn in and right turn out only. PB: member Gannon questioned the impacts of the traffic that would be generated by having games at the gym. Mr. Neu stated games were generally evenings and weekends versus at peak times. AFFECTED PERSONS REBUTTAL: There was no affected persons rebuttal. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of17 STAFF REBUTTAL: Senior Planner Mendez clarified there were actually four trees proposed for removal that based on their size and species could be deemed grand oaks. Discussion ensued. Mr. AI Hoffner, arborist for the applicants, appeared and stated there were four live oak trees that were 24" or greater that were proposed for removal. PB member Gallagher requested Mr. Hoffner point out the age of the trees and their expected life span. Mr. Hoffner stated he could discuss the issue in general, stated live oak trees are slow growing trees that take 15 - 20 years to achieve 24 inches while laurel oaks are much faster growing, have much shorter life spans, and are predisposed to rot and failure as they age; stated when he first visited the site he noticed the line of high quality of live oaks and his opinion was those should be the ones focused on; stated the applicants were very responsive to his recommendations by making the building smaller and shifting it south; and stated due to the large number of trees on the site there was no way to avoid all of the trees and/or grand trees on the site. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the trees being proposed for removal. Mr. Hoffner stated it was not practical to try to save a couple of trees immediately adjacent to the proposed building due to the impacts on the root systems. PB Chair Svekis questioned what wording would be appropriate for a proffer to address the parking issue he raised. Senior Planner Mendez suggested "Prior to the issuance of a building permit application the applicant shall submit a stormwater plan which both meets applicable land development code requirements and mitigates any area of frequent standing water within the grass parking area". PB Chair Svekis questioned if the definition of frequent meant whenever it rains. Senior Planner Mendez stated it could be every time it rains; stated she didn't want to include high end storm events that cause even paved parking areas to have temporary water impacts; and noted the preference is for the stormwater area to retain, with overflow going into the grass area before impacting any buildings. Discussion ensued. PB member Gallagher stated a proffer could step on the toes of expertise that the PB doesn't have; noted civil engineers, stormwater people, and land development regulations address grass parking lots; cautioned stepping into an area that would be addressed by other parts of the city; and noted if standing water became an issue the church would address it, otherwise people would not come to the services. PB Chair Svekis stated people would come and park somewhere else. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that would be an incentive for the church to improve the parking area. PB member Morriss stated you can't always plan for the worst case; noted PB Chair Svekis had visited the site at a time when there had been a lot of rain; noted the property had been unattended for years; stated engineers will come up with a solution to the problem; and questioned if the proposed proffer regarding use had enough teeth to satisfy the neighbors. Senior Planner Mendez stated a more general proffer had been proposed at the DRC level than what was provided in the recommended conditions presented to the PB, noting the language was consistent with that from the Community Workshop with the correction of the double negative. PB member Morriss questioned if Attorney Connolly felt the wording was strong enough to address the neighbor' S concerns. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was the case. PB member Gallagher questioned what language in the code provided for the ability of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of1 17 the City Manager to revoke a conditional use. Attorney Connolly stated Section IV.910, Subsection B.1 of the Zoning Code read, in part, "If construction of a conditional use has not been completed in accordance with the conditions of the approval, or if the use is not conducted consistent with any condition of approval, the City Manager may terminate the approval." PB member Gallagher questioned if a nuisance not specified in the conditions arose could the conditional use still be revoked. Attorney Connolly referenced Subsection B.2 of IV.910 states "Grounds for revocation may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. A change in intensity (character) beyond what was initially intended which affects the public health, safety and welfare since adoption of the conditional use; or b. Any violations of this Code, including any conditions attached to the conditional use, by the owner/operator of the use. Attorney Connolly noted he also typically puts language in the Planning Board resolution that the baseline for determination of a change of intensity (character) are the representations made at the Planning Board public hearing by the representatives of the applicant. PB member Morriss questioned if a conditional use had ever been revoked. Attorney Connolly stated he was not aware of any instances noting disputes are generally resolved through discussions. PB: member Gannon stated he was concerned about the loss of grand trees; noted staff stated in their analysis that efforts were taken in locating the building where it minimized the impacts on the trees; stated the Code states the PB should find the applicant had made all reasonable efforts not just "an effort"; and stated given there were two or three grand trees that were within a few feet of the proposed building a reasonable effort would be to reduce the building size. Senior Planner Mendez pointed out the PB may make a final determination if reasonable efforts had been made via their discussions; stated consideration had to be given to the entire root system rather than just the trunk of the tree; and noted the root system can be as large as the tree's canopy. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay noted if the tree is too close to the building it could cause damage to the foundation. Senior Planner Mendez confirmed that the tree health could be impacted as well as possible damage to the building foundation; and stated she apologized for the error in the number of grand trees being impacted however even though four grand trees would be removed she stood by her recommendations. PB member Gannon noted staff had cited Subsection 2 which is "all reasonable efforts" however did not cite Subsection 3 that states the PB had to find that to preserve the trees it would be necessary for at least 25% of the parking area or building area to be rendered unusable; stated based on what had been described, shortening the building size to accommodate that would appear to be much less than 25% SO the building could be made 10% smaller to accommodate the trees. PB member Morriss questioned if it would be appropriate to discuss the impacts of shrinking the building on the church's program. Discussion ensued. PB member Morriss questioned if Senior Planner Mendez was convinced the location and size of the building was optimal relative to the church's program while avoiding as many trees as possible. Senior Planner Mendez responded she relied on the information provided by the applicants; stated the applicants had reduced the size of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 17 and changed the location of the proposed building to minimize the impacts on the trees; noted the applicants had provided adequate separation from the adjoining residential; and stated if the building was shifted further south there could be compatibility issues. Discussion ensued regarding the wording of the proposed additional proffer. Mr. Neu appeared and suggested the proposed wording prior to issuance of building permit" be modified to read "at the time of submittal". Senior Planner Mendez stated her proposed wording allowed for simultaneous review. Mr. Neu stated he was satisfied as long as simultaneous review was proved for. PB member Gallagher questioned if the applicants agreed with the word "frequent". Mr. Neu stated it was arbitrary and unnecessary; stated he was not a fan of planning for worst case scenarios; stated if the area floods frequently it would be convenient for people to come and the church would have to fix it. PB member Gallagher stated the term "mitigate" was general and didn't mean the problem would have to be fixed. Mr. Neu stated that as was mentioned earlier the property had been neglected for a long time and once the engineering of the site occurred any necessary improvements to ensure practical use would be made sO he felt the condition was unnecessary. PB member Morriss suggested using the term "reasonable engineering standards". Discussion ensued. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated he was comfortable not including the condition noting it would not be a proffer if the PB imposed it on the applicants. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB member Gallagher made a motion to find Site Plan 15-SP-16 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance, find Conditional Use 15-CU-03 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code, and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions, subject to proffer #1 and conditions 2-5. PB member Morriss seconded the motion but with the inclusion of the additional proffer. PB Chair Svekis stated that would require an amendment to the proposed motion. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay seconded the motion as made by PB member Gallagher. PB member Morriss then proposed an amendment to the motion to include a condition that the grass parking area be analyzed by an engineer and mitigated to reasonable standards of the region, noting that would ensure the issue was addressed at the time of construction. Discussion ensued regarding the fact the code already requires that. PB member Morriss withdrew his proposed amendment to the motion. PB member Gannon questioned if the site plan could be approved without the conditional use. Attorney Connolly stated the site plan and conditional use went together. PB member Gallagher spoke to his motion stating having gone over the criteria he agreed with staff S analysis of the criteria; stated he felt there were remedies available to deal with the grass parking issue noting that while the language of the code could be stretched to mean buildings could only be built that fit into the trees on the site he didn't see it that way; stated the applicants had demonstrated a much larger FAR was allowed and had already reduced the building size; stated he felt Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 17 that ultimately there was some benefit to mitigating mature trees that are removed with a new generation of trees that contribute to the continuation of the tree canopy; stated the traffic impacts had been deemed deminimus; and stated the criteria had been met SO he supported the project. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated the drainage of the grass parking area would be handled through the normal building process; stated the church had an incentive to make the grass parking area work SO people would come; and stated there were a lot of trees on the site, in order to build some would have to be lost, and mitigating that with the planting of younger trees provided balance which he thought was a reasonable accommodation. PB: member Morriss stated he agreed with PB: members Gallagher and Lindsay regarding the trees; stated he was not comfortable with second guessing the church's program; and stated he appreciated PB: member Gallagher pointing out adding new trees as a remedy was better. Discussion ensued regarding the benefits of clear cutting land in certain site specific areas, the aesthetics of a consistent canopy, and the long term benefits of cycling of trees. PB member Gannon stated the conditional use was extremely well laid out and he applauded the plan as it would revitalize the area; stated he had concerns with the site plan and how the efforts did not match the code; stated the discussion regarding removing/adding trees made sense SO he would support the motion; stated the way the project was presented it did not appear to focus on saving grand trees; and stated he felt overall the project was worthwhile sO he would support it. PB Chair Svekis stated he was concerned because the code does not say that grass parking areas are dependent on rain and he did not understand how the effort goes on with the loss of a huge number of parking spaces; and stated he did not share the philosophy of replacing old with new. The motion carried 4/1 with PB Chair Svekis voting no. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TOTHE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no citizens input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 8, 2015 By consensus the July 8, 2015 minutes were approved as submitted. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 17 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. Overview and Discussion of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report Document: Discussion and motion to approve the Evaluation and Appraisal Report which states that revisions are needed for Transportation, Capital Improvements, Future Land Use, and Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Chapters. (DAVID L. SMITH, AICP, GENERAL MANACIW/NTECRATION, General Manager Smith stated that in June, 2015 he provided the Planning Board with the state requirements for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the City's Comprehensive Plan; the requirements basically ask for the identification of changes in State law since the last update to the Comprehensive Plan and also the identification of the changes that are needed in the local comprehensive plan in order to meet the requirements of the changes in State law; and pointed out that he has identified two changes in the State law that the City needs to include in the EAR at this time. General Manager Smith pointed out that the City had been working on a Mobility Study with Tindale-Oliver and Associates that proposed revisions to the Transportation, Capital Improvements, and Future Land Use Chapters; adding the revisions to these chapters would address the requirements of the revised Chapter 163.3180(1)(b), F.S. and Chapter 163.3180(5)(b), F.S., which are described on page 2 of 36, in the PB packet. General Manager Smith also stated that the 2015 Legislation revised Chapter 163.3178(f), F.S., Coastal Management Requirements relating to flood risk, and development and redevelopment strategies, as described on page 5 of 36, in the PB packet; explained that many of the new requirements which became law on July 1, 2015 are already addressed in the Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, however, some additional Action Strategies are needed or existing ones need revised to reflect the additions to the Florida Statutes; pointed out that action strategies should be adopted regarding Chapter 163.3178(f) 3 and 4; noted that the Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan already included an Action Strategy regarding the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), however, it should make reference to construction activities being consistent with Chapter 161; stated that the Chapter already includes Action Strategy 4.10, Minimizing the Risks of Natural Disasters, stating the City will coordinate with Sarasota County in the implementation of the Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), includes an assessment of vulnerabilities to natural disasters, and mitigates initiatives to minimize risks; in conclusion, he requested a motion to recommend approval to the City Commission, if the City Commission agrees then the EAR will be forwarded to the State by the deadline of December 1, 2015, then the City has one year in which to transmit to the State the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 17 PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked if what was being transmitted (on December 1, 2015) was that the City agrees to study what was in the EAR. General Manager Smith clarified that the EAR identifies the areas that the City needs to change in the comprehensive plan but the city was not transmitting any amendments at this time, just states that these are the subject matters that will need to be updated in the comprehensive plan. General Manager Smith stated that the PB: is only required to write a letter to the State, he had prepared a draft letter, and recommended the PB also transmit the five page table, entitled Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for the Sarasota City Plan (2030) adopted December 1, 2008 (located on pages 2 of 36 through 6 of 36, in the PB packet); he also stated that the PB packet included approximately thirty pages where he listed the changes to Chapter 163 F.S. and the laws of Florida that have occurred in the last seven years, however most of them do not apply to the City, sO he has identified the two that the City needs to address. PB: member Gallagher asked about changes to Chapter 163 F.S. regarding the definition of compatibility" referenced on page 11 of 36 in the PB packet. General Manager Smith explained that the definition was in Rule 9J.005, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), which listed the items required to be included in the comprehensive plans, stated Rule 9J.005 FAChad been eliminated and its contents were incorporated in Chapter 163 F.S., and stated the definition was probably 20 years old. PB member Gallagher asked if at the next PB meeting General Manager Smith could provide additional information on the definition of "compatibility" because it is a term that PB members encounter often. PB member Gallagher moved to recommend to the City Commission approval of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and PB: member Gannon seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB member Gallagher had no additional comments. Speaking to his second, PB: member Gannon stated that the report was complete, well organized, and easy to follow. PB Member Morriss asked what replaced the deleted requirement listed 6th under 2011 Changes (Chapter 2011-139, Laws of Florida), found on page 16 of 36 of the PB packet, which states: Deletes requirement that professionally accepted techniques be used for measuring levels ofservice for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit and trucks (163.3180(1)) [Deleted] Attorney Connolly stated that related to the deletion of transportation concurrency from State laws, explaining that the State no longer had laws requiring concurrency for transportation; pointed out that the City continues to have transportation concurrency in the City Comprehensive Plan, and, as long as it is in the City's Comprehensive Plan the City has to implement it, but it is no longer a state requirement; concluded that the item listed on page 16 of 36 only refers to the deletion of transportation concurrency from state law. General Manager Smith added that other deletions on the same page relate to parks Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 17 and recreation and public school concurrency and noted the City's Mobility Plan continues to propose transportation concurrency. The motion passed unanimously. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD ITEMS PRESENTED. ARE INPORMATIONALONIY, (NO ACTION TAKEN). ANY ISSUE PRESENTED THAT MAYI REQUIRE FUTURE. ACTION WILL BE PLACED ONTHE NEXT AVAILABLE. AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. PB member Gannon had two items for discussion. First he spoke about the notices PB members received about upcoming joint meetings with the City Commission, and asked if there was an outline of topics to be discussed. General Manager Smith explained that at one of the joint meetings the Urban Design Studio will discuss their proposed changes to the Future Land Use Chapter and the Environmental Protection Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; stated that the other joint meeting will be devoted to the Mobility Plan; added that staff presented it last year and since then they have worked with citizens, the Urban Design Studio, and, where possible staff had incorporated the recommendations they received into the Mobility Plan. PB member Gannon asked about the purpose of the joint meeting, since both of these topics have already been presented to the Commission in workshops. General Manager Smith stated that the main objective was education; explained that neither PB members or City Commissioners would provide formal direction, however staff would make notes of what was suggested and modify the text accordingly; added that staff wanted to meet with both bodies together in order to avoid separate meetings noting the Urban Design Studio's contract comes up in the end of June/beginning of July. PB Member Gannon asked if the joint meetings would have a workshop format where neither body is making decisions. General Manager Smith confirmed that no final decisions would be made at the joint meetings, but staff will take some direction. PB member Gannon asked if the Planning Board would have an opportunity to recommend changes for the update of the Comprehensive Plan in addition to the changes identified in the EAR and those brought forward by the Urban Design Studio; stated that when staff presented the Transportation Mobility Plan in a workshop to the City Commission one of the presentation slides (4/123) stated that they were going to restate the goals of the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; added that the language on the slide stated promote the mobility of people not just vehicles.. . " however the Goal in the Transportation Chapter says - promote the mobility ofpeople not vehicles.. added that if the PB: members were making decisions based on the plan as it was written the PB should be promoting the mobility of people not vehicles, sO he assumes that they will be putting forward an edit pointing to the addition of the word "just" to the goal of the Transportation Chapter, a minor thing, the addition of one word, however it has a significant meaning, as the PB is called to implement the plan; and asked if the Planning Board would be able to do things like that. General Manager Smith asked if PB member Gannon would be willing to review the Chapters and bring forth suggestions that could be scheduled for discussion in a Planning Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 17 Board meeting; pointed out that it was up to the Planning Board to decide if they wanted to pursue that; and stated he was willing to work with them. PB member Gannon added that he had discovered a goal in the Housing Chapter that states that the City will create an Economic Development Chapter by 2014, there was a discussion about that, and he understands that did not happen because of a lack of staff and budgetary concerns; noted that if the Comprehensive Plan was to guide not only PB decisions but also City Commission decisions, this is a topic to discuss jointly; asked how often the City Commission sits down to go through the goals to see how many of the goals could be checked off, and how far they were on others; stated the comprehensive plan is 2008 - 2030, SO we are not half way there; on the other hand we have the Downtown Master Plan that identifies community spaces to be reserved, in fact it identifies six community spaces just in the Rosemary District alone, and as he walked through the Rosemary District he did not see any property held in trust for these parks; stated that was in the 2000 Downtown Plan called 2020 and noted we are three-quarters of the way through, and we said we would have six pocket parks in the Rosemary District, we have zero; asked if the city was going to build the six pocket parks in the next five years, as we have all this development taking off in the area, and no effort is made for the parks; and asked when the PB was going to have that discussion, was it something the PB could discuss with the City Commission, or is it something that PB can do on its own? General Manager Smith stated he did not know if the CRA was going to be expiring noting if it did the money that would be used to do that would no longer be available; explained that in developing plans, a lot of times you have a pie in the sky, a great idea that sometimes does not come to fruition, you try to do as much as you can; pointed out that the Economic Development Chapter was in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan; during the 2005 - 2006 evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan staff noticed that it was not done, but decided to keepi it in the plan because it is a good goal to eventually achieve and added a future date 2014 to try to do it by; pointed out that then things changed, a quarter of the City staff was laid off and budgetary issues followed, they did not have the money; added that it is a goal the City should keep, and the Planning Board is the place to have these discussions first. PB member Gannon stated that in view of the rapid development occurring, a lot of the current vacant space is going to be built out within a few years, and the opportunity to do something like pocket parks will be lost. PB member Gallagher stated that it is infrequent that the Planning Board goes to the City Commission with a recommendation about topics that are the PB's responsibility; added that PB member Gannon had some great ideas and he would welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with the PB members on ideas and recommendations to bring to the City Commission. General Manager Smith pointed out that it would be under Planning Board Topics on the agenda; noted that PB members can bring the topics forward, he will place them on the agenda under Planning Board Topics, and then PB members can have a discussion. PB Chair Svekis stated that he thinks it is worth the effort at least once, to see how it goes here; noted that PB members tried to go through the comprehensive plan chapter by Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 17 chapter years ago, the only PB: members from that time serving now was himself and PB member Gallagher; and concluded that it may be more fruitful to go through and work with specifics. PB: member Gannon stated that two things struck him about the page with all the references to the community spaces in the Rosemary District: First, (and it came up in the City Commission meeting on September 6), is that the City is sending a letter to the County and is trying to engage in an active discussion about the CRA;it could be helpful to emphasize that the City is really trying to do this now, and explain the reasons; Second, if this were to be on the table, it could be part of the CRA expansion consideration SO if the PB and the City Commission were to say "Yes, these goals are still valid,' ! we could use one or two of these mechanisms to do these things; or if the CRA was not expanded and there was money: in the City budget to do these. PB Chair Svekis asked Mr. Gannon to recommend how to go about this, such as one chapter at the time, because if it is discussed in a broad manner it would not be productive. PB member Gannon stated that he did not think it was a good time to work on the Economic Development Chapter because there are too many other efforts underway; and suggested looking into "Civic Space Reservation" as defined in the Downtown Master Plan. PB: member Morriss agreed, stating that this topic seems to be urgent, because the land is getting built up really quickly; and asked if PB members would get materials prior to these meetings sO that they have time to read it. General Manager Smith responded that there would be materials out as soon as possible, but it could be a week or two weeks before the meeting. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay suggested that as they review the topics they also consider creative funding mechanisms, or other appropriate funding sources to draw from, because the first thing the City Commission will ask is how are we going to pay for them. PB: member Morriss suggested input from other departments, such as the Police Department, be solicited to point out the consequences of having pocket parks in these areas, because it is not just a matter of a pretty park and everyone will be happy around it, there could also be some problems. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that there was a proposal for such a park near the area where he lives and there was strong opposition from the people who lived around it, because they simple saw it as a collecting place for derelicts and drug activity, and a midnight destination for people they did not want around. PB Chair Svekis recommended Mr. Gannon put materials together for PB review. General Manager Smith stated that if the CRA was extended the Downtown Master Plan needed to be updated and many of those things would occur during the update to the Master Plan; explained that it is a different process than the Comprehensive Plan, because the Master Plan is not adopted like the Comprehensive Plan, it is just a support document and it is linked to CRA funding. General Manager Smith also pointed out that in the recently approved budget the City included a Park Director and suggested waiting until the Parks Director was hired to discuss some of the park issues. PB Chair Svekis pointed out that time will be lost. PB Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 17 Vice-Chair Lindsay agreed, and added that we would have to wait until that person learns enough, but if PB does some work in advance, this may give the City Commission a better idea of what person they want to hire, someone who is in tune with the ideas that the PB has already developed. PB Chair Svekis stated that PB member Gannon would work with General Manager Smith. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:02 PM. Jaud - - a - David Smith, General Manager - Integration Vald Svekis, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]