CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Terrill Salem, Chair Members Present: Members Damien Blumetti, Doug Christy, Michael Halflants, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: Dan Clermont, Vice Chair City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven Cover, Planning Director [acting secretary] David L. Smith, Manager of Long-Range Planning Briana Dobbs, Senior Planner, Planning Department Alison Christie, Development Review Senior Planner Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner (via Zoom) Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner Rebecca Webster, Planning Technician, Planning Department Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services 1:46:08 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Salem called the meeting to order. Planning Director Cover [acting as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Attorney Connolly stated staff recommended the Legislative and Quasi-Judicial public hearings regarding Sarasota Kennel Club be combined into one Quasi-judicial public hearing; and noted the Applicants agreed. IV. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Acting Secretary Cover read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for the presentations that will follow; pointed put the extended time limits for the combined public hearing for Sarasota Kennel Club and administered the oath to those wishing to testify at the public hearings. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 21 1:48:43 P.M. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 22-ZTA-08 is a request for Zoning Text Amendment approval to create definitions for the terms brewpub, microbrewery, regional brewery, tasting room, accessory andrewey/mamodailey, and winery; update the primary use charts to include the newly defined uses; and create additional use standards for brewpub, tasting room, and accessory nanobrewery/nanodistillery. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Senior Planner) PB Chair Salem opened the public hearing. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Dobbs and Planning Technician Webster appeared, introduced the petition stating definitions and use standards for alcohol production uses proposed; stated the uses will be regulated and permitted in certain zone districts; said the benefits include economic, revitalization, employment, and entertainment opportunities; and reviewed the proposed definitions noting the large scale uses would be permitted in industrial zone districts while the lesser uses would be encouraged in the Downtown and Commercial zone districts. PB Member Christy questioned how staff developed the definitions. Senior Planner Dobbs stated staff looked at State Statutes, local jurisdictions, and other areas country wide. PB Member Blumetti requested clarification regarding which uses in the Downtown zone districts would require public review and asked about waste products. Senior Planner Dobbs stated any use requiring a 4COP liquor license would require Major Conditional Use approval. Planning Technician Webster noted the downtown uses would be small scale sO any waste product would be minimal. PB Member Halflants stated he supported the proposal and questioned why the uses would not be permitted in the Office zone districts noting restaurants are permitted in the Office zone districts. Discussion ensued. Senior Planner Dobbs stated staff was willing to revisit that. PB Member Ohlrich questioned a note in the packet that indicated a restaurant would not be required to serve food with an accessory nanobrewery/nanodistillery; said the proposed terminology suggests only two oft the uses have food requirements; and asked if staff had reached out to areas other than the Rosemary District, noting correspondence in the packet is from the Rosemary District only. Senior Planner Dobbs stated there would be no food requirement for bars, taverns or nightclubs, but restaurants would still require food, and staff can take restaurants out of the note in question; pointed out two primary uses are allowable on a site; and said staff had reached out to various members of the community, other jurisdictions, and the existing Siesta Key Distillery in addition to the Rosemary District. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 21 PB Chair Salem questioned if uses that do not have a food to alcohol ratio requirement can bei in proximity to churches. Senior Planner Dobbs stated bars with an accessory use would be subject to the requirements related to proximity to churches. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the Office zone districts are the only districts not included that currently permit restaurants. Senior Planner Dobbs confirmed that was correct. Planning Technician Webster pointed outrestaurants: in the Office zone districts can have a nanobrewery or nanodistillery as an accessory use to a restaurant. PB Member Christy questioned why distilleries were deleted from the Manufacturing and Production subsection of the industrial use categories. Senior Planner Dobbs stated distilleries were removed as Manufacturing and Production uses are only allowed in the heaviest industrial zone district and as a Provisional Use in IGD (Industrial General District); and removing distilleries from this allows craft distillleries to be permitted in all industrial districts by-right. 2:09:02 P.M. Citizen Input: Mr. Howard Davis appeared in favor of the proposal stating it is an economic development issue; and stated the live/work regulations need to be revised as well. 2:12:33 P.M. PB Member Halflants made a motion to find Zoning Text Amendment 22-ZTA-08 consistent with Section IV-1206 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to the City Commission with the addition of Brewpubs as a permitted use in Office zone districts that allow restaurants. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 2:14:25 P.M. (Note: The below public hearings were consolidated into a single Quasi-judicial public hearing under Changes to the Order of the Day) 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 21-PA-01 - Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to amend the Future Land Use Map from Community Commercial and Moderate Density Residential (Sarasota County) to Multiple Family - Medium Density for a 25.58+ acre property with a street address of 5400 Old Bradenton Road. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning) 1. Sarasota Kennel Club Property (5400 Old Bradenton Road): Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-04 and Rezone Application No. 22-RE-02 are a request for Site Plan approval to develop 372 multi-family residential units, 744 parking spaces, and on-site amenities on a 26.23 acre parcel with a street address of 5400 Old Bradenton Road; and a request for approval to rezone 25.58+ acres of the subject property from the Commercial Intensive (CI) zone district to the Multiple Family 4 (RMF-4) zone district. Vehicular access is proposed from Old Bradenton Road. The subject property has been utilized as a parimutuel facility that is proposed to be demolished. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 21 Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting & Development; Mr. Ben Hooley, Scott + Cormica Architects; Mr. Sean Flanagan, Aventon Companies; Mr. Andrew Hughes, Innovation Design Group; and Ms. Molly Williams, Kimley Horn appeared. Mr. Freedman stated there are three development applications being considered; said a fourth application to annex a portion of the site into the City will go before the City Commission; noted the location of the project; and pointed out the surrounding uses. Mr. Flanagan gave a preview of the company; discussed locations of other developments the company has in process or has completed; reviewed the proposed site plan; presented graphic examples of similar developments in other locations the company has completed; discussed market conditions, year-to-year: rent increases in the Sarasota area, and current vacancy rates for apartment buildings; said the design of the development allows for rental rates lower than those currently available in this area; noted the challenges of the site including proximity to the airport and flooding; and pointed out the necessary permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District and State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection have been obtained. Ms. Williams discussed the process for obtaining the environmental permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District and State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection; and pointed out there will be no adverse impacts upstream or downstream from the site. Mr. Freedman submitted for the record an acoustical engineering report; noted the applicants have an extensive record addressing these types of noise issues; presented graphics depicting the existing Future Land Use classification and zoning of the site, noise contour zones of the airport, and flood zones; noted the flooding issues will be greatly improved; discussed an access easement at the northwest corner of the site stating that area cannot bei included in the Comprehensive Plan amendment or rezoning requests due to requirements that prohibit commercial uses using residential property for access; stated the proximity to the airport is the only negative issue; said on-balance the positives out way the negatives as it relates to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment; stated a Community Workshop was held in July 2021; said the design is consistent with the surrounding area; pointed out the need for additionall housing stock; said the proposed development would generate less traffic than what could be built under the existing zoning; said the applicants were dedicating additional right-of-way along Old Bradenton Road and making improvements to the bus shelter; stated the proposed density is approximately 14.5 units per acre, noting the proposed zoning allows for 18 units per acre; discussed site access; and said the site would be replanted with 500 trees and 110 palm trees. 2:36:16 P.M. PB Member Blumetti questioned what the building typology is; asked if the applicants were confident the necessary sound reduction could be met; and questioned what the breakdown of the units is. Mr. Flanagan stated the typology is frame and said the same noise reduction measures they are using in a project by the Orlando airport will be used on this project. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 21 PB Member Christy questioned if consideration had been given to minimizing or eliminating the structures in the noise corridor in order to address the concerns of the airport. Mr. Flanagan noted the site has constraints due to the location of the canal that runs through the site; said the applicants had looked at reconfiguring the canalhowever that was not practicable primarily due to stormwater issues; and noted the applicants have spent time on-site observing noise levels. Mr. Freedman pointed out the Community Center is located outside of the noise corridor. PB Member Halflants noted the floodplain elevation of the site is 14 feet; questioned what the elevation of the structures would be; asked if plantings would be placed in the floodplain compensation areas; questioned if two parking spaces per unit was a code requirement; stated the existing landscape buffer along the railroad track is substantial sO why not keep that; and asked why the complex would be gated. Discussion ensued. Mr. Flanagan stated the elevation of the structures would be 16 feet; said the floodplain compensation area is designated as a dog walk area; and confirmed the proposed parking met code requirements. Discussion ensued. Mr. Freedman pointed out it is anticipated the Legacy Trail will be extended along the railroad tracks. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what other uses were considered for the site; asked if potential renters would be notified in advance of the noise issue; discussed studies regarding the negative effects of living in a noise corridor; asked if the applicants could respond to the letter from the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority that is in the materials; and discussed the number of flights from 4-5 pm each day. Mr. Freedman stated when the owners marketed the site only residential offers were: received with the exception of the northwest corner Circle K purchased and an preliminary offer from Amazon to place a warehouse on the site that did not pan out; stated airport noise is not as big of an issue as it used to be due to availability of attenuation measures; said renters will be notified via an addendum to their lease agreement; stated the applicants are required to grant an aviation waiver to the airport; and said the concerns outlined in the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority's letter could be addressed through mitigation efforts. PB Chair Salem followed up on the question regarding the ratio of units. Mr. Flanagan stated 35 percent would be one-bedroom units; 50 percent would be two-bedroom units; and 15 percent would be three-bedroom units. PB Chair Salem questioned how much noise reduction the applicants anticipated to achieve, and what techniques would be used. Mr. Flanagan stated a 25-30 decibel noise reduction is anticipated. Mr. Hooley stated dual pane windows would be used. Discussion ensued regarding the type and technique for installing insulation. PB Chair Salem asked why more units were not proposed, noting the size of the site. Mr. Freedman stated parking requirements limited the number of units that could be constructed. PB Member Blumetti questioned who determines that the 25 decibel level requirement has been met; asked if itis tested after completion of the construction; and which units would be rented for the $2100 the applicants noted. Mr. Flanagan stated it is unknown who determines the decibel level requirement has been met; and stated the $2100 is an average rent. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 21 PB Member Christy asked if the applicants had completed any other projects in proximity to an airport. Mr. Flanagan stated they had not. PB Chair Salem asked Attorney Connolly if the PB could require testing at intervals by a third party that would be submitted to the City. Attorney Connolly stated staff could provide information on how that is addressed during the permitting and Certificate of Occupancy stages of the development; and pointed out once the project is approved and constructed the only remedy would be to tear it down; and suggested the information could be requested after the fact to be used as a learning tool. PB Member Blumetti asked Attorney Connolly if the City would be liable if the project fails due to the noise issue. Attorney Connolly stated there would be no legal liability. Discussion ensued. 3:03:57 P.M. StaffPresentation: David L. Smith, Manager of Long-Range Planning, and Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner appeared. Manager Smith discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment stating the request is to change the Future Land Use classification; gave a brief history of the site; noted the proposal is to construct a 372 unit apartment complex; stated the requested changes to the Future Land Use classifications would be from Community Commercial and Moderate Density Residential; noted the portion of the site that is classified as Moderate Density Residential is within the County limits and is proposed for annexation into the City; stated the requested Future Land Use classification is Multiple Family - Moderate Density; presented graphics depicting an aerial view of the site, the proposed Future Land Use classification and zoning, and Noise Contour Zone; stated the site is within the AE and X flood zones; discussed the Guidelines for Review for Comprehensive Plan Amendments stating a chapter by chapter review is performed to determine if, on-balance, approval of the: request would further the public benefit or interest; discussed the pros and cons of each chapter noting staff found that for the Housing, Recreation & Open Space, Utilities, Capital Improvement, Transportation, Governmental Coordination, Historic Preservation, and Public School Facilities chapters there were no relevant components of the request that would not further the public benefit or interest; stated staff found components of the proposal related to the Neighborhood Plan that would further the public benefit or interest with the residential use being compatible with surrounding land uses to the south, east, and west of the site and would provide additional housing options for those wishing to rent in the city; found components of the proposal would not further the public benefit or interest related to the Neighborhood Plan due to incompatibility with the Airport, residential uses being discouraged due to the location of the site in the 65 DNL Noise Contour of the Airport; found components of the proposal related to the Housing Plan that would further the public benefit or interest with construction of a 372 unit apartment complex would increase the supply of privately provided rental units and would be compatible with surrounding residential uses south of University Parkway;found components of the proposal would further thej public benefit or interest related to the Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Plan as redevelopment of the site would require adherence to flood zone regulations, fill would be used on the site to elevate structures, and the site plan includes stormwater facilities to address Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 21 drainage needs; found components of the proposal would not further the public benefit or interest related to the Environmental Protection and Coastal Islands Plan due to possible susceptibility to flooding, the site being located within Category 2 and Category 3 storm surge zones and Evacuation Zones B & C, and being contrary to reducing exposure of life and property to natural disasters; found components of the proposal that would further the public benefit or interest related to levels of service for recreation and open space, utilities, capital improvements, transportation, and public school facilities as those would not be negatively impacted; found components of the proposal that would further the public benefit or interest related to the Future Land Use Plan as the proposed residential use is compatible with uses located to the south, east, and west of the site and the proposal would not contribute to urban sprawl; found components of the proposal would not further the public benefit or interest related to the Future Land Use Plan due to the location of the site in Flood Zones AE and X, Flood Zone AE being a Special Flood Zone Hazard Area susceptible to flooding, and the location of the site within the 65 DNLI Noise Contour of the Airport; found components of the proposal that would contribute to the public benefit or interest related to the Governmental Coordination Plan as planning staff coordinated with Sarasota County Planning regarding the annexation and with Sarasota Bradenton International Airport staff regarding the proposal; and found components of the proposal that would contribute to the public benefit or interest related to the Historic Preservation Plan as no historically significant structures would be negatively impacted by the proposed amendment. Development Review Planner Pintus discussed the proposed site plan and rezoning stating staff's S review is based on the assumption the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved; said the proposed site plan is consistent with the proposed zone district; noted additional right-of-way will be dedicated along Old Bradenton Road; noted the proposed height of the buildings is below the allowable height; discussed tree removal noting the roots of the existing trees will be greatly impact by the removal of the significant amount of asphalt currently on the site; said trees removed will be mitigated; said a Community Workshop was held inj July 2021, six citizens attended, and no strong opposition was expressed; and pointed out there are no adjustments or variances requested. 3:23:33 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what the full range of decibel levels was; asked if staff was familiar with studies showing the effects of repeated exposure to high noise. levels, particularly as it relates to children; and questioned if the complex would be adults only. Manager Smith stated data regarding the full range of decibel levels is not available; stated he did an unscientific study and found levels as. high as 85 decibels and as low as 50 decibels; noted traffic noise. from University Parkway was within the same range as noise from the airport PB Member Halflants asked what the status of staff's S review of parking requirements was; and questioned if fewer parking spaces could be provided should the requirements change before construction of the project. Attorney Connolly pointed out the applicants can request a minor modification to the site plan after approval; and noted that request would be reviewed administratively. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 21 PB Member Christy requested updated information regarding flight data. Manager Smith stated the data was provided by the Airport in December 2021; and noted at that time it was anticipated the project would come before the PB in early spring of 2022. PB Member Blumetti questioned if any consideration was given to a mixed-use project on the site; and asked if staff considered the area appropriate for mixed use. Manager Smith pointed out staff was responding to the applicant's specific proposal for the site. PBI Member Ohlrich asked for graphics depicting the site's proximity to departures from the airport be shown. 3:32:47 P.M. Affected Persons: Attorney Connolly called the following that had applied for Affected Person status: Wayne Carone; Jeremy Anderson and Harvey Halprin, representing Village Gardens; Frederick Piccolo, Executive Director of the Airport; and noted Mr. Richard Harris had applied for Affected Person status after the deadline. Attorney Connolly stated since Mr. Carone was not present he could not be granted Affected Person status; said Mr. Anderson, Mr. Halprin, and Mr. Piccolo should be granted Affected Person status; and stated the PB could grant Mr. Harris' request even though it was submitted after the deadline. The PB agreed by consensus. Mr. Jeremy Anderson appeared, stated he represented Village Gardens; said the opposition was to the site plan only; stated he wished to cross-examine the City's traffic engineers; said there is a lack of necessary: information; discussed a report regarding the long term affects of COVID-19 on traffic patterns, pointing out increased deliveries; noted staff used the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017) data for their analysis; discussed traffic patterns related to previous land uses on the site; and stated a traffic study is needed. Mr. Anderson cross-examined Assistant City Engineer Daniel Ohrenstein, questioning if Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein had determined a traffic study was not required, had signed off on the Certificate of Concurrency and DRC sign-off sheets, had prepared the Transportation Concurrency Analysis and Traffic Circulation Review report included in the staff report, had determined the report complied with the Zoning Code, had used the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017) in preparing the report, had used any other methodology, and was familiar with Appendix A of the Zoning Code. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein confirmed those statements were correct, noting the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017) was the only version used, and no other methodology was used. Mr. Anderson stated the Transportation Concurrency Analysis and Traffic Circulation Review report was prepared September 1, 2021;1 noted the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 11th Edition was published in September 2021; and said given that the Transportation Concurrency Analysis and Traffic Circulation Review report was not compliant with the Zoning Code. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein acknowledged the availability of the newer edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers' Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 21 (ITE), Trip Generation manual; and noted the results would not have been substantially different. Mr. Anderson pointed out the Zoning Code requires the most recent version of the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation manual be used. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein pointed out the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017) was the valid methodology at the time the development application was. submitted. Mr. Anderson questioned if the Code prohibited access onto DeSoto Road; and if access off of DeSoto Road would reduce traffic on Old Bradenton Road. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated per the City's Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) it is desirable to minimize the number of driveways on Arterial and Collector streets; stated access onto DeSoto Road would not be prohibited; and said access off of DeSoto Road could possibly reduce traffic on Old Bradenton Road. Mr. Anderson completed his cross-examination; stated the traffic impacts to the surrounding area have been glossed over; and requested the PB deny the site plan. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the argument was that the Code had changed after the development application was submitted and the new version should be retroactively applied. Mr. Anderson stated that was correct. Attorney Connolly pointed out the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation manual had changed versus the Zoning Code; and stated once a development application has been made the applicants have a vested right to the Code requirements in effect at that time. Mr. Frederick Piccolo, Executive Director of the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority, and Mr. Dan Bailey, Attorney for the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority, appeared. Mr. Piccolo discussed the reasons the application should be denied, noting the proposal is not consistent with the Neighborhood, Housing and Future Land Use chapters of the Comprehensive Plan; stated the airport is the fastest growing in the area ; pointed out the project is located 1,500 feet off of the end of a runway; presented flight data for March 2022; stated despite any mitigation efforts significant noise issues will occur inside the residential units as well as during use of the outdoor amenities; pointed out affordable housing is in short supply however this is a luxury development; said the residential uses noted in the on-balance analysis were built in 1979 and 1983; discussed noise decibels, previous mitigation requirements, and wildlife hazards; said regardless of any notification efforts the residents will still complain and request monetary compensation; stated a residential use is the least compatible use imaginable; and reiterated the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority will not provide any monetary relief. PB. Member Halflants questioned what use would be compatible. Mr. Piccolo stated any commercial use. PB Member Christy asked for flight projections. Mr. Piccolo stated the airport served 3.2 million passengers in 2021, and it is anticipated 3.5 to 3.6 passengers will be served in 2022. Discussion ensued. PB: Member Blumetti requested clarification on the grants to which Mr. Piccolo referred. Mr. Piccolo stated there is an interlocal agreement with the City of Sarasota, as well as other jurisdictions. Mr. Bailey discussed related provisions in the Comprehensive Plan Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 21 and Zoning Code, pointing out the residential use is not a must. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti questioned why the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority did not purchase the property. Mr. Piccolo stated the property became available in April of 2020 and economic conditions at that time due to COVID-19 prohibited that expenditure. PB Member Halflants questioned how this was different than the on-site hotel. Mr. Piccolo stated the hotel is further away from the runway. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out the difference between spending a couple of nights at a hotel versus living with the noise day in and day out. Mr. Richard Harris appeared and stated he is President of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association; stated he has concerns regarding the transportation report; said traffic from the Dog Track used University Parkway and was only during the day and on weekends; said this project will generate increased traffic on Old Bradenton Road; stated a traffic study is needed; discussed the Community Workshop stating the concerns of the neighborhood was underreported; and stated the main entrance and exit to the development should be off of DeSoto Road. PB Member Ohlrich asked if Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein could appear and address traffic studies. Attorney Connolly stated that would be appropriate under staff rebuttal. The Planning Board Took a Fourteen Minute Break 4:28:28 P.M. Citizen Input: Ms. Kathi Popielarski, President of Village Gardens Condominium Association, appeared and stated their opposition due to traffic congestion concerns; and said she believed the Code prohibits widening of Old Bradenton Road. Mr. Philip Sharpe appeared and stated he is the Property Manager for Village Gardens and therefore travels Old Bradenton Road daily; said he opposes the application due to traffic congestion concerns; and agreed with Mr. Harris that access should be off of DeSoto Road. 4:37:47 P.M. Affected Person Rebuttal: Mr. Jeremy Anderson appeared and stated per the Zoning code staff has a duty to use updated methodology when reviewing revised plans; and said the PB does not have adequate information necessary to approve the project. 4:40:57 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared; clarified applicants get 12 of a credit for existing buildings up to five years, the credits are reduced annually for the next five years, reducing to zero at ten years; said the credit applied is 12 of when the previous use was fully functional; stated the purpose of traffic studies is to determine what improvements, if any, the developer is responsible for; and pointed out there is no Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 21 history of access to the site from University Parkway as was stated by some of the speakers. PB Member Ohlrich stated as a PB Member over the past five plus years she has found traffic study methodology, process, and procedures difficult to understand; noted she has seen people sitting in chairs with a clicker; and questioned if that is how traffic counts are done currently. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated currently tube counters are used except for major intersections where a ATMS auto counts vehicles every 15 minutes. PB Member Ohlrich requested an explanation as to what ITE is. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated it is the Institute of Traffic Engineers, an organization of traffic engineers that publishes trip generation manuals that are updated periodically using studies oft trips based on independent variables. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what time of day traffic is measured. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated traffic is measured daily, between 7 and 8 am which: is considered am peak, between 4 and 61 pm which is considered pm peak; and pointed outs staff generally uses the pm peak data. Discussion ensued. 4:46:51 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman, Mr. Flanagan, Ms. Williams, and Matt Female, Engineer for the project, appeared. Mr. Freedman stated it would be impossible to provide access to the site from DeSoto Road due to the curve at that point and the railroad tracks. Mr. Female stated access from DeSoto Road was never an option due to the proximity to the railroad tracks, the curve at University Parkway, and the grade of the site. Mr. Freedman pointed out the County would not allow an access off of University between the Circle K access point on University Parkway and the DeSoto Road turnoff. Mr. Flanagan discussed decibel levels of normal conversation, lawn mowers and rock concerts; said the applicants would not make the investment if they didn't believe the project would be successful; noted renters would be: notified of the proximity to the airport in writing via an addendum to their lease; stated the noise reduction requirements would be met or exceeded through the proposed noise attenuation measures; and noted much needed housing will be provided. PB Member Blumetti questioned when the applicants acquired the property. Mr. Flanagan stated the property was acquired in the second quarter of 2021. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated the first motion is for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and is a legislative recommendation to the City Commission. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find that Petition No. 21-PA-01 amending the Future Land Use Map from Community Commercial and Sarasota County Moderate Density Residential to Multiple Family - Medium Density is not consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is not in the public interest and recommend that the City Commission not approve the petition. PB Member Christy seconded the motion. PB Member Ohlrich stated she strongly disagreed with staff that Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 21 the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and suggested it would set a precedent. PB Member Blumetti stated he did not understand how a residential use would not be compatible with another residential use; said government entities should not be telling people what to do with their properties; stated the decibel levels from the airport were the only thing that was incompatible; and said the applicants would be the ones dealing with subsequent issues; and pointed out the applicants had done their research and were mitigating the noise issues. PB Member Halflants stated the residential use would be compatible with the abutting residential use; said traffic is not an issue noting the current zoning of Commercial Intensive would bring more traffic; acknowledged some of the benefits of the proposed site plan; and said the proposal was incompatible with the noise from the airport. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti pointed out the applicants would be providing 130 one-bedroom units, 186 two-bedroom units, and 55 three-bedroom units which are desperately needed; said this is an opportunity to provide affordable housing; suggested the units would be rent controlled due to the proximity to the airport; said the applicants would have to deal with the ramifications if the project failed; and stated there is a desperate need for the inventory. PB Member Halflants stated it sets up a conflict and said this was not a good location for a residential use. PB Chair Salem stated the developer was providing needed units; acknowledged noise an issue; questioned if the Airport's objections were related to the potential future purchase of the site by the Airport; stated the site has functioned as a COVID-19 testing site and that has contributed to the traffic concerns; and said the project will add much needed housing. PB Member Halflants stated the decibel levels were super high. The motion passed 4-1 with PB Member Blumetti voting no. Attorney Connolly pointed out a motion for the Rezone and Site Plan applications was required; and said PB members that voted to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would have to vote no on the Rezone and Site Plan because they would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem stated he wished to change his vote to no on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The final vote for 21-PA-01 is 3-2 with PB Chair Salem and PB Member Blumetti voting no. PB Member Ohlrich Made a motion to find that Rezone 22-RE-02 and Site Plan 22-SP- 04 do not meet the applicable criteria for approval found in the Zoning Code and recommend denial of these requests to the City Commission. PB Member Christy seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-2 with PB Chair Salem and PB Member Blumetti voting no. Attorney Connolly noted this is a recommendation to the City Commission; stated the City Commission will hold a legislative public hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and said if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 21 quasi-judicial public hearing will be scheduled for the Rezone and Site Plan applications. 5:06:19 P.M. 2. The Peninsula (223 & 283 Golden Gate Point): Site Plan Application No. 22-SP-05 is a request for Site Plan approval to develop a two-tower building with 23 residential units and 51 parking spaces provided on a 0.99-acre parcel with street addresses of 223 & 283 Golden Gate Point. Access to the site is proposed from Golden Gate Point. The site is currently occupied by a 4-unit multi-family residential building that is proposed to be demolished. The Future Land Use classification is Multiple Family (Medium Density) and the parcel is zoned Residential Multiple Family 5 (RMF-5). (Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner) Attorney Connolly called upon Ms. Joan Lovell and Mr. Richard Keith Sandin who had applied for Affected Person status. Ms. Lovell was present and was granted Affected Person status. Mr. Sandin was not present SO was not granted Affected Person status. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those who were not present earlier. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting & Development; Mr. Chris Gallagher, Hoyt Architect; and Mr. Phil Smith, Landscape Architect appeared. Mr. Freedman stated the request was for Site Plan approval for 2 parcels on Golden Gate Pointe; stated the parcels are zoned RMF-5; noted no variances are needed; stated the applicants have worked with the Golden Gate Point Association; said a voluntary Community Workshop was held on December 18, 2021; and stated the proposal is for twenty-three condominium units in two towers. Mr. Smith stated a portion of the site abuts the Golden Gate streetscape; and noted Golden Gate Association representatives have reviewed the streetscape design and are in agreement. Mr. Gallagher stated two independent parcels will be combined and two towers over a parking podium containing twenty-three units, 51 parking spaces, and six bicycle parking spaces and amenities; and said there would be eight stories over parking. Mr. Freedman stated staff found the proposal consistent with the Zoning Code and recommended approval. PB Member Christy noted the original proposal was for twenty-four units and questioned why the reduction to twenty-three units. Mr. Gallagher stated one of the units was converted to an amenity area. PB Member Blumetti questioned if there would be plantings in the area between the wall the screens the parking area and the sidewalk. Mr. Smith presented a graphic depicting the proposed plantings for that area. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski appeared via Zoom; stated the Future Land Use classification of the parcels is Multiple-Family and the zoning is RMF-5; stated the proposal consists of two parcels that will contain residential multi-family buildings with two towers and twenty-three condominium units with structured parking; noted the applicants have exceeded the required parking; said there will be two guest parking Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 21 spaces provided; stated the height requirements had been met, noted the tree mitigation requirements had been exceeded; said the project received DRC sign-off on April 28, 2022; and stated the project meets the applicable Standards for Review and staff recommends approval. PB Member Ohlrich noted the numerous structures that are currently under construction on Golden Gate Point; and asked if there is a limit to the number of structures that can be built at the same time. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated a developer must provide a staging plan demonstrating the feasibility of the construction of the site. 5:17:35 P.M. Affected Persons: Ms. Joan Lovell, representing the Golden Gate Point Association, appeared and stated the applicants had met with Golden Gate Point Association representatives and had incorporated their concerns; pointed out the applicants were providing two guest parking spaces and a parking area for service vehicles which were not required; discussed the fragility of the irrigation system for the Golden Gate Point streetscape; and stated the applicants had agreed to inspections of the irrigation system by Golden Gate Point Association representatives as part of the construction process. Ms. Lovell requested the Golden Gate Point Association be included in development proposals at the beginning of the Development Review Committee review process. Citizen Input: There was: no citizen input. Rebuttal: There was: no rebuttal. 5:22:57 P.M. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. PB Member Halflants made a motion to find that Site Plan 22-SP-05 is consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and meets the applicable criteria of Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and to approve the Site Plan subject to the conditions listed. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 5:23:56 P.M. 3. Akoya Residences (4925 & 5025 North Tamiami Trail): Site Plan Application No. 22- SP-08 is a request for Site Plan approval to develop a 4-story building containing 51 apartment units, with related amenities and 64 parking spaces on a 1.48-acre parcel with street addresses of 4925 & 5025 North Tamiami Trail. The parcel is currently vacant and has a Future Land Use classification of Community Commercial and is zoned North Trail (NT). The parcel is also located within the North Trail Overlay District (NTOD) and utilizes NTOD development standards. Access to the site is proposed from Remington Drive. (Alison Christie, AICP,Development Review Senior Planner) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 21 Attorney Connolly called Ms. Joanne Gonet, representing the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Association (IBSSA); and Mr. John Kennan, who had requested Affected Person status. Both persons were present and were granted Affected Person status. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting & Development; Mr. Chris Gallagher, Hoyt Architects; Mr. Phil Smith, Landscape Architect; and Mr. Kace King representing Akoya Residences, LLC: appeared. Mr. Freedman stated the project consists of two parcels; said the zoning is North Trail (NT) and the applicants will be using the NT regulations; stated a Community Workshop was held on February 9, 2022; stated the proposal is consistent with the NT regulations; stated there are fifty-one units and sixty-four parking spaces proposed, noting the proposed parking exceeds the requirements; stated based on comments received from neighbors and staff access onto Remington Drive was limited to one access point, the remaining access point was reorientated to avoid headlights into the residence across the street, and the landscaping along Remington Drive was increased. Mr. Smith presented a graphic depicting the increased landscaping, noting a solid hedge combined with solid vegetation consisting of trees was added. Mr. Gallagher discussed the curb cuts along Remington Drive noting staff had taken the initiative to redesign the curb cuts to minimize the impacts on the neighbors; said the proposal consists of a four-story building with fifty-one units, sixty- four parking spaces, and twelve bicycle parking spaces; discussed the setback requirements along US 41, including balconies; and pointed out the existing SCAT bus stop was relocated away from Remington Drive. Mr. Freedman stated there will be eight one-bedroom units, thirty-six two-bedroom units, and seven three-bedroom units; said the project meets all the requirements and no variances are: needed; pointed out the sidewalks along US 41 will be widened; said the applicants agreed with the staff analysis; and requested the PB approve the project. PB Member Ohlrich noted area residents had expressed concerns regarding intrusion into the neighborhood along Remington Drive; and questioned if there will be a landscape buffer along the parking lot. Mr. Smith stated shrubs and trees will be planted. PB Member Halflants stated the Code should be changed to allow for parking underneath the structure noting the loss of one story under current regulations; discussed the benefits of doing so; and questioned what type of planting the hedge will consist of. Mr. Smith stated red tipped cocoplum. PB Member Christy questioned where the headlights will shine based on the reconfiguration of the curb cut. Mr. Freedman presented a graphic depicting the area across the street. Discussion ensued. PB. Member Blumetti questioned of a 30" wall was considered noting he had lived with the issue of headlights intruding into his home in the past. Mr. Smith stated the design was based on CPTED principles; and pointed out the hedge will be very dense. PB Member Halflants questioned if consideration had been given to including landscaping between the sidewalk and the road; and asked if there will be a wall Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 21 between the pool and US 41. Mr. Smith stated the landscaping is on-site only. Mr. King stated an ornamental fence, and a landscape buffer will buffer the pool from US 41; stated he and his partner are from this area; said the project will provide high quality, much: needed attainable housing for the community; ;and discussed the landscaping and amenities. PB Chair Salem questioned what the rent rates will be. Mr. King stated they anticipate the rate for the two-bedroom units to be in the low two-thousands, with the one- bedroom units being slightly less and the three-bedroom units being slightly more. Discussion ensued. 5:39:20 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Christie appeared and stated the project is 1.48 acres, is located at 4925 and 5025 N. Tamiami Trail, is zoned North Trail (NT), and the Future Land Use classification is Community Commercial; said the applicants had chosen to develop under the NT standards; stated the proposal is to combine two lots and construct a building containing fifty-one units and sixty-four parking spaces; discussed the intent of the North Trail Overlay District standards noting pedestrian friendly projects are encouraged; parking requirements are one space per unit, noted the parking requirements have been exceeded; stated there is one access point, noting two were originally proposed; said staff worked with the applicants to reduce the number of access points and reorient the single access point away from the neighborhood; pointed out the City's Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) does not allow for access onto US 41 for safety reasons; stated the project meets the NT height and landscaping requirements; noted the tree mitigation requirements have been exceeded; said the transportation, analysis found the project to be di minimis; stated the project meets the Standards for Review; and said staff recommends approval with conditions. PB Member Ohlrich questioned how flooding along Remington Drive will be mitigated. Development Review Senior Planner Christie stated stormwater will be retained under the parking lot. PB Member Blumetti asked if the Code prohibits a wall along Remington Drive. Development Review Senior Planner Christie stated the Code does not, noting there is a height requirement. 5:43:10 P.M. Affected Persons: Ms. Joanne Gonet, representing the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Association (IBSSA), appeared and requested an additional three minutes. The PB. agreed by consensus. Ms. Gonet distributed a written statement from IBSSA and read the statement into the record (attached hereto). Mr. John Kennan appeared and stated he is a resident of Remington Drive; the headlights will still shine into his home; is concerned about the increased traffic; and stated access should be taken from US 41. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 21 Mr. Kennan questioned the di minimis finding; and cross-examined Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the di minimis finding related to US 41 rather than Remington Drive. Mr. Kennan questioned the statement that there are no impacts to Remington Drive. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the impacts on Remington Drive were addressed in the analysis; provided an explanation of traffic studies stating the goal is to determine what improvements developers will be required to make per State law and the City's Zoning Code; and explained concurrency. Discussion ensued. Mr. Kennan stated issues are the result of the flexibility in the NTOD standards; noted the uniqueness of the site; reiterated access should be from US 41; presented an email indicating FDOT has said access from US 41 would be permitted; and said a precedent was being set. 6:00:20 P.M. Citizen Input: Mr. Tim Thurman appeared and stated he supported the IBSSA position; said he has concerns regarding increased traffic; and asked the PB to encourage the city to make capital improvements to the neighborhood. Ms. Joy Norwood appeared and stated she has concerns regarding the increased traffic noting there are no sidewalks in their neighborhood and the streets are very narrow. Mr. Ron Silver appeared and stated he opposed the project noting concerns with the height of the proposed structure; increased noise in the neighborhood; and inadequate parking. Ms. Miriam Wallace appeared and stated she has concerns regarding the proposed density and height of the project; the increased traffic; and flooding issues. The Planning Board Took a Ten-Minute Recess Ms. Jennifer Gould appeared and stated the traffic study should be redone due to non- compliance with the Zoning Code; said access should be taken from US 41; and said the proposed parking is inadequate. Mr. Les Kismartoni appeared and stated concerns with the increased traffic noting the aggregate of apartment buildings currently proposed for the area and the narrow street and lack of sidewalks in the neighborhood. Mr. Mark Richman appeared and stated the existing infrastructure will not support the increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic; and stated the density was too high. 6:26:39 P.M. Affected Persons Rebuttal: Mr. John Kennan appeared and stated the traffic study is faulty and access should be from US 41. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 21 6:28:33 P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared and discussed the meaning of di minimis; stated the proposed access is the safest and the impacts to the neighborhood will be minimal; noted the post development drainage has to be equal to or better than the existing conditions; pointed out narrow streets provide for slower traffic; said if there are any future issues the City's traffic calming program can address those; discussed the updated ITE manual; said parking for single family homes is not comparable to parking for apartment buildings; stated the project complies with the NTOD standards; and noted the applicants are providing a sidewalk along Remington Drive and a wider sidewalk on US 41. PB Chair Salem asked Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein if it was his opinion that it would not be safe to have access from US 41; and noted FDOT had said access could be taken from US 41. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the safest access is from Remington Drive. Discussion ensued regarding how traffic conflicts are measured; FDOT'sjurisdiction over US 41; and EDCM criteria. PB Member Ohlrich noted Acknowledgement #2 in the IBSSA position paper; and questioned what the deficiencies at the: intersection of Remington Drive and US41 were. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the deficiencies could be volume or geometric. Ms. Gonet appeared and stated the angled configuration of the intersection was the issue. PB Member Blumetti questioned how access from US 41 would be possible noting the existing median; and questioned if there have been traffic issues with a recently approved, similar project in the area. Discussion ensued. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein pointed out access to that project is also on a side street versus US 41. PB Member Christy questioned if there are stacking concerns. Ms. Gonet stated that was also a concern of the neighborhood. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discussed driveway separation requirements; and stated the: increase in volume was minimal and would not create additional stacking of vehicle issues. PB Member Halflants requested confirmation that Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein's analysis showed the worst-case scenario would be one additional vehicle every two minutes. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that would be overstating the additional traffic that will be added. 6:46:06 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman, Mr. Smith, Mr. Gallagher, and Mr. King appeared. Mr. Freedman discussed the proposed on-site stormwater improvements; noted a new sidewalk along Remington Drive and a wider sidewalk along US 41 would be provided; and pointed out a new wastewater line will be installed along Remington Drive. Mr. Smith stated a wall along Remington Drive was considered; and pointed out a plant-based buffer was consistent with CPTED principles. Mr. Gallagher noted the footprint of a wall would take away from the space available for a landscape buffer; discussed the purpose of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 21 NTOD noting it is meant to improve the conditions along US 41; stated minimizing curb cuts promotes pedestrian safety; pointed out the improvements to the existing infrastructure the applicants will be making; noted the neighbors expressed concerns related toincreased traffic from multiple proposed developments in the area; and stated the project implements the NTOD standards. Mr. King stated the applicants wish to be good neighbors; said they had reached out to the area Neighborhood Associations and had addressed their concerns regarding the access points on Remington Drive; and said they would continue to work with the neighborhood. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem questioned if access from US 41 versus Remington was an option. Mr. Freedman pointed out the NTOD requires access from a side street if one is available. PB Member Christy asked how long the property has been vacant. Mr. Freedman stated an existing structure was demolished in 2018. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if Mr. Smith was confident the shrubs will mitigate headlights shining into residences. Mr. Smith stated he was. Discussion ensued regarding modifying the buffer if issues arise. PB Member Ohlrich discussed Acknowledgement #3 in the IBSSA's position paper; pointed out the developer will no longer be involved; and questioned if the city was willing to have a discussion with the neighborhood. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated he is a resident of IBSSA; said he supports the project noting the improvements to the neighborhood that will be made; stated the proposed buffer was an asset; and recommended the ground floor be raised a few feet to reduce the headlights shining into the neighborhood. 6:58:39 P.M. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti stated he appreciated the speakers; pointed out the concerns expressed are a result of the Zoning Text Amendment that implemented the NTOD; and questioned how citizens are notified of proposed Zoning Text Amendments. Attorney Connolly stated Zoning Text Amendments are legislative, SO notices are not sent out, however Neighborhood Associations are notified. Discussion ensued regarding when the NTOD was adopted; subsequent amendments to the NTOD; and the notification process for Zoning Text Amendments. PB. Member Blumetti stated that is the time for citizen input; said he is hopeful the traffic concerns will not be realized; and noted the developers have worked with the neighbors to solve issues as best they can. PB. Member Ohlrich pointed out the developers are local and have stated their desire to be good neighbors. PB Member Christy made a motion to find that Site Plan 22-SP-08 is consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and meets the applicable criteria of Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and to approve the Site Plan subject to the conditions listed. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. PB Member Halflants discussed the current conditions on US41;noted this project will improve the area; and stated he appreciated PBI Member Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 21 Blumetti S comments. PB Chair Salem stated he liked the project but not the rental rates; noted the need for more affordable housing; and said he was hopeful the traffic would not be an issue. The motion passed 5-0 V. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the. Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which havel been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was: no citizen input. 7:06:18 P.M. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. May 11, 2022 The minutes were approved as submitted by consensus. 7:12:07 P.M. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action willl be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. Director Cover stated there are five quasi-judicial items that will be on the 7/13/22 PB meeting agenda. PB Member Halflants pointed out he will have to recuse himself from the public hearing regarding the Whitaker Lofts project. PB Member Christy stated he would not be available as an alternate for that meeting. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants again questioned if the PB would make an official recommendation regarding the expansion of the Missing Middle Zoning Text Amendment. Discussion ensued. 7:06:48 P.M. VIII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are: informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Halflants requested the PB recommend that staff look at extending the Missing Middle Zoning Text Amendment to other Downtown Neighborhood zoned areas, stating the regulations should not be limited to Park East. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if it was limited to Park East as a pilot project. Director Cover confirmed that was correct; pointed out the City Commission has not approved the Zoning Text Amendment yet; and said if the city Commission approves it staff will look at extending it. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 21 PB Member Blumetti questioned if notification could be given to all affected parties when a Zoning Text Amendment is for an Overlay District with specific boundaries. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated parties are notified in those cases; and noted Park East had approached the City. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants noted IBSSA had initiated the NTOD Zoning Text Amendment. Attorney Connolly pointed out notice of all Zoning Text Amendments are provided to CCNA. PB. Member Halflants questioned if a motion regarding recommending expansion of the Missing Middle Zoning Text Amendment was appropriate. Discussion ensued. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:16 P.M. e SteverCovér Terrill Salem, Chair Planning Director Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Acting Secretary to the Board]