CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department REVISED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Patrick Gannon, Chair Members Present: Eileen Normile, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Dr. Clifford Smith, Planner, Planning Department Lucia Panica, Chief Planner, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Gannon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] stated that they would like to move Agenda Item VII. Presentation of Topics by Staff up front; the Planning Board approved the change by consensus. III. 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. Update on the Form Based Code Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] stated this is an update for the Form Based Code; added that all planned workshops regarding the Form Based Code, including Community workshops, Planning Board workshops, and City Commission workshops, have been cancelled; added that the new plan is that the Form Based Code and the final REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 41 maps will be completed by July 2, 2018, the long range material relating to long range planning will be completed by July 16, 2018; noted that after July 2, 2018 staff, the law office, and the general public will be given three months to review the final draft of the Form Based Code, and after that there will be workshops, the dates of which he does not have at this point; and concluded that the Planning Board and City Commission public hearings will be in the early spring of 2019. Responding to PB Member Ohlrich' s question, Director Cover responded that PB Members will receive this announcement in writing. Responding to PB Chair Gannon's comment, Director Cover confirmed that it will be the same process, but it is moved up, there will still be opportunities to provide input at the workshops and at the public hearings that will follow. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the public hearings will be at the end of the season when many of the seasonal residents of Sarasota leave town. Director Cover said they will be earlier, in February, March, and April. 2. Vested trip credits for historic preservation purposes. Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department introduced himself and Dr. Clifford Smith, Planner, Planning Department; stated that following the Special Planning Board Meeting on February 28, 2018, when the Planning Board discussed some proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments to Appendix " A," relating to the concurrency methodology, at the March 19, 2018 City Commission meeting, City Commissioner Ahearn-Koch asked staff to look into the potential impacts of vested trips on Historic Preservation efforts, and to share that analysis with the Planning Board before the May 21 City Commission public hearing on the Zoning Text Amendment; noted that staff has not found any correlation between vested trips and historic preservation incentives; pointed out that there have been six demolitions of historic structures in the City in the last twenty five years; noted that the focus is really on those historic structures located in non- residential areas; added that staff evaluated Florida Master Site File structures, structures that are fifty years or older that are not designated as historic structures; said that staff found that over the past five years, of the 178 demolitions, only 14 were eligible to be locally designated historic structures, and only one of those was a non-residential structure; explained that the land value and the propensity to achieve highest and best use drives redevelopment; noted that, regardless if the site has a historic designation, if the building is obsolete, providing for 100% vested trip credit for the previous less intense use does not convey a significant economic benefit, when a more intense, higher economic use: isallowed on the parcel; added that giving 50% vested trip credit, as proposed in the Zoning Text Amendment, or 100% credit, the benefit would not off-set the economic gain of redeveloping the property to its highest and best use; repeated that the number of trips that could be vested to a historic building, or a structure eligible to be locally designated as a historic building, in most cases is going to be much lower than the more intense redeveloped use on the same parcel, which essentially negates potential inducement to retain the historic structure on this basis; pointed out that, while the use of vested trip credits does not appear to provide an incentive for historic preservation, staff is currently working with the Historic Preservation Board to develop a number of proposed Zoning Text Amendments to provide for additional historic preservation incentives that have been REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 41 successfully used by other local governments, and stated staff will bring those to the Planning Board for review later this year. 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.) Attorney Connolly noted that all five public hearings on this evening's agenda are Quasi- Judicial, and recommended time limits for presentations, which were accepted by the Planning Board Members by consensus. All Planning Members disclosed their ex-parte communications relating to all five public hearings on this evening's agenda. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all present who intended to speak this evening; and called the following individuals, who had applied for affected person status: Devin Rutkowski, David Beckett, and Sally Clarke Fox. They were not present at the public hearing, and therefore they were not granted affected person status. A. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. ENCLAVEATLAUREL PARK (501, 504, 505, 509,512,5 513,517,520 and 523 Lafayette Court and 500, 504, 506, 508, 512, 516, 518 and 522 Laurel Park Drive): Subdivision Final Plat Application No. 17-SUB-01 is a request for subdivision final plat approval for a replat of a 17-unit fee simple single-family townhome residential development located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District known as The Enclave at Laurel Park. The development has site plan approval for seven structures, from two to four stories. A discrepancy has been discovered in the approved Subdivision plat (Application 16- SUB-01), therefore the applicant is requesting to revise the internal zoning lot lines and lot sizes. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Don Neu, Agent, introduced himself for the record; stated that the subject site is located on Laurel Road east of US 301; noted that the project is under construction and he is requesting a replat; pointed out that during the preparation of the final plans they had to move one building back; added that the plat is recorded, building permits are submitted and approved for the project except a small part; explained that when they were working on their final plans, there was an issue with the clearance of the radius of a turning vehicle at the entrance road, and they had to move the plat line back for building No. 4; and noted that everything else remains the same. There were no questions by the Planning Board. Staff Presentation: Planner Greenberg introduced himself for the record; stated that the plat for 17- SUB- 01 remains the same, with the exception of two plat lines of Lot 4, which are moved REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 41 back 21 ft. each; explained that the 28.5 ft. dimension of Lot 4 remains the same, two feet were added to the dimension from Laurel Street to make it further away from Laurel Street, and 2 ft. were reduced from Lot 6 to move the structure closer to the interior; added that the application complies with the review criteria in Section IV-1007 of the Zoning Code; and stated that staff recommends approval of the Subdivision Plat. There were no questions by the Planning Board. Citizen Input: There was none. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss moved to find subdivision plat 17-SUB-01 consistent with Section IV-1007 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition. PB Vice Chair Normile seconded the motion. Motion passes unanimously (vote 5 to 0). 2. PAYNE PARK VILLAGE PHASE 1 (301 S. School Avenue): Subdivision Final Plat Application No. 18-SUB-01 is a request for subdivision final plat approval for Phase I of the project known as Payne Park Village located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District. The proposed plat is for 77 fee-simple single-family residences and for the future development tract. The development has site plan approval for 135 attached and detached fee-simple single-family residences through previously approved Application Nos. 16-DA-02, 16-ROA-01 and 16-SP-10. Phase I consists of 77 of the 135 approved residential units on the southern half of the site. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Applicant Presentation: Ms. Melanie Smith, Civil Engineer/Project Manager, Stantec, introduced to the record herself, Mr. Joseph Kelly, Surveyor, and Kevin Kramer with David Weekly Homes, and explained that they are here for Phase I of the Final Plat for the Payne Park Village Subdivision. Mr. Kelly stated that the subdivision is located on School Avenue directly across from Payne Park; noted that Phase I consists of seventy-seven residential single-family lots, and a future development track; pointed out that the original project was permitted for 135 lots, and stated the remaining 58 lots will be platted at a later date on the future development tract. PB Member Ohlrich asked if there is a discrepancy on the acreage; referred to page 1 of staff's report, where there is a reference to 6.32 acres, while the Stantec report refers to REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 41 8.67acres. Ms. Smith explained that the entire tract of land is Platted, with Phase II shown as Tract 800, "Future Development Tract." Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; stated that the property was originally approved in 2017 for two phases; noted that Parcel I, the residential component, was approved for 135 residential dwelling units, and Parcel II was the commercial component; noted that this application is the Final Plat for Phase I; pointed out that the application is in compliance with all Zoning Code requirements, the Site Plan, and the Development Agreement; stated the subdivision has received DRC sign off; and concluded that staff recommends approval of the application. Public Comments: 1. Pearlee Freiberg- supports the development; expressed concerns about traffic circulation on School Avenue, south of this development, in light of the School Board's efforts to close School Avenue between Hatton and Tami Sola Streets to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic during school hours, or vacate that portion of School Avenue. 2. Linda Kitch- stated she has no comments. 3. Mike Lasche - objects to the street improvements as proposed; spoke against Administrative Approvals; noted that land was given to the development instead of doing a bicycle lane; and said that he would like the Planning Board to direct staff to return the roadway to the width of the original Development Order, and to provide one lane of parallel parking and bicycle lanes on either side of the road; and submitted his comments in writing. Applicant Rebuttal: Ms. Smith stated that the right of way dedication is the same as it was in the original approvals; pointed out that the sidewalk width was increased to eight feet all along the frontage of the property on School Avenue; added that the developer has also committed a 10 ft. sidewalk easement along the north side of the subject property in the eventuality that there is a future connection between the park and the trail located along the east side of the subject property; and concluded that the cross-section and the design of the road has not changed in eight years, since the original approval. PB Member Blumetti asked to see the sidewalk along the property on School Avenue; and asked if there is a bicycle lane. Ms. Smith stated that the width for the right-of-way is available, and it is up to the City to decide if they want to change their road and include a bicycle lane. PB Chair Gannon asked what is along the west side of School Avenue. MS. Smith stated it is a shelled area where people park when it is crowded in the park. PB Vice Chair Normile followed up on what Mr. Lasche testified earlier, regarding land given to the development itself. Ms. Smith stated that it was an inaccurate statement; noted that the developer is dedicating land, approximately 15 ft. to 16 ft. wide, along the entire REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 41 frontage of the subject property on School Avenue, for parking; and explained that the previous easement was on the site plan and was not dedicated. Staff Rebuttal: Chief Planner Panica stated that public hearings for the Street Vacations and Development Agreement were held on this project in 2005 and 2017, and therefore it was not approved through the Administrative Approval process; added that she worked with Engineering, they reviewed the city's Public and Pedestrian Connection Plan to see if this is an area where Engineering could possibly have a bicycle lane; and stated that School Avenue is known as potential "shared lane" markings, and Engineering does not have plans for a bicycle lane in that area. PB Member Ohlrich asked what happened to the second lane of parallel parking. Chief Planner Panica stated that there is parallel parking along the frontage of this property; and added that if there was discussion about parallel parking on the opposite side of School Avenue, she is not aware of it because it is not part of this project. PB Vice Chair Normile asked, in terms of process, when staff reviews applications which include requests for bike lanes, are these applications reviewed by Transportation Planners, rather than being decided on a case by case basis; and asked if there is an overview of the plan and the entire area. Chief Planner Panica stated that she would expect this to happen in the future; and explained that the Transportation Planners were just hired, and they did not have an opportunity to review this project. PB Chair Gannon referred to the Aerial Location Map, (p2d of 33), by Stantec, and asked if the shelled area on the west side of School Avenue, adjacent to the park, was for walking or if there is a concrete sidewalk. Chief Planner Panica said she could not recall, but there is walking and biking through the park itself, and there is a nice sidewalk along the side of the park itself. PB Member Blumetti asked if bicycle lanes are required along collector roads. Chief Planner Panica stated she was not familiar with that, and stated that is an Engineering requirement. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss asked Attorney Connolly if there is anything that can be done about the closing of portions of School Avenue by the School Board, explaining that, even though it is outside the Planning Board's purview, it is going to have an impact on this project at some point. Attorney Connolly stated that if in fact the School Board requests a vacation, there will be a Planning Board Public Hearing prior to a City Commission Public Hearing. PB Member Ohlrich moved to find Subdivision 18-SUB-01 consistent with Section IV- 1007 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page! 7 of 41 The motion passed unanimously, (vote of 5 to 0). 3. COURTYARD AT CITRUS SQUARE PHASE II (555 N. Orange Avenue): Adjustment Application No. 17-ADP-04 is a request for approval of an adjustment pursuant to Section IV-1903, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) for property located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District known as the Courtyard at Citrus Square Phase II. Applicant is requesting three adjustments for property located on a primary grid street. Adjustments requested are to construct a façade at a length less than 70 percent of the length of the front lot line, to provide surface parking in the first layer, and to build a street wall that is not located in the coplanar to the building façade. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Applicant Presentation: PB Vice Chair Normile disclosed that she visited the site with staff. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to individuals who intended to speak and had not yet taken the oath. George Scarfe, Hoyt Architects, representing Gary Hoyt, introduced for the record himself, developer Mark Pierce, and Steven Weeks, also of Hoyt Architects. Mr. Scarfe explained that they are requesting three adjustments for the property located on 555 North Orange Avenue, as follows: Adjustment #1: a request to construct a façade less than 70 percent of the length of the front lot line; Adjustment #2: a request to provide surface parking in the first layer; and Adjustment #3: a request to build a street wall that is not coplanar to the building façade. Mr. Scarfe provided history about Citrus Square, stating that Phase I was completed in 2009 and has received awards and recognition locally and nationally; said that Phase II is under construction, and completion is anticipated in 2018, (Permit #20156262); noted that the original Citrus Square located at 445 North Orange Avenue has the same façade, it has surface parking located in the first layer, and the street wall is not located coplanar to the building façade, but staff did not ask for adjustments at that time; illustrated these features on the original permitted Phased Site Development Plan, and noted that all items currently under construction had been reviewed by City Staff during the 2007 permitting process. Mr. Scarfe noted that Phase III was permitted, and a wall was built around it for which no adjustment was required when it was reviewed in the 2015 permitting process; referred to Site Plan overlay 2015 VS. Site Plan 2016, which shows in red what was approved in 2016, under permit application 20156262; noted that this is a large long lot, it has been split into multiple parcels at this point, but it was always conceived as a REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 41 single project; stated that the site has two corner lots where the Code requirements for corner lots apply; presented an overview of pertinent Zoning Code definitions, and explained how they are applicable to the site; noted that the facade definitions relate to requested Adjustment #1, to construct a façade less than 70 percent of the length of the front lot line, which is about a corner lot that has frontage along two streets, Orange Avenue and Sixth Street, and an allowed by Code chamfered corner; as such calculations including all of these will result in a façade that is greater than 70 percent of the length of the front line; said that the application meets the review requirements in Section IV- 1903, because it continues what was approved in the earlier phases of the project, and it will be consistent throughout the project from 4th Street to 6th street; noted that they have been working with staff the last twenty three months on this phase in an effort to do the same stuff as they did in 2015; noted they are seeking a foundation permit at this time; referred to Zoning Code Section IV1903, (b)(2)e, and explained how it relates to requested Adjustment #2 to provide surface parking in the first layer, because the lot fronts two or more primary streets, and noted that this was granted previously without an Adjustment; in summary, he stated that the intent of the Downtown District is to create an urban environment that is a comfortable and interesting place to live and walk, and showed images of the earlier phases to illustrate that this project meets this intent; and requested approval of the Adjustments. PB Member Morriss asked what a compliant plan looks like. Mr. Scarfe said that a compliant plan would be a plan that is consistent with what was approved in 2015, because it included the wall and the parking that are in the Adjustment applications this evening. PB Chair Gannon asked for clarification regarding the canopy trees that Mr. Scarfe mentioned in his presentation. Mr. Scarfe stated that there are numerous canopy trees along the sidewalks which benefit from the proposed building's location away from the sidewalk, because they have room to grow; added that this developer planted all the trees along this project's frontage line, SO that they all look the same; and noted that some are between the curb and the sidewalk and some are on the property. Mr. Pierce confirmed this, said that they went to great lengths to keep the building away from the sidewalk to allow the trees room to grow and enhance walkability; pointed out that the width of the sidewalks vary from seven-and-a-half feet to ten feet; wondered why these questions are asked this evening, because the wall was permitted in the last phase and is under construction now; responding to questions, he explained that the trash for the original building was outside the wall, and there was a setback, but overtime staff suggested that the receptacles be relocated inside the wall, and the applicants moved them; and noted that the wall along 4th Street and the walls around the receptacles have been built as part of a permitted process. PB Chair Gannon stated that the location of the receptacles near the sidewalk does not enhance the pedestrian experience. Mr. Weeks noted that the recycling receptacle is near the wall, the refuse receptacle is on the side of the alley, between Phase II and Phase III, because they are sharing the refuse collection area; and added that the one shown today is the excess needed for the continuation of Phase III, it is behind a 6-ft. wall, and it is REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 41 intended to handle recycling. Mr. Scarfe pointed out that all this is part of the approved building permit that the applicant is currently constructing as part of Phase II of the development. PB Chair Gannon stated that this is a public hearing, the Planning Board needs to examine everything for the public good, there is no proffer that this receptacle will be restricted to recyclables, and expressed concerns about odors that may interfere with a pleasant pedestrian experience. Mr. Pierce stated that, on a daily basis, their employees make sure that the trash is disposed of appropriately, and they also pressure clean the receptacles every two weeks, which is much better than what is done by other developments in the area. PB Vice Chair Normile asked the reason for which the original wall, on the alley, is a different height than the wall the applicant is currently building. Mr. Scarfe stated that the City requested a 6-ft. wall, also they had some experiences of people jumping over the original wall, which was about 5 ft., sO now they are building a 6-ft. wall PB Member Blumetti requested clarification relating to the two plans; and asked the applicants why they have not provided an elevation in the application packet. Mr. Scarfe responded that this is a Foundation Permit, they have some architectural elevation changes, and they did not fully know at this time which areas will be higher than others. Discussion ensued to clarify why the parking requested in Adjustment #2: is considered first layer, about mitigation for trees in the earlier stages, and about the location of the building and the wall as they related to required parking spaces. PB Member Morriss noted that the applicant created problems for himself by moving the building away from the sidewalk. Discussion ensued about the potential for outdoor eating at this location, as it was approved ten years ago, and is happening now in Phase I. Mr. Weeks added that another reason the building was pushed back is the constraint created by a utilities easement for stormwater, which is running diagonally towards the intersection of Blvd. of the Arts and 6th Street; noted the easement widens as it moves towards the middle of the property, SO the building was moved back; and stated the added benefit is the walking experience and the outdoor dining. PB Member Ohlrich noted that the Executive Summary says that the applicant's plans are incomplete, and asked if the applicants responded to all staff requests for supplemental information for this application. Mr. Pierce said, again, that he is confused about all the questions relating to the wall and parking, because they have been permitted, and are currently under construction. PB Member Ohlrich noted that it seems that there is a big disagreement as to the reasons for which we are here this evening. Mr. Pierce stated that their intentions were to build a building as it was approved ten years ago, and they have not changed what they want to do. Mr. Scarfe stated that they have responded to staff via additional communications, however the design has not reached the point of preparing full elevations. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 41 Staff Presentation: Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services, and Planner Greenberg introduced themselves for the record. Planner Greenberg stated that the plans are not consistent or complete for staff to determine what is requested; stated that the building is not permitted, the applicants are requesting these adjustments in order to resolve comments they received sO that they can get their permits; noted that there are two major issues, first the plans are not consistent, staff has received different designs, different footprints, and thea applicants stated that the submitted design was not the final design; added that, as a result, staff does not know what is proposed. General Manager Schneider added that staff had concerns regarding the length of the building; noted that staff does not combine the length of the frontages, they look at each frontage individually, and in this case the two plans are different; added that staff does not know the function of the yellow highlighted area, and if it can be considered as part of the building; and explained that staff needs to know the length of the wall, because this information is used to accurately determine the required percentage for the façade. Planner Greenberg referred to Architectural Site Plan AS1.01, dated 4/28/18, to illustrate the difficulty staff had with reading the submitted information; added that it appears that the length of the side of the corner lot facing Boulevard of the Arts is 58 feet,illustrated the location of the proposed sidewalks along Blvd. of the Arts and along N. Orange Avenue; noted that the red is the proposed street wall, and the blue is the building façade; spoke to the dimensions, saying that the applicants have requested a 25% adjustment to the façade requirement, the building frontage along Blvd. of the Arts is 119 ft., the required 70% is 83.3 ft, and the applicant proposes 50 ft, which calls for a 40 % adjustment, not a 28.5 % adjustment; added that staff has not received information and is unclear about the 8-ft space between the end of the building and the street wall, but it is possible the applicant needs additional adjustments here; referred to the Code requirements, emphasized that both of these streets are pedestrian oriented, they are the two longest and most prominent streets north of Fruitville Road, a lot of foot traffic is anticipated as a result of all the development in the Rosemary area, and these streets are vital to the anticipated pedestrian traffic. General Manager Schneider referred to the 2000 Duany Plan for this area, pointed out the locations of the excellent frontages that existed at the time; noted that the roads in the vicinity of this project were identified as "fair" at that time; and stated that now that the Rosemary District has taken off, some of the projects coming in the Rosemary District have excellent frontage, and these streets meet the Zoning Code requirements for primary street." Planner Greenberg added that the Code calls for quality frontage, not walls, along urban primary streets, and buildings coming to the edge of the property line, with large glass areas SO that pedestrians can see what is happening inside. General Manager Schneider noted that the Downtown Master Plan also calls Boulevard of the Arts a major pedestrian street for the Rosemary District, and highlighted it is more than just a primary street, it calls it a pedestrian connector street. Planner Greenberg stated that the criteria for granting an Adjustment call for what is requested to be equal or better than what is required, while it implements the Downtown Master REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 41 Plan, which in turn calls for quality frontage; and gave examples of other buildings in the area that have provided quality frontage. General Manager Schneider noted that staff is meeting with the Rosemary District Association, and one of the things they highlight is what they want to see along the Boulevard of the Arts, including street level building activation, historic frontage windows, visibility inside the buildings, avoiding long stretches of walls, facades with relief openings and access points, etc.; added that this is just another document that supports high quality pedestrian activity and street frontage; stated that staff has concerns with what is being proposed noting the Orange Avenue frontage of this project is an excellent frontage, and staff wishes thatit can be continued along 6th Street; added that in 2007, when the original permits where granted, the Planning Department reviewed the project, but the Zoning Code was the same, and as such, the applicant should have been required to request Adjustments, but there is nothing on the records; stated that she, personally, was not part of the review, and does not know what happened, it could be that at the time reviewers were lenient because they wanted to spur development in the Rosemary District, but things have changed in the last ten years; and concluded that staff is recommending denial, because the application does not meet the review criteria. PB Member Morriss asked for clarification about the permit, because the applicants stated that they are in the construction process. General Manager Schneider stated that the applicants could not meet the Zoning Code requirements, and have chosen to drop property lines down, dividing the original property into three portions; noted that the applicant is referring to the building permit for the central portion of the project, only for that property; added that this corner piece has another building permit, which is currently pending, because of the identified concerns, which the applicants are trying toi resolve through the requested Adjustments. PBi member Morriss concluded that there is apparently a disconnect in the understanding of what is an active permit and what is not. PB Member Ohlrich asked why the adjustments were not required in the earlier stage. General Manager Schneider stated that staff has searched for Planning Board granted adjustments and found nothing on the records; and stated she could not explain what happened. PB Member Ohlrich thanked Planner Greenberg for providing larger size plans for her review, however she noted that the notes on the plans are still not legible. PB Vice Chair Normile asked General Manager Schneider if the earlier part of the project was approved administratively, without public hearings, if it met the Zoning Code, sO whoever approved it at that time found that the application met the Zoning Code. General Manager Schneider stated that they found notes indicating that adjustments were required, but staff does not know why the required adjustments did not come to public hearing. PB Chair Gannon asked if the trees that exist along the construction site were part of tree mitigation. General Manager Schneider said that she did not believe they were part REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 41 of tree mitigation, they would have been part of the 2007 approval. PB Chair Gannon referred to landscaping along Boulevard of the Arts by other current projects which enhances the pedestrian experience; and noted that the earlier stage of this project has successfully accomplished the intent of the Code, it has a great street frontage and its outdoor eating areas are very popular, but this is not possible in the phase under review; stated the two are not mirror images of each other, citing major differences, both in the building façade and in pedestrian traffic potential. PB Member Blumetti asked staff to confirm the 28.5%, and asked if that goes to the gate, or to the back of the building. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti asked if staff has discussed with the applicant reduced parking requirements. Planner Greenberg stated that there were a lot of issues that had not been discussed yet, however staff was asked to bring this application forward. General Manager Schneider said that now that the applicants have put down property lines, they are two different entities, the plans are evaluated differently, SO she does not think they have to provide parking, because now the commercial is less than 10,000 sq.ft.; and added that now they are required to provide one parking space per residential unit, which is only 18 parking spaces. PB Member Blumetti asked if the applicant is doing a favor by stepping the building back, because they could come out to the property line, and then there would be no relief at that corner, and no visibility. Planner Greenberg stated that staff asked the applicant to consider eliminating some parking spaces and create more frontage. PB Member Blumetti noted that in the applicant's report it is stated that 30 parking spaces are required, and suggested that reduced parking requirements may have resulted in a better façade. PB Member Morriss asked for clarification of the conditions listed in the second alternative motion recommended by staff. Attorney Connolly responded that the second condition is required by Florida Statutes. General Manager Schneider explained that the first condition intends to result in additional information for staff to proceed with their zoning review. PB Member Morriss asked what footprint they are using for the wall that has been permitted and they are building now. PB Chair Gannon asked what the impacts of continuing the public hearing were, should the Planning Board select staff's first recommended alternative motion. General Manager Schneider stated that if the Planning Board likes the building, the continuation will enable the applicants to submit additional information, SO staff can ensure that the adjustment to be granted is accurate, and stated staff has specifics on the wall elevations and dimensions. PB Chair Gannon asked if the continuation is only for additional information, and not for discussing options. Attorney Connolly responded that it is the applicanfsapplication and staff reviews: it asi it is presented by the applicant; and added that there is room for negotiations, in the end, however, the applicant decides what they want to pursue. PB Vice Chair Normile asked what the applicants want to pursue; asked how the Planning Board can make decisions based on incomplete and inconsistent information; added that it is a beautiful project, and she is sure that something can be worked out, REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 41 but the Planning Board does not have all the information; and stated that she is not in favor of making decisions based on lack of information. PB Chair Gannon referred to the Site Plan in the packet, and asked if the 30 parking spaces are both for the residential and commercial spaces. General Manager Schneider concurred and explained that the Zoning Code requires only 18 spaces, because the commercial uses are under 10,000 sq. ft., due to the property line that separates this parcel from the Phase II, currently under construction. PB Member Blumetti asked if the wall and parking were part of the second phase building permit. Chief Planner Panica was called to respond because she approved that permit. Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; recalled that Phase II and Phase III originally came in as one parcel, several years ago, but the applicant only wanted to construct the middle portion; added that there were several issues with primary street frontage requirements and the location of parking, SO they dropped a property line to basically hug the building which is currently under construction, and they complied with all regulations; noted that there is parking in the third piece of the property, however that is not required for the building currently under construction; stated that commercial parking is permitted in DTE; noted that the applicants had indicated that they would submit the building permit for the adjacent lot right away, and since commercial parking is permitted, staff decided that they could put a screen wall along the street to screen the parking, until they submitted a building permit, but if they submitted the building permit first, the wall would not be required; and clarified that the wall was along Orange Avenue to screen commercial parking. General Manager Schneider clarified that at the time the applicant was building a parking lot, now they are building a mixed-use project which will be utilizing the parking; and stated the standards are different. Chief Planner Panica stated that when the applicants submitted this permit to construct what they are proposing, all that went away, because this is a new proposal; and added that staff had given the applicant comments about the required adjustments back in 2015, and they were part of the design stage discussions for that building, even after the discussions about the interim wall for the Phase II construction. PB Chair Gannon asked for clarification about the wall on the alley. Planner Greenberg stated that this wall was part of the second building permit. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Pierce stated that the wall that was just discussed goes all the way to the exit gate sO it is for all the Phases of the project, it has been built, and has been inspected; provided building plans with details showing all the walls and stated those around the parking are all permitted in the permitted plans; stated that staff is mistaken; added that he took a 90 ft.by 90 ft. square in the middle of this project and created a place for the people to sit outside; said that now the discussion is about a foot here and there, instead of the overall plan and how the project has been for ten years and how it turned out; stated that the City for the last eight years has used this project as the only thing that the City does not own on their internet site to demonstrate what a walkable space looks like; said that nobody worked harder at it than he did; noted that there is no REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 41 question the wall is already permitted, and he does not know why staff was going about it this way, but they are mistaken, and they do not understand how you calculate 70%; stated that he takes exception to how he, a small local guy, can sit here for ten years, he built the street, he paid for the parking, he paid for the alley, he was the first one at this location when it was frightening to step up to the plate and be there; stated that before the City did anything, he did it; suggested that what the staff should be doing is helping, rather than arguing for two feet some places; and concluded that he thinks his team has done a fabulous job. Mr. Scarfe pointed out that he has before him a permitted set of] plans, signed and sealed by the Engineer and stamped by the City of Sarasota for Phase II that clearly indicates Future Building 555 North Orange, it clearly indicates the storm structures to be constructed to support all these phases, it shows the utility easement which is the reason for stepping back the building at this location; noted that one staff comment is that they were unclear about the area behind the building, which staff thought was an outdoor walkway; explained that, in the future development of three or four stories, there is an exit stair requirement that leads to the public right of way; stated this is a critical portion of the egress path of the building, it is a portion of the building and it is covered, it is not fully enclosed, it is open to the air, but it is enclosed on three sides. PB. Member Morriss stated that one of the concerns is the discrepancies of the plans, for example, one of them has an angled façade the other was a stepped façade; and asked which one: is the developer going to use. Mr. Scarfe stated that the original design was parallel to the easement line, however, the parallel design was changed to the stepped design to respond to staff comments. Mr. Pierce stated that the resulting stepped design has architectural value and creates a more interesting experience, but what staff wants is to push the building to the lot line, then the parking will be legal, and the building will be legal; noted that the experience will be worse; added that there are some very small units in this corner of the building, 500 sq. ft. for $200,000 creating affordable housing units; stated if he pushes the building to the lot line, he can make the units larger; suggested that staff is not taking the big picture in, while he has ten years of his life working every day on the site, and he knows more than staff can possibly consider. PB Member Morriss asked for clarification about the parking calculations, and pointed out that staff claims only 18 spaces are: required. Mr. Weeks explained his calculations. Mr. Pierce stated that they are providing what is required; and stated they need the three parking spaces adjacent to the small housing units where he is creating a space that the employees can afford to live. Mr. Scarfe explained that the utility line could be moved along the right of way, out of the applicant's property, not requiring an easement, and then the building could have been built out to the lot line; added that the applicant's team discussed the location of the utility line, and decided that it should remain on the property rather than tearing up the Boulevard of the Arts. Mr. Pierce stated that it is upsetting that every time there is a changei in staff, we reinvent the wheel; noted thatnothing about the law has changed since the inception of this project; added that staff fought him about the ten foot REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 41 sidewalk, he is the one who put the ten feet in Phase I, staff did not want big sidewalks at the time; questioned how does a foot of sidewalk compare to what he created in the middle of the development for outdoor dining, and charity events; said that he does not know how much more he has to do to create a beautiful walkable space using half the allowable density; and concluded that there should be more help. PB Chair Gannon stated that the 4th Street experience is fantastic; and said that the key question is why is that not replicated on the Boulevard of the Arts. Mr. Pierce stated it is a matter of math, when he took out the 90 ft by 90 ft square from the middle of the property, everything was pushed the other direction and that is where the building ended up, SO he stepped it back and created smaller units; and concluded that one of the alternatives would be to take out the square, noting he gave up all that property. Mr. Scarfe stated that there is a transition within the property, where the side that is closer to the downtown has a more urban feel while the other side which is away from the downtown has more ground floor residential units; pointed out that another thing to notice is that all curb cuts are on the alley; and added that is not an easy thing to do when the property has three frontages, they have considered everything, and kept with the intent of the Sarasota Plan. Mr. Pierce stated that there is nothing sneaky about this, he and his team have been working hard for ten years to do exactly what is needed. Mr. Scarfe stated that the wall was not included in the last application because it was already provided in Phase II. Mr. Pierce stated that the site plan for the second building permit is done, and includes seven pages of details including the wall, the only thing that is not done is the footprint for the last building. PB Member Ohlrich noted that Mr. Pierce said he gave up some of his property for the courtyard, and asked what the courtyard is used for now. Mr. Pierce said that it is not a public park, it is on the property and is used for outdoor experiences by the people who live there. PB Vice Chair Normile stated she will go back to her earlier comments, this is not about the applicant' S efforts for this project, it is about the fact that he and staff are not on the same page in terms of information; explained that staff cannot really make decisions based on lack of information, and the Planning Board depends on information in order to make decisions while trying to interpret the Zoning Code; noted that staff and the developer's team disagree on the calculations of 70%; and suggested that a legal opinion may be needed to resolve the disagreement, and everyone will be at a better place. Mr. Pierce stated that it does not take a legal opinion for everybody to see that he has permits and the right to build the parking lot and the wall. PB Vice Chair Normile said that something is missing and we need to find what it is before we can make a decision. Mr. Scarfe requested the Planning Board's assistance in clarifying the interpretation of the Code for the calculations of the 70%. Mr. Pierce stated that the solution would be to move the building to the wall and he has every legal right to do it, and asked why have this discussion to make it worse instead of better. REVISED Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 41 PB Member Morriss stated that he agrees with earlier comments about information; and asked if we can get the information now and avoid continuation of the public hearing, because the more time goes by the more expensive it becomes; added that he is not concerned about the elevations; noted that the key issue is which footprint theapplicant will use; and asked if it is the footprint shown on plan AS1.01 which is included in the packet. Mr. Scarfe said yes, AS1.01 has been revised to respond to staff comments. PB Member Morriss asked if AS1.01 also aligns with the permitting plans the applicant has before him. Mr. Scarfe said it does not, explaining that the "future building" in the permitting plans does not show the stepped building. PB Member Ohlrich stated that it has become clear that the Planning Board needs additional information and it needs consistent information. Mr. Scarfe explained that AS1.01 is different because it was revised per staff comments. PB Member Morriss added that what the Planning Board needs is one plan with all the information SO that everyone knows what is being approved. Mr. Pierce pointed out again that the permitting plans before him are already approved. PB. Member Blumetti stated that the important thing is the Adjustment; and asked if the Adjustment is the same in both plans. Mr. Scarfe said the Adjustment is in the interpretation of the 70%. PB Chair Gannon noted that there were three adjustments in the application. Discussion ensued about the requested adjustments, and which elements were included in the building permit for Phase II. Staff Rebuttal: General Manager Schneider referred to the Zoning Code and explained that after the applicant did a lot split, the parcel for the last building is reviewed under different parking criteria, because of the lower amount of commercial space; noted the commercial space in Phase III is 6,000 sq. ft., therefore they are exempt from providing parking for the commercial spaces, they are only required to provide one parking space for each of the residential units; added that the parking requirements are minimum requirements, and developers can decide how much parking to provide for their development; added that there is not much parking in that area; and concluded that it is in the applicant's S best interest to have additional parking. PB Chair Gannon stated that another issue was the calculation of the frontage; and asked for clarification. General Manager Schneider stated that in the calculation of frontage, each street is handled separately, it has never been interpreted where all frontages are combined to be able to get an overall frontage; and referred to the Zoning Code requirements for primary streets, which state " The façade shall be built parallel to the front lot line, except at chamfered corners, along a minimum of 70% of its length." PB Member Morriss asked what the adjustment would be. General Manager Schneider stated that it depends on the length of the facade, and staff is not sure what that length is; and stated staff does not have the elevations to determine the appropriate adjustment. Discussion ensued regarding what additional information staff would need to conclude the public hearing this evening. General Manager Schneider said staff is not in a position to do that noting staff does not have the information they need to REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 41 accurately determine the Adjustment. Planner Greenberg stated that lack of information goes beyond simple dimensions and plans and elevations, it comes back to the review criteria and determining if what is proposed is equal or better than what is currently there; and stated the discussion is about a façade difference of 23.3 ft. PB Member Morriss pointed out that what was just said is not information rather: itis interpretation, and asked what is missing, what needed to be locked down to essentially get the applicant to proffer this is the footprint, these are the dimensions, and make a decision; and asked again, what is missing from what the Planning Board has now. General Manager Schneider stated that what is missing is the understanding of several items, including the following: if there is a fully enclosed building over that gate; if the wall will come all the way down; the floor plans, to ensure that there is an enclosed building with habitable space for the first 20 feet of that frontage; it could not be an open staircase, it couldn'tbe access to additional floors, it needs to be habitable space; and what other adjustments are forthcoming, because staff is supposed to evaluate the cumulative effect of adjustments. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing, and stated there are some questions for the Attorney. PB Chair Gannon asked Attorney Connolly for interpretation of the difference in the statements that were made relating to the calculation of frontage and calculation of parking requirements. Attorney Connolly noted that staff has stated on the record that 18 parking spaces are required; added that this was based on the applicant' S statement that they have 6000 sq. ft. of commercial space in Phase III, and on the Zoning Code quotation staff read earlier, which states that there are no parking requirements for commercial spaces less than 10,000sq.ft.; added that the applicants can have additional parking spaces to make their project more. marketable; said that the applicant could have 27 parking spaces and avoid adjustments #2 and #3; noted that all these can be established based on testimony on the record; pointed out that when the applicants decided to put in a new lot line, staff said, since it is DTE, we will let you have your parking in Phase III and put the wall there; added that now the applicant is claiming that it was an approval of the wall in the Phase III development; and stated it is a communication problem. Attorney Connolly advised the Planning Board does not have jurisdiction to interpret the Zoning Code; noted that this evening is the first time to his knowledge that City staff has heard the term 'interpretation;" explained that there is a process, and there is a development application that has to be filed for an interpretation; said that only the Director has jurisdiction to issue interpretations of the Zoning Code, following these steps: applicant requests in writing that Director Litchet provide the interpretation REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 41 the Director will provide his opinion in writing the Director's opinion will be sent to residents living within 500 ft. of the site residents within 500-ft have sixty days to decide if they want to contest Director's opinion since this site is located Downtown, there will be a hearing before the Planning Board, instead of the Board of Adjustment Attorney Connolly stated that this is the process if one needs an interpretation; added that what the Planning Board members have in front of them this evening is the way the City has always interpreted the Zoning Code, which is separating the two frontages; noted that in his opinion the Planning Board does that, unless if the applicant wants to ask for an interpretation and find out what happens through that process. PB Member Morriss stated it seems too cumbersome to try to get an interpretation, SO the adjustment would have to commence with the current means for adjustments. PB Chair Gannon stated in terms of interpreting the adjustment for the façade, does it have to include the length of the adjustment, or the percentage of the adjustment, or if there is a range do we assume the maximum, how is it done. Attorney Connolly stated that he is the one who will prepare the Resolution that the Planning Board will have to sign, for example, a couple months ago the Planning Board held a public hearing on an Adjustment relating to the sign in a salon, and that Adjustment would say "the zoning code allows a maximum sign height of 24 inches, we will allow one letter of this sign to be 38 inches"; and stated staff's point here is that we do not know what the numbers are to put in that Resolution. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that what Attorney Connolly just said, without a drawing to include as part of the resolution, Planning Board members do not know what they are approving, and they cannot hold the applicant to it later. Attorney Connolly. concurred, and said that this is the point staff: is making. PB Member Blumetti stated that he respectfully disagrees, he thinks it is 25.5%, it is in the staff report, and asked what the confusion was. Attorney Connolly reviewed the languageint the public notice. for this public hearing, which refers to " the construction of a façade less than 70%... 1 Attorney Connolly stated that the applicant just told him that they will be willing to commit that, on the frontage of Boulevard of the Arts, there will 58 ft. that will have a minimum 20 ft. depth of habitable space at the first and second stories. PB Chair Gannon stated that there is a statement on record that they must provide egress to a stairwell out, which is the reason for the gate, and asked if this would change the location of the gate. Attorney Connolly stated that this is part of the confusion; explained that the reference to the location of that gate leads staff to believe that there is not going to be a depth of 20 ft. of habitable space; and concluded that there is a failure to communicate. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 41 PB Member Morriss stated that it seems that, even with the clarifications, the Planning Board is taking a sizable leap of faith; and added that looking at the applicant's track record, that leap of faith is warranted, the question is, does the Planning Board want to take it. PB Member Blumetti stated that it is a long-standing building in Sarasota, it certainly has history here, and it is one of the first buildings in this area; noted going back to the applicant's point, he did not think they are doing anything sneaky, there just is some confusion between City staff and the applicant as far as the wall is concerned; and added there is confusion on the calculations for Adjustment #1, which is now confirmed to be 58 ft.; and concluded that now it comes down to the parking. PB Member Morriss moved to adopt a motion to find Adjustment 17-ADP-24 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustments with the following conditions. 1. All related development and construction plans for the proposed development shall be in compliance with the applicant' S three written requests for adjustment received by the Department of Development Services on June 27, 2017. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. 2. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota fori issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligationsimposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. 3. The applicant proffered on the frontage of Boulevard of the Arts, there will be 58 ft length that will have a minimum 20 ft. depth of habitable space, at the first and second stories. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that he is aware that the motion includes all three Adjustments and he trusts that the applicants know their business; the additional parking will prove beneficial as the area improves; the track record is exceptional; he thinks it is a choice of compliant mediocrity or adjusted exceptional, and he would rather have adjusted exceptional; and concluded that the Planning Board has the basics of what is adjusted. Speaking to his second, Mr. Blumetti stated that he agrees with what was said, and added that the alternative is pushing thel building to the set-back, which is less attractive and they have the right to do, SO as far as this corner is concerned they are doing the City and this street a favor. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she would like to give staff and the applicant the opportunity to come back to the Planning Board sO that everyone is clear on what is being voted on; stated there is sO much inconsistent and incomplete information here; REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 41 and noted that the Planning Board members agree that this is a wonderful project and the applicants have a good track record, but she feels uncomfortable voting in favor of such incomplete and inconsistent information. PB Vice Chair Normile concurred; added that, as an attorney, she has a hard time agreeing to a contract that has missing information, and that is what this is; noted that this is an exceptional project, it is lovely, it has always been the jewel of the Rosemary District, and will continue to be, and she thinks the City will get adjusted exceptionalism, except the Planning Board will have something that they can sign their name to; stated that it would save everyone an appeal process later on; noted that there could be some disagreements between staff and the applicant that could continue later on in this process because they seem to have a bit of a problem communicating: and stated she would like to have something on paper that they can point to, sO each side knows exactly what they've got, and avoid an appeal process in the future. PB Chair Gannon agreed that it is a fantastic project overall, and personally he loves Citrus Square and the retail there; stated that he is concerned, first, about the lack of consistency and being able to get together on at least the basic set of facts; added that he would also like to see the application come back to the Planning Board; secondly, he is concerned about the fact that some of the features that made Phase I such an outstanding project are lacking in this Phase, especially along Boulevard of the Arts; and concluded that this is a significantly growing area of pedestrian traffic, and it does not appear that this is really taken into consideration in the design. PB Member Morriss disagreed stating they have the right to build clear to the property line, and they have done a lot to improve the walkability in the area. PB Chair Gannon said that there is a statement on the record that this was going to be a mirror image of Phase I, and he did not see that. Attorney Connolly noted that a couple people have said that the applicant could build to the lot line; pointed out that while the applicant has the Zoning Code right to do sO, technically that could not be done on this site because of the location of the utility easement; and explained that could not be done on this site without the expense of relocating the line. PB Member Morriss, maker of the motion, stated that given the comments he heard, he will withdraw his motion. PB Member Blumetti stated he did not want to withdraw his second. PB Member Morriss stated that, based on the discussion, it appears that the Planning Board is willing to make the adjustments, but wej just don'tknow what we: are adjusting at this point; and asked what the timeframe for continuing the public hearing is. Attorney Connolly stated that there is not enough time to continue this meeting to the May 9, 2018 Planning Board Regular Meeting; added that it all depends on how soon the necessary paper work can get in the Planning Board packets; pointed out that the REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 41 Planning Board has the option of continuing the public hearing to a date certain, for example the date of the June or July Planning Board Regular Meeting, which will eliminate the requirement for re-advertisement and the associated costs. PB Member Blumetti stated that he still cannot understand where the confusion is. PB Chair Gannon clarified that there is no longer a motion, unless if he wants to make a motion and gets a second. PB Member Ohlrich moved to continue the petition for further information required by the Board such as a north building elevation, floor plans and a site circulation plan. PB Vice Chair Normile seconded the motion. Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] asked if the petition is continued to a date certain. Attorney Connolly pointed out again that this would eliminate re- advertisement. Discussion ensued, and the applicant agreed to continue the Public Hearing to Wednesday, June 13, 2018. PB Member Morriss stated that they need a footprint, not the building elevation; and added that a footprint would be more do-able to meet the deadlines for the June 13, 2018 public hearing. PB Member Ohlirch, maker of the motion, amended her motion to eliminate reference to building elevation, and refer to a date certain; the amended motion reads as follows: Revised motion: PB Member Ohlrich moved to continue the petition to June 13, 2018 for further information as required by the Board such as a north building elevation footprint, floor plans, and a site circulation plan. PB Vice Chair Normile, the seconder of the motion, agreed. The motion to continue the petition was approved unanimously, (Vote 5 to 0). Attorney Connolly made the following announcement on the record: Application 17-ADP-04 has been continued, the public hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 13, 2018, during the Regular Planning Board Meeting, starting at 6:00 P.M., at the Sarasota City Hall, 1655 First Street. 4. QUAY SARASOTA BLOCK 6-THE GRANDE (333 N. Tamiami Trail): Site Plan Application No. 17-SP-18 is a request for site plan approval to construct an 18 story multi use building located in the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone District. The project is proposed within "Block 6" on the southwest portion of the Quay Sarasota General Development Plan which was approved by the City Commission in December 2016. The project will consist of 73 residential dwelling units along with up to 9,500 S.F. of retail/restaurant space and up to 159 off street parking spaces. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 41 (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Attorney Connolly called Philip Dasher and Ms. Patricia Stone who had filed applications for affected person's status. Only Mr. Dasher was present, and he was granted affected person' S status. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all present who had not taken the oath earlier. Applicant Presentation: Attorney Charles D. Bailey, introduced to the record himself and John Harper, Developer of Ritz Carlton Residences of Sarasota, who filed the application for Quay Sarasota Block 6, and Brett Blank, GreenPointe Holdings, whose Quay Venture LLC, is the owner and Master Developer of Quay Sarasota. Mr. Bailey stated that this evening they are presenting the Quay Sarasota Block 6 site plan application for the 18-story, 73-unit Ritz Carlton Residences of Sarasota, a residential condominium building, located on Block 6 of Quay Sarasota, with a liner building to contain the first of the commercial uses of Quay Sarasota, a 9,500 sq. ft. restaurant, at the northern boundary of Block 6 and the southern part of Central Quay, which is Block 10; noted that usually applications like this are handled administratively by City staff, but this is the product of an Agreement between the City and the Quay, which was unanimously approved by the Planning Board in August 2016, along with the General Development Plan (GDP); said that on December 5, 2016, the City Commission approved the GDP, and executed the Development Agreement, under which the Quay Mixed-Use District is authorized to have 695 dwelling units, 189,050 sq.ft. of retail and restaurant uses, 38, 980s sq.ft. of office and an 175-room hotel; pointed out that by this site plan they are allocating some of those 695 dwelling units and a fraction of the retail square footage to Block 6; noted that under the Development Agreement and the GDP, Quay Sarasota is configured as a mixed-use district, comprised of multiple urban blocks, and each block is required to undergo a site plan review by the Planning Board; pointed out that Block 6 is the first site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Board; stated that the project is situated just south of Blvd of the Arts, immediately across the City owned property of approximately 53 acres which is the subject of the Sarasota Bayfront Planning Organization, Bayfront 2020 initiative, the planning exercise known as "The Bay," said that one can see the proximity of the two projects, and the synergy to be created by these two projects is very exciting; said that the Development Agreement calls for a unified development plan, not randomly and piece meal approach; noted that Block 6 represents 1.9 of the 14.9 acre Quay Sarasota, it is zoned Downtown Bayfront, it is situated on Sarasota Bay, it has US 41 as its east boundary, and the intersection of Fruitville Road and US 41 marks the entrance to Quay Sarasota; pointed out that within the center of the site is the Belle Haven, the only vertical structure on the site; and stated that Quay Sarasota embraces this 1926 structure, the first Historic Structure in Sarasota, and it will be used as office space. Mr. Blank stated that their infrastructure permit addresses infrastructure including roads, drainage, stormwater management, and water to serve Block 6; they will be permitting the roundabout, where they anticipate to begin construction in August 2018, REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 41 and they will deal with the overgrown ditch on the south side; noted that these three projects together will help improve the stormwater management challenges along US 41 at this location; explained that all Quay Sarasota is currently draining into the ditch, they will bring it all internally into a vault system, treat it and release it into the Bay; added that the forty acres of the Rosemary District that currently drains into US 41 will drain into the improved piping and convey it into the ditch area, and the ditch itself will be piped, and covered; said it will also have a silt chamber which will clean the water before it dumps it into the Bay; pointed out that the combination of these projects will improve the drainage and alleviate the flooding problems at this location; stated that they will create a number of Multiuse Recreational Trails (MURTs), one along US 41, a temporary MURT to be used during the construction period, and a waterfront MURT; noted that there will be continuous MURT activity and access from Blvd. of the Arts to the south throughout the life of the Quay project; pointed out that they are creating a scenic MURT which joins the Bayfront MURT, starts at the southeast corner and runs along the ditch parcel and accesses the waterfront, to satisfy the conditions in the Development Agreement; added that on the southwest corner there will be a pedestrian connection to the Ritz Carlton, not part of the MURT, for pedestrian access between the properties, with a gate, which will close for security reasons when the Ritz Carlton is holding special events in their plaza at this location; llustrated that connectivity in the Quay is provided through other means, beyond the MURTS; and stated there are sidewalks connecting all sections of the Quay with the MURTS and the bay. Mr. Bailey summarized selected sections of the Quay Sarasota Development Agreement, stating that Section 3 of the Development Agreement establishes the permitted use categories for the project, the density and intensity of the project, and the timing of the Belle Haven which must commence before the construction of Block 6,and must be completed before the CO for the Ritz Carlton Residences; added that they are on track to meet all these requirements. Section 4(b) of the Development Agreement recognizes that the GDP designates several blocks of Quay Sarasota, each of which will undergo review by the Planning Board for meeting the requirements of the Zoning Code; Section 4(b) of the Development Agreement also refers to concurrency; it confirms that, consistent with the 2016 review of Quay Sarasota by the City of Sarasota, the entire Quay Sarasota is vested with regard to every applicable facility, transportation, potable water, waste water, solid waste, library facilities, etc.; Section 4(e) of the Development Agreement refers to the Site Infrastructure Construction permits; Section 4(f) of the Development Agreement relates to Site Access, and Traffic Circulation Analysis; it requires each Block to have a Traffic Circulation Analysis to ensure that the internal circulation and its connections to the City's network function properly; Section 5(c) of the Development Agreement addresses the timing and the construction of the MURTS, and the additional voluntary Scenic MURT; and REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 41 Section (7) of the Development Agreement relates to the construction of the roundabout at Fruitville Road and US 41. Mr. Bailey concluded stating the Site Plan presented this evening is in full compliance with the requirements of the Development Agreement. Mr. Harper discussed the improvements for the Ritz Carlton Residences; stated that it has 18 stories, 73 residential units, 9,500 sq. ft. of restaurant space, and 152 off street parking spaces; presented various views of the development; noted that the project has two components, it has the residential units but it also has the restaurant, which is completely separate from the residential portion; stated that all public access to the restaurant is from the Quay not from the residential tower; added that the restaurant is located on the second floor of the northwest corner of the waterfront structure; noted that vehicular access, and on-street parking is on the Main Quay Blvd.; pointed out that the parking exceeds the required number of spaces, and there is also valet parking; said that pedestrian access to the restaurant is provided in two ways; added that if one is coming from the Quay Blvd. valet parking area, which is at the same elevation as the restaurant, there is a covered walkway, and there is access to the lower level via stairs; added that inside the restaurant, therei is a small service elevator to the dedicated service quarters on level one; showed the location of the building's loading dock and service area on the lower level, and the location of the service drive for both the residential and the restaurant; discussed the access to the Ritz Carlton Residences Tower, noting that vehicular access starts at the main entrance and either continues to the Level 2 parking garage, or continues up the ramp to the Level 3 Lobby; noted that there are three separate pedestrian access points: on the east, access is provided to the garage, on the west, access is provided to the Level 1 parking garage, and the third access is via an overhead pedestrian bridge located at the southwest end, connecting the hotel services and the private residential amenities; presented the floor plans; noted that Level 1 provides most of the parking spaces and the loading dock for both the residence condos and the restaurants; added that there are several residential trash rooms in each corner and a large residential trash room next to the loading dock; noted that there is a separate restaurant trash room near the dock; stated that Level 2 has additional residential parking, and includes some amenity areas and the restaurant; pointed out that there is no public connection between the restaurant and the residences; noted that Level 3 is the main lobby and amenities for the Ritz Carlton Residences, including interior and exterior amenities, two residential units, the main pool, a lap pool, a dog park, and a spa; and said that the typical floors include three to five units per floor, with three separate cores to allow private elevators to each unit and separate passenger elevators and service elevators. Mr. Bailey stated that the application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the requirements of the Development Agreement; added that it comes with a recommendation for approval by staff, with nine conditions as revised by staff; and noted that the applicants have reviewed the revised conditions and accept all of them. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 41 PB Member Ohlrich asked if there are any ADA requirements for access to the restaurant from the water. Mr. Harper responded that there are ramps that lead to the restaurant. PB Member Ohlrich asked for clarification about the two names for the building "The Grande, 1 and "The Ritz Carlton Residences." Mr. Harper explained that "The Grande" was the previous name of the project; and stated that the Ritz Carlton decided the name of the project, and they want it to be named "The Ritz Carlton Residences, Sarasota." "; and noted there are other projects with similar names, but this will have a different address. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if it is going to be on Ritz Carlton Circle. Mr. Bailey stated that an internal street name has not yet beena approved. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Normile asked for clarification about the traffic study; and noted that the traffic study in the packet shows a 7,000 sq. ft. restaurant and in the presentation the applicants referred to a 9,500 sq. ft. restaurant. Mr. Bailey explained that the presentation stated that they were planning for up to 9,500 sq. ft. restaurant; noted that they have interfaced with City Transportation staff, who have stated that the difference has a de minimis or no impact to the outcome of the traffic circulation study; pointed out an important distinction, explaining that the traffic analysis for the Block 6 site plan is not a traffic impact analysis, determining the number of peak-hour trips that is going to be generated, but rather it determines if the internal circulation functions properly; and added that City Transportation staff has determined that the difference in the restaurant sq. footage is not going to affect he internal circulation. PB Vice Chair Normile agreed with that, noting that the difference is probably twenty cars; pointed out that the Quay has a trip budget from its first traffic impact analysis, and, if they go over the trip budget of 419 cars, then the developer is responsible for concurrency payments, and concluded that every car adds up as you do each block. Mr. Bailey noted that the restaurant and the Residences at this point are to consume 83 or 86 trips at peak hour, stated that they are well under it, but he agreed with PB Vice Chair Normile that whatever the restaurant sq. footage ends up being, the accurate number of peak hour trips need be calculated and recorded accurately. PB Vice Chair Normile pointed out that the Quay has 60% credit, and it behooves the applicants to keep a correct count of the trips. PB Member Morriss asked if the Ritz Carlton has approval rights to the rest of the Blocks. The applicants said "No." PB Member Blumetti asked if it is the applicant's responsibility to maintain the MURTS on the Quay. Mr. Bailey said Quay Venture will be responsible for them. PB Member Blumetti asked if there are operation hours for the Scenic MURT or the park on Block 10. Mr. Bailey clarified that the Scenic MURT has to be available at least the same hours as the City and County Parks, and, if there is any commercial along the Scenic MURT that stays open additional hours, then the Scenic MURT has to remain open those additional hours; added that the Central Quay will function the same way, and the hours are posted on a sign; and noted that the MURT and the park are not blocked off. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 41 PB Member Ohlrich referred to a letter from Mr. W. E. Oliver to Mr. Ohrenstein, on page 104 of the packet, where the third bullet reads: An area ofi potential concern is the area wohere the down ramp. from the third level "Arrival Court" meets the entrance/exit fromt the second level parking. The plans submitted for reviezo are not trffic signing/marking plans; however, a clear indication of zuho has right-of-way for exiting traffic is needed. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the applicants have addressed this concern. Mr. Bailey responded that it is addressed in Condition 1 of the staff recommended motion. PB Chair Gannon asked about the scenic MURT and the trash collection trucks coming into the development on the south side of the property; referencing to Cross-section E, where the trucks needed 10ft., and the pedestrians had 7 ft. asked if the developers had a graphic or something to show where the MURT and the truck traffic would be. Mr. Bailey said that there is 18-ft of paved area for the MURT; explained that this is the service area, and will be utilized for services to the Ritz Carlton Residences, such as garbage and recycling pick up internal to the building, and residents who are moving into the Ritz Carlton Residences; noted that there will be two or three vehicles per day, the rest of the time it will be available to cyclists, pedestrians, etc.; and pointed out that they have delineated that area to be exclusively used by non-vehicular traffic using pavers, while the area to be used by the cars is colored differently, and that would help avoid conflicts. PB Chair Gannon referred to drawing A102, Garbage Truck Access Plan, where the truck turning radius is overlapping with the MURT. Mr. Bailey stated that there are two points where the trucks will CrOsS over; and explained that this MURT is not part of the of the City required Bayfront MURT which must meet specific standards, this is a product of the Development Agreement, it was an additional proffer by Quay Venture, sO it is designed to provide public access and vehicular access, including emergency vehicular access to the water's edge, up to the lagoon parcel, sO there will be times when the pedestrians have to look out for vehicular traffic. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Gannon asked if the bridge crossover was for the exclusive use of the Residences. Mr. Harper stated that it is primarily for services, as it connects to the service areas of the hotel with the Residences, the main purpose for the bridge is that the new Ritz Carlton Residences receive room service from the Ritz Carlton Hotel, not from the restaurant, it is a feature of the Ritz Carlton Residences and will be for the exclusive use of its residents; added that the management of the scenic MURT/service drive area will be under the control of the Master Association for the Quay Sarasota project, there will be a Property Owner's Association (POA) to oversee all the properties of the Quay Sarasota project common areas. PB Member Gannon asked if the easement is granted to that entity. Mr. Bailey explained that the Quay Ventures is required to convey a public easement over all of REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 41 them, and concurrently with that, like in any other project, they have to provide a nonprofit organization to function as a Condo Association, or Homeowner's Association; explained that the POA will be like that, a Master Association that will operate the different improvements within the project; added that pursuant to the Development Agreement and the MURT Agreement, the document establishing the POA must be submitted to the City Attorney's Office; and noted that it is currently being reviewed by City Attorney Fournier. Discussion ensued. The applicants assured PB Chair Gannon that the Development Agreement called for the permanent Bayfront MURT to be constructed in segments as improvements occur on the adjacent Blocks, but because the permanent Bayfront MURT is going to be constructed concurrently with the roundabout, the interim temporary MURT is going through the property from Boulevard of the Arts down the spine road to provide access while the permanent MURT is being constructed along US 41; and explained that, once the horizontal infrastructure is completed, the temporary MURT will remain until the permanent Bayfront MURT is completed with the roundabout. PB Chair Gannon asked if an offer comes to develop the Blocks adjacent to the interim temporary MURT, do those developments have the right to stop access to the MURT. Mr. Bailey said that the applicants have the legal responsibility to provide continuous access to the Bayfront MURT at all times, noting there may be days during construction where there will be barricades and one would have to walk around them, but there will be access at all times. PB Vice Chair Normile, asked if the Quay is required to develop the segment next to the canal as a MURT. Mr. Bailey said the MURT is for the public and emergency vehicles alone, on the lagoon part, on the west edge, and it is also required to be connected to the Bayfront MURTby east-west connection; noted that when they put the agreement together, they did not know where east-west connection would be located; pointed out that the Development Agreement states that the east-west connection shall be determined by the City Engineer and the City Manager, because, at the time, the applicants did not know if they would be able to pipe the ditch; added that when they found out that they were are able to pipe the ditch, they were encouraged by the City to align the east-west connection along the ditch, and it is a MURT. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the applicants know of any other MURT that is contiguous with a service road. Mr. Bailey said that they called it "MURT" because they inherited that name, and he wishes they had used a different name, because it is designed for access by regular cyclists. PB Chair Normile stated that the service road will provide services to the Ritz Carlton Residences, the restaurant, the future developments on the other two Blocks adjacent to the service road, and it also feeds in from driveway a A" and driveway "B;" asked if the applicants know how many trucks service the Ritz Carlton Tower; stated that she asked the property manager of the Ritz Carlton Towers, a building of 80 residential units, who said that in season they see 105 - 110 service vehicles per week, and off season 95 - 105 vehicles per week; added that this is 21 - 23 vehicles per day, and it does not include trash and recycling; pointed out that during the first couple years there were30 trucks per day; and expressed safety concerns with this being a service road that lays over the MURT. Discussion ensued. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 41 Mr. Bailey said that he appreciated the attention to detail in terms of the number of vehicles, it may be relevant, but it is not an apples-to-apples comparison because of the different configuration of the building; stated he does not dispute the: numbers but they are not reflective of the numbers of service vehicles that will utilize the service drive; pointed out that the scenic MURT is not part of the review this evening, because it is not embraced by the site plan, it is addressed by the Development Agreement and by the MURT Agreement; stated that the applicants are required to build it pursuant to the horizontal infrastructure construction plans, but in terms of the internal circulation analysis, it has been reviewed and approved by the traffic planner engaged by the City; and noted the use of this 20 ft wide area, as an additional MURT, was volunteered by Quay Venture through the Development Agreement, and has been blessed by the City's Traffic Planner. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she continues to have safety concerns; and added that it is either a service road or a MURT, but she does not think it can be both. PB Chair Gannon noted that construction of the Scenic MURT is to be done in conjunction with the construction of Block 6. Mr. Bailey stated that it has to be build prior to or concurrently with Block 6, prior to thei issue of an occupancy permit. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich referred to a letter from Mr. W. E. Oliver to Mr. Ohrenstein, on page 104 of the packet, the fourth bullet reads: Service trucks (garbage collection, deliveries) zuill make use ofthe MURT on the south side oft the site. Idon'tbelieve this would create conflicts wuith MURT users, as its use by service vehicles will be relatively infrequent and could be managed by time-separation. PB Member Ohlrich stated that this is a way to prevent conflict; and suggested that the times when service trucks use the MURT be posted, SO they do not have access to the MURT 24/7. Mr. Bailey agreed, and noted that the author of this text is the City's independent reviewer, and his statement confirms that the use of this area by service vehicles and the MURT is appropriate. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss stated that this is more an alley than a MURT and asked what it would take to provide assurances that there is separation between the services and MURT users, and asked what are the alternatives to make thathappen. Mr. Harper said that the applicants spent four months with staff exploring various designs for the service area and the MURT, and staff suggested this shared design, which is common in many places, and allows room for landscaping, noting Mr. Cover and the City Engineer were involved in this; and stated they are trying to do the right thing here, and worked with staff to come up with something that we thought was the right thing, and we considered a lot of the factors that you are bringing up. Mr. Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department, explained that the two parcels below Block 61 will receive services from the street that is in between them, and service vehicles for those two sites would not be on the MURT at all; added that small service vehicles would go into the parking garage, they would not be going into the REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 41 MURT either; noted that at this MURT staff wanted landscaping on both sides of the paved surface; pointed out that taking all factors into consideration, staff felt that there would not be much traffic from service vehicles; said that when the service vehicles are present, there is separation on the pavement, and when they are not present, there is a wide path where the people can ride their bikes, walk, etc.,; and concluded that staff thought it would work. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if staff did any research about the number of service vehicles that would provide services to this building; submitted to the record her communication with the manager of the Ritz Carlton and the: information she received; and asked the applicants how many parking spaces are dedicated to the condos. Mr. Bailey stated that they are required to have 73 parking spaces and they have over 150; stated they will be selling two spaces per unit, 146 will be owned by the owners leaving 66 extra spaces; and noted guest parking is provided separately at the valet parking. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that the 6 extra spaces are not enough to accommodate all potential service vehicles, which means they will use the service road. Discussion ensued. Rick Harcrow, President, GreenPointe Holdings appeared and stated that service traffic is controlled operationally, and vehicles do not go wherever they want, for example, when a plumber comes in, he will be directed to the 3rd floor lobby, where there are 10 spaces; said that no good deed goes unpunished, and he feels that the applicant falls in this category right now; added that in 2016 when the developer started this process in the Development Agreement and the General Development Plan the ditch was going to remain a drainage ditch; noted that when they started the site planning process, this was intended to be a service road, accessing the building on the south side, and they were going to fill the ditch and create access on the south side; during the discussions, the county staff who maintain the stormwater facility at this location approached the developers saying they need to create stormwater improvements at this location, and suggested to pipe the ditch, sO the minor improvement for a service drive became a major piping stormwater improvement for the 32 ft. wide ditch and the piping, and then it became an excellent pedestrian connection; we called it a MURT and that brings it up to a different category of dimensions, the intent, and exclusivity, pedestrian and bicycle access, but it did not start out that way, it was intended to be a service road; pointed out that this is not a requirement of the Development Agreement or the General Development Plan, it is something that the applicant proffered in order to accommodate staff as discussions about the stormwater system were occurring, and searching for a way to have a pedestrian connection to the waterfront; added that he wanted to make that clear, because sitting in the audience and listening, it sounded as if this is a requirement of the Development Agreement, to provide a MURT there, a 12 ft. wide MURT, and that is not the case; said that the applicants sort of backed themselves into this, it is not ideal as far they are concerned, it is a service drive to the south side of the building, and if there is the ability to provide additional pedestrian connectivity they want to do that, but that is how they got to this point. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 41 Mr. Bailey repeated that the applicants are providing the City required Bayfront MURT, and they are providing this on the south side; stated that they call this area a Scenic MURT but it is not intended to be used like the Bayfront MURT; and noted that this is not the only pedestrian access, pedestrians will also use the sidewalks, it is one of several ways to get down to the water's edge on foot or bicycle. PB Chair Gannon stated that he understands the concern of trying to do something good and it is being picked apart, but the Planning Board is looking forward, many people are living in communities like this and run into issues, and the Planning Board wants to make sure that certain things are pointed out; added that the Development Agreement asked for a connection between the bayfront and the lagoon, with an east/west scenic MURT segment, and specifies a MURT Agreement, which the City has put together, and it talks about the lagoon parcel with the 12f ft wide sidewalk, and the east-west connection with an 8 ft. sidewalk. Mr. Harcrow stated that the MURT Agreement came in after the discussions and the concept was developed to have this joint use for this space. Mr. Bailey pointed out that what they are proposing has been reviewed by staff and their traffic planning consultant, and it has been memorialized in two Agreements, the Development Agreement and the MURT Agreement, and the applicants feel the application complies with both. Attorney Connolly stated that Mr. Dasher, who was granted affected person's status earlier this evening, wants to cross examine the applicants; and recommended that Mr. Dasher does this now. Mr. Dasher identified himself as a 29-year resident of Condo on the Bay Marina Suites, past chairperson of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee for the County, as well as a member of the Traffic Safety Team; pointed out that Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has rigid requirements for a MURT relating to site, distances, speed, obstructions, etc., and the scenic MURT does not meet these requirements; and added that in terms of mutli-use with trucks and pedestrians, that happens nowhere. Mr. Harper said that it is the MURT term itself, as developed and utilized by the City of Sarasota, we used the term, and Ileavei it up to staff to explain what the requirements are. Mr. Dasher asked if there is open air dining at the restaurant. The applicants responded that there is open air dining. Mr. Dasher said that they had the same problem in the past, and asked if the doors are open doors or revolving doors. The applicants said they have not reached that point of detail yet. Discussion ensued. Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced to the record herself and Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer; distributed copies of the revised staff recommended conditions for this project; stated that the subject Block 6 encompasses 1.87 acres of the 14.69-acre Quay site, it is zoned Downtown Bayfront, and the applicant is requesting approval to allow for the construction of an 18-story building consisting of 73 residential units, 9,500 sq. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 41 ft. of restaurant, and 152 off street parking spaces; pointed out that in 2016, the Quay GDP received approval of a Development Agreement, Site Plans, and Street Vacations; as required in the approved Development Agreement site plan approval by the Planning Board is required for all the Blocks as they are developed; added that there is a minor modification of the GDP to add the service drive and the Scenic MURT on the southside of the property; added that there were minor changes to the east boundary along US 41 due to the design of the roundabout, there was an addition of valet drop off in the middle of the site, changing the configuration slightly, the area of Block 6 is slightly different, and there was a slight modification of the configuration along the Boulevard of the Arts, as construction plans are being developed; and there was the addition of the hammer head turnaround, since a portion of the alley is not going to be vacated at this point. Chief Planner Panica stated that as Blocks are being developed, and their site plans are submitted for review, the GDP will also be submitted with the site plans to demonstrate consistency with the GDP and an understanding of how the parts fit together; added that there is an Administrative Adjustment for the overhead walkway for the water front setback to be reduced from 30 ft. to 22'6" for a portion of the elevated open-air walkway only, and that is conditioned upon the approval of the site plan; noted that the parking requirement is 92 spaces, and there are 152 spaces provided; stated that the service road is provided along the southern boundary, currently referred to as the 2nd Street drainage canal, and will provide access to the loading zone and the refuse and recycling collection area; noted that currently the area is an open drainage ditch that is expected to be piped and covered; said that since the permit for the piping of the ditch is still pending, Condition #3 is proposed in order to formalize the piping of the ditch; noted that there are no trees in Block 6; stated a 5 ft Type A buffer is proposed along the perimeter entrance of the ramp along with 3, 722 sq. ft. of landscaping along that same area; said that a copy of the previously approved GDP has been provided for reference and will be as other site plans are submitted; stated an abundance of additional landscaping is proposed in order to enhance and soften the appearance of the structure; and stated the site plan has received DRC sign off, meets all review criteria and the requirements of the Zoning Code, and staff has provided a recommendation of approval with the revised conditions dated April 11, 2018. Engineer DavisShaw stated that as Director Cover said, staff tried to balance what could be done along the drainage canal; stated initially the City considered a MURT that would provide a smooth connection; said staff worked with the Quay developers to determine the best use of the corridor and there was a strong desire for trees that provide shade; noted the corridor could not accommodate a 12 ft wide path with trees on both sides and service vehicles; and said the initial thoughts were the truck usage would be minimal however based on the comments tonight it appears signage letting trucks, pedestrians and bicyclists know it is a mixed area would be appropriate. PB Chair Gannon asked if the proposed Scenic MURT would comply with all of the requirements in the Agreement. Engineer DavisShaw said it would comply noting the overall width is 20 ft and the full width would be accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists when trucks are not present. PB Chair Gannon asked if Engineer DavisShaw REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 41 was satisfied safety would not be an issue. Engineer DavisShaw said she felt it would be safe with limited truck use noting if the truck use is greater than anticipated the issue will have to be revisited, possibly limiting the hours trucks can use it. Responding to PB Chair Gannon's question, Engineer DavisShaw explained the conditions under which the City authorizes temporary closures of MURTS. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if staff had an opportunity to conduct a survey as to the number of trucks necessary to provide services to a building like this. Engineer DavisShaw stated that they did not do an independent survey, but used the information provided by the applicant. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Normile expressed her concerns about the safety of users of the optional scenic MURT. PB Member Blumetti asked if the MURT connecting to the waterfront could meander through the Site. Engineer DavisShaw stated that an east-west access connecting to the waterfront is required and must be continuous but not necessarily linear, sO the curvilinear aspects of it must be smooth enough that cyclists can use it safely. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich asked who is liable in the case of an accident, or if someone is injured while travelling on the MURT. Attorney Connolly stated that a jury would have to ultimately decide that, but the plaintiff' S attorney will invite to the party as many people as he/she can. PB Member Ohlrich noted that the MURT is not part of the Planning Board's decision this evening. PB Chair Gannon responded that it is part of the Site Plan under review. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that the vehicular part of the service road is 10ft., and asked Engineer DavisShaw what the engineering standard for the width of road for truck traffic is. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Gannon asked who is paying for the piping of the canal. Engineer DavisShaw stated that the County will provide to the Quay the funds they were planning to use to clear the canal, and the Quay will add any additional funds needed to complete the piping of the canal. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the costs for the rights-of-way along US41, the property along US 41 that was given to the FDOT for the MURT, is charged against the Multimodal Fees. Engineer DavisShaw stated that the design of the roundabout will be credited to the Multimodal Fees. Affected Persons Input: Mr. Dasher expressed concerns of the residents of Marina Suites about: drainage and its impact on the marina; the problems at the ingress/egress of the basin caused by the owners of submerged lots in that location; safety on US4 41; crime and noise from the restaurant; traffic conditions at the intersection of Boulevard of the Arts and US 41 with the roundabout; REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 41 lack of enforcement of traffic regulations; the city has not had a qualified traffic engineer for twenty years; and the MURT Public Input: Mike Lasche spoke in opposition to the scenic MURT; stated that a trail is 10f ft wide and is not to be shared with vehicles, especially garbage trucks; and stated the connecting MURT on the 2nd Street canal should be 12ft wide and not be shared with vehicular traffic. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Bailey clarified that the service area to the Ritz Carlton Residencies is an exclusive gated access and allows only two vehicles at a time which is coordinated by the management; noted that this translates to one vehicle every 1hr. 45 min. utilizing this segment of the MURT; and reiterated the scenic MURT is a product of the Development Agreement and the design will comply with all applicable regulations. Attorney Brenda Patton, representing New Grande Residences, stated that this application comes to the Planning Board with an approved Development Agreement and an approved MURT Agreement, which have already been formalized and settled some of the issues the Planning Board is discussing this evening, such as the location of the service drive and the MURT Agreement; pointed out that paragraph 59(c)ii(g) of the Development Agreement states that a MURT Agreement will be approved administratively by the City Manager and the City Engineer, and that has happened; added that the MURT Agreement requires that the Scenic MURT and the service drive be located as shown on the Exhibit to the MURT Agreement, it shows the 8 ft MURT and 12 ft service drive, SO those issues are already decided and determined; noted that the Planning Board's job this evening is to approve the Site Plan for only Block 6, consistent with the Development Agreement and consistent with the MURT Agreement, and the configuration of the Scenic MURT and the access drive were already determined and approved, that is a given that you must accept, it is not part of the Planning Board's determination this evening. PB Chair Gannon asked who is paying for the ditch piping and covering etc. Mr. Harper stated that there is a permitted project by the County that has remaining funds, those funds will be applied to this piping project, and a partnership between The Ritz and the Quay will make up the difference. PB Chair Gannon asked if there will be silt control. Mr. Harper stated that the pipes have a silt drop-out chamber to remove the silt at three locations along that pipe to prevent it from reaching the basin. PB Chair Gannon requested clarification about the elevation of the pipes, and how that will help the flooding concerns at that location on US 41. Mr. Harper explained that the three projects will work together to alleviate the flooding problems at that location; and said that they plan to increase the grade of US 41 at the roundabout. PB Chair Gannon asked what type of restaurant is going in and how the noise from the restaurant will be handled. Mr. Bailey stated that it will be a high-end regional restaurant; pointed out REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 41 that there will be 70 residences right next to it; stated that it does not compare to the nightclub that was there in the past; and added that in addition to the City Ordinances, noise at this location will be controlled by the Master Association that was discussed earlier. The applicants thanked Chief Planner Panica for her assistance throughout this process. Affected Person's Rebuttal: Mr. Dasher clarified that the original Development Plan that was approved showed the MURT going through the center of the property, safely away from US 41, exiting through El Vernona; added that the noise problems in the past were not related only to the nightclub, but also to the restaurants who wanted music;noted that the starting time of construction is 7:00 AM, but as early as 6:15 AM people are on the site staging, moving around equipment, slamming doors, etc., so hei is requesting that staging begins at 7:00 AM and construction begins at 7:30 AM.; added that there was no enforcement about Sunday outside construction at the Embassy Suites; and concluded that GreenPointe is a pleasure to work with, they are terrific. Director Cover stated that the Bayfront MURT is required and included in this project, and runs along US 41 and the Scenic MURT is also part of this agreement; explained that when staff was first looking at the ditch scenario, the only way to have a scenic MURT was to zigzag through the property, which staff did not think was a great alternative; noted that when the option to pipe the water presented itself, staff considered it as an opportunity to locate the scenic MURT in this location, and connect US 41 to the Bayfront; pointed out that it is straight, and goes right to the waterfront; stated that rather being a twenty foot paved surface leading from US 41 to the bayfront, staff considered various design alternatives to make this an attractive pathway with landscaping on both sides of it; noted that this is not a backdoor path for people and bikes; and concluded that staff has put a lot of thought into this. PB Member Ohlrich asked Chief Planner Panica if there is a point in this process when the Planning Board reviews the project to ensure that it is in compliance with the Development Agreement. Chief Planner Panica said that is happening all along the way; explained that Block 6 has to be consistent with the GDP, that is why the MURT Agreement had to be finalized before bringing this site plan forward, and that is why the minor internal modifications on the streets had to be approved; added that this evening's site plan is for Block #6 but it is within the context of the GDP; and pointed out that, over the course of the years, as the site plans for the development of the other blocks are submitted for review, they will also show what has already been developed and how everything relates to the GDP. PB Member Blumetti stated that the applicant and staff have done an incredible job on this project; and asked if the Planning Board can deny this project based on the MURT. Attorney Connolly stated that the Planning Board is reviewing the Site Plan for Block #6, and the Development Agreement requires that the Planning Board applies the eight different criteria in the City Code in Section IV-506, as done for every stand-alone site plan; and pointed out that normally the Planning Board does not see these in REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 41 Downtown because they are handled Administratively. PB Member Blumetti asked if there is a way that these Blocks will be redefined and come in with a different site plan. Attorney Connolly stated that the only way the Planning Board could deny the site plan this evening would be to find that there is competent and substantial evidence on the record that shows the project does not meet the criteria in Section IV-506 of the Sarasota City Zoning Code. PB Chair Gannon referred to page 1 of the Executive Summary in the staff report, where it states that the site plan must satisfy the criteria of Section IV-506 and meet the parameters of the Development Agreement; and asked if the parameters of the Development Agreement are within the Planning Board's s charge this evening. Attorney Conolly stated that the Development Agreement is relevant to the Planning Board's inquiry, but if there is a dispute over the Development Agreement, which is a binding contract between two parties, only a jury can decide that. PB Chair Gannon stated that the location of the scenic MURT and the traffic circulation of trucks is a legitimate question for the site plan. Attorney Connolly said that the Planning Board must make decisions based on the review criteria in Section IV-506. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss moved to find Site Plan 17-SP-18 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of the building permit authorizing vertical construction in Block 6, signage and striping details at the intersection of the main ramp and the garage access shall be submitted with the building permit Civil Plans and be approved by the Engineering Division. 2. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Block 6 development, the permit issued by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) authorizing the construction of the roundabout or signalized intersection improvements at Fruitville Road and North Tamiami Trail must be obtained. All funding arrangements must be finalized and approved by the City, Quay Ventures, LLC and FDOT as evidence by a written agreement specifying obligations for funding. The Applicant acknowledges that building permits for Block 6 development may be issued by the City prior to issuance of permits by FDOT; however, there are no guarantees as to when the FDOT permit will be issued or what design will be approved. If the Applicant constructs improvements on Block 6 before permits are issued by FDOT for the roundabout or other intersection improvements, the Applicant shall be responsible, at its own expense, for making all changes to the Block 6 Site Plan required as a result of permits issued by FDOT. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from any liability or costs associated with changes to Applicant's S plans and improvements on Block 6 that may be required as a result of the final permits issued by FDOT. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Block 6 development, all permits needed for piping and covering of the 2nd Street drainage canal shall be issued and construction shall be completed. The proposed Site Plan is dependent on the approval and construction of the piping of the 2nd Street drainage canal located on REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 41 the southern boundary of the site. The Applicant acknowledges that building permits for the Block 6 development may be issued by the City prior to issuance of all permits for piping the drainage canal; however, there are no guarantees as to when, if at all, permits will be issued for piping the drainage canal. If the Applicant constructs improvements on Block 61 before all permits required for piping the drainage canal are issued, the Applicant shall be responsible, at its own expense, for making all changes to the Block 6 Site Plan, subject to City approval of any changes to the Quay Sarasota General Development Plan (Quay Sarasota GDP) as may be required as a result of the denial of permits to pipe the canal. Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from any liability or costs associated with changes to Applicant's plans and improvements on Block 6 that may be required as a result of the final permits issued for piping the canal or the failure of such permits to be issued. 4. Prior to the issuance of the building permit authorizing vertical construction in Block 6, a Joint Use and Maintenance Agreement as required by Section VI-104(b) of the Zoning Code (2002 edition) shall be recorded in the public records in a form approved by the City Attorney. 5. Landscaping within the visibility triangle of garage exit as shown on sheet BP-1 shall be kept low at a maximum of 2.5 feet in height above the road or use minimal ground cover. 6. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the Block 6 development, a public access easement for the Scenic MURT located on the southern boundary for the site shall be recorded. 7. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the Block 6 development, aj permanent non-exclusive stormwater drainage easement over, across and through the 2nd Street drainage canal to the extent located within the Quay Sarasota GDP site shall be granted to the City. 8. The Site Plan and all related development plans for the proposed project shall be in compliance with those labeled Quay Sarasota Block 61 F.K.A. Sarasota Bayside, received by the Department of Development Services on March 12, 2018. Final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Development Services. 9. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that the MURT is a bit troubling because the Development Agreement calls for a 12 ft width, but there may be some technical solutions, even to be rerouted through the project; and added that the site plan meets the review criteria of Section IV-506. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 41 Speaking to his second, PB Member Blumetti stated that the applicants did what they were asked to do and staff took a very close look at everything, and tried to do the best they could; stated if it becomes an issue the Planning Board still has to approve Blocks #4 and #5, and the MURT can be revisited at that point, and any concerns could be addressed then; and concluded that staff and the applicants have taken a lot of time to prepare a successful site plan and MURT. PB Member Morriss asked if this site plan approval is necessary for the applicants to get permits for all the horizontal infrastructure, the roundabout. Attorney Connolly stated that it is a separate permit, this deals with Block #6. PB Member Blumetti expressed appreciation for PB Vice Chair Normile's research, but he said at this point it is speculative. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she has no problems with the site plan for Block #6, she has concerns with the MURT; stated that everyone worked in good faith, trying to do the best they could; said that she hopes that what occurs in the area where she lives, and the number of trucks that go there, is not the case here, but she is not convinced it is not; and concluded that this evening the Planning Board is voting on the Site Plan and she will vote for it. PB Chair Gannon recognized the work City staff, and especially the GreenPointe Properties on behalf of the Quay and their other associates have done on this; stated that their work with City staff to try to find creative solutions is commended; added that he knows about how responsive GreenPointe has been to public comments with the Development Agreement and subsequent to that; added that given the Planning Board's questioning, and the testimony of affected parties, he hopes the applicants take that back and understand that there are concerns, it is not a total green light on everything, and they will endeavor to find operational ways to reduce any safety impacts; noted that these are significant concerns that would affect the popularity of the entire project, should an incident occur, or if the project ends up with complaints in the Herald Tribune; and concluded that given that broader expectation, he will support this application. The motion passes unanimously (5 to 0). 5. SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT & HAWTHORNE STREET VACATION (1818 Hawthorne Street, 1801 and 1851 Arlington Street): Site Plan Application No. 18-SP-06 is a request for site plan approval to amend a previously approved Site Plan (Application No. 17-SP-14) for a five-level parking structure with approximately 600 parking spaces by shifting the structure approximately 3 to 4 feet west of the approved location. Street Vacation Application No. 18-SV-02 is a request to vacate a portion of Hawthorne Street, measuring approximately 139 feet by 50 feet, east of S. Osprey Avenue. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 41 Applicant's Presentation Mr. Dan Bailey: introduced himself for the record; stated that he is representing Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH), regarding the proposed West Parking Garage, which was last discussed before the Planning Board in December, 2017; introduced Lorrie Liang, Chief Operating Officer, SMH, Tom Perigo, Director of Architecture and Construction, SMH, and Melanie Smith, Project Engineer, Stantec; noted that in December, 2017 they were missing two critical pieces of the puzzle, two parcels adjacent to this project along Osprey Avenue, which are the Fitness Center and the Dental Office next to it; explained that at the time of the December public hearing, SMH had these properties under contract, but not in time to include them in December's application; pointed out that it was anticipated, and, as such, they were included in the neighborhood workshop that was months earlier; as a result the applicants are back now; explained that these parcels are important to this project because there are underground utilities in the this area, in relation to the rehab facility which SMH built a couple years ago, and the parking garage would be on the top of them, if it were to be located in the precise position that the Planning Board approved last December, 2017, and the City Commission approved in January 2018; stated that this addition will eliminate the T-Turnaround that was presented in December, and now it will be a one way out, and will shift the garage structure 3 to 4 feet to the west sO as to avoid being built on the top of these utilities that are part of the Rehab Project; added that as a result of the shift, they will need to incorporate a small portion of the current landscape buffer now located next to the Fitness Center and the Dental Office; and stated that they will also be doing a lot consolidation to include in the main SMH parcel several parcels that SMH has acquired along Arlington Street and Osprey Street, SO they will all appear under one Parcel Identification Number (PID), and be part of the overall project. Ms. Smith stated that they are here to rectify the design of the entrance egress along Hawthorne Street, because the right-of-way vacation of a portion of Hawthorne Street was not completed in time to be included in the December 2017 Planning Board Public Hearing; referred to the site plan and pointed to the location of the landscape buffer and the location of the utilities lines that they have to miss with the new structure's columns, footings, and pile caps; and pointed out that there are significant utilities in this area and relocating them will be very costly. Mr. Bailey referred to pages 10 - 12 of the staff report, where the staff analysis addresses the issues of this application; and noted that the applicant agrees with the staff recommended conditions. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the applicant knew the location of the underground utilities prior to the December Planning Board public hearing, and if sO, how the applicant proposed to avoid them then. Mr. Bailey stated that they knew the location ofthe utilities and they moved the building to the east, which required a very expensive structural redesign to accommodate that minor shift and to facilitate the T-Turnabout, which required a Technical Deviation that staff did not want to approve; and stated staff requested a better solution and this is that solution. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that the applicant, at the City Commission public hearing, stated that they were planning to have the exit from the garage on Arlington Street as a REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 39 of 41 left turn only. Ms. Smith stated that there will be signs directing the traffic to turn left sO that traffic comes out on US41. PB Chair Gannon asked for clarification about the landscape buffer. Ms. Smith explained that by moving the structure west by 3 to 4 feet., the location of the proposed landscaping is at the same location as the existing landscaping; and noted that the applicant will not diminish the landscape buffer of the original site plan. Staff Presentation Planner Greenberg introduced himself for the record; stated that the Planning Board has seen this project before, the applicant explained the changes and the 3 to 4 foot shift of the structure to the west; noted that the architectural standards were reviewed at the last public hearing and the landscape remains the same; pointed out that the prior right of way vacation and rezoning of the OPB parcel applications are scheduled for second reading before the City Commission in a few days; noted that, if everything gets adopted they will no longer need the T-Turnaround; and said that the design complies with all required review criteria. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 6 of the packet, Section 1-Zoning Code Analysis, noted that at the end of 4th paragraph it states Engineering staff prefer the complete vacation of this segment of Hawthorne Street over a partial street vacation and construction of a' T-Turnaround" and asked ifl he means the City's Engineering staff, the applicant's Engineering staff or both. Planner Greenberg said that he is referring to the City's Engineering staff; and added that the applicant had to apply for a Technical Deviation, and Engineering staff reviewed it and it was approved with conditions. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. PB Vice Chair Normile moved to find partial street vacation 18-SV-02 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition, subject to the. following conditions: 1. As a condition precedent to scheduling the street vacation ordinance for second reading, applicant, at its sole expense, shall execute and record in the official records of Sarasota County a perpetual non-exclusive utility easement to the benefit of Frontier Communications for the existing telephone facilities. The easement area shall be the entire portion of Hawthorne Street right of way proposed for vacation. 2. As a condition precedent to scheduling the street vacation ordinance for second reading, applicant, at its sole expense, shall execute and record in the official records of Sarasota County a perpetual non-exclusive utility easement to the benefit of Florida Power and Light for the existing electrical facilities. The easement area shall be the entire portion of Hawthorne Street right of way proposed for vacation. 3. As a condition precedent to scheduling the street vacation ordinance for second reading, applicant, at: its sole expense, shall execute and record in the official records of Sarasota County a perpetual non-exclusive utility easement to the benefit of TECO People's Gas for the existing gas facilities. The easement area shall be the entire portion of Hawthorne Street right of way proposed for vacation. REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 40 of 41 4. As a condition precedent to scheduling the street vacation ordinance for second reading, applicant ati its sole expense, shall execute and record in the official records of Sarasota County a perpetual non-exclusive utility easement to the benefit of Comcast Cable Communications for the existing cable facilities. The easement area shall be the entire portion of Hawthorne Street right of way proposed for vacation. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (vote 5 to 0). PB Member Morriss moved to find Site Plan 18-SP-06 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance and approve the petition, subject to the following conditions: 1. As a condition precedent to the issuance of the first building permit arising out of Application No. 18-SP-06, the Applicant shall, in conformance with Section VI- 104(a), Zoning Code (2002 edition), file and secure approval of a parcel consolidation and boundary adjustment plat to legally reconfigure and consolidate all parcels necessary to meet development standards for development upon one parcel. The Development Services Director shall be responsible to determine which Parcel ID numbers, or portions thereof, must be consolidated and adjusted SO as to meet development standards of the Zoning Code. 2. As a condition precedent to the issuance of the first building permit arising out of Site Plan 18-SP-06, Rezoning Ordinance No. 18-5235 and Street Vacation Ordinance No. 18-5236 shall become effective. 3. The site plan approval is subject to the subsequent approval by the City Commission of the street vacation application. As such, the site plan approval cannot become effective until Street Vacation 18-SV-02 becomes effective. 4. The site plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed structure and site layout shall be in compliance with those labeled SMH Major Site Plan Amendment & Street Vacation, received by the Development Services Department on March 12, 2018. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. 5. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions thatresult in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (Vote 5 to 0) REVISED Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 11, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 41 of 41 V. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: ATT THIS TIME CITIZENS MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING BOARDO ON TOPICS OF CONCERN. ITEMS WHICHI HAVE BEENI PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS MAY NOT BE ADDRESSED AT THIS TIME. (A MAXIMUM 5-MINUTE TIME LIMIT.) There was no citizen's input. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Note: The minutes of the 2/28/18 special meeting and 3/14/18 regular meeting have not been finalized and will be placed on the 5/9/18 regular meeting agenda) VH. PAESENFAHONOFTORSMSFAF-Otem Moved to top of the Agenda) pik-iws--r-wasiwww eetemastssiaewmdardasiw. 1. Masmpamdsierhauepwmspepes VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on thes next available agenda for discussion. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that it would be a good idea for the Planning Board to see the Annual Report before it goes to the City Commission. PB Chair Gannon asked Director Cover to ensure that the Planning Board sees the Annual Report prior to its transmittal to the City Commission. PB Chair Gannon thanked the Planning Board Members for their diligence and research, noting he has received positive comments from the public. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 PM. u Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Patrick/Gannon, Chair Planning Development Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]