CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY February 10, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Planning Board Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Chair Members Present: Terrill Salem, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, AICP, General Manager, Planning Department David L. Smith, AICP, Manager, Planning Department Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services Department 1:36:30 PM I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Note: Due to technical issues the meeting began at 1:36:30 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich called the meeting to order and Director Cover acting as the Planning Board's Secretaryl read the roll call. II. CHANGESTO THE ORDER OF THEDAY PB Chair Ohlrich requested the Cocoanut Arts Rezone agenda item be moved to the end of the agenda citing the need to review documents during the dinner break that she received the previous evening. The Planning Board agreed by consensus. III. LAND USE. ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. READING OF THE PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Secretary Cover read the Pledge of Conduct. Due to technical issues the Planning Board took a seven-minute break. 1:46:29 PM Discussion ensued regarding the logistics for the meeting. Attorney Connolly reviewed the recommended time limits. The Planning Board approved the time limits by consensus. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those wishing to testify this evening. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page! 2of 23 1:49:09 PM PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing for 20-ZTA-06 and noted the Planning Board will vote on each of the proposed Zoning Text Amendments separately after the discussions. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 20-ZTA-06: A request for Zoning Text Amendment approval to draft a definition and use standards for food trucks and to allow food trucks within multiple zone districts by right; to revise Open Air Market/Bazaar operating hours; to amend the Use Table in ILW Zone District to expand allowable uses related to the Limelight District and update the requirements of"caretaker's, watchman's dwelling"; to allow for administrative height adjustment for Site Plan modifications related to rooftop appurtenances; to update photometrics standards based on technology changes; to update electronic message board regulations based on technology changes; to make minor text revisions to Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD) in order to clarify that the new RROD applies to new development and not to existing buildings; to allow the construction of a mezzanine within the first story of DTB, DTC, and DTE-zoned properties without it being counted as an additional story; to allow restaurants, cafes, and delicatessens as a permitted use rather than a Minor Conditional Use in the Housing Authority Overlay District (HAOD); and to allow by right an increase in the maximum height of walls and fences from 6.5: feet to 8 feet in the side and rear setbacks when multi- family and non-residential zone districts abut single family zone districts. (Ryan Chapdelain, AICP, General Manager, Planning Department) Development Services Director Panica, General Manager Chapdelain, Planning Manager Smith and Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs appeared. General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed regulations for Food Trucks noting the proposal was to allow them in the Industrial, CBN, NT and G zone districts; discussed the proposed use standards; and presented a map of the locations the food trucks would be permitted in. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned the rationale for the proposed operating hours; asked why the food trucks were not permitted to operate in the public right of way; stated signage should be allowed; and noted his disagreement with the Director of Development Services having the authority to expand the operating hours on a case-by-case basis. General Manager Chapdelain responded that signage was limited to avoid a proliferation of signage in an area and noted to operate in a public right of way requires a special event permit. Discussion ensued regarding appropriate operating hours. General Manager Chapdelain pointed out the ability of the Development Services Director to expand operating hours on a case-by-case basis was not part of this particular proposal. General Manager Chapdelain noted two minor edits to the proposal, stating the footnote on page 25 should be "6" rather than "5" and the last sentence on page 31, item "D" needed to be stricken. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at: 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 3 of 23 PB Member Blumetti questioned why the food trucks would bej permitted in the CBN and NT zone districts; asked if staff had received feedback from vendors regarding the proposed operating hours; and questioned if the downtown area was not included due to the number of restaurants operating downtown. General Manager Chapdelain responded that the CBN and NT zone districts were included for economic development purposes; said staff reviewed ordinances from other jurisdictions rather than solicit input from vendors; and stated allowing the food trucks downtown could be revisited in the future. PB Member Morriss questioned who governed food safety and asked if the hours of operation could be more limited in residential areas. General Manager Chapdelain responded that state agencies govern food safety and noted the challenges of enforcement of different operating hours in residential areas. PB Member Gannon questioned why staff created a definition rather than use the definition in the Florida Statutes; asked if the food trucks will be permitted on construction sites in residential areas and in the downtown; questioned how vendors will be made aware of the requirement for a recycling plan; and noted his disagreement with the Director of Development Services having the authority to expand the operating hours on a case-by-case basis. General Manager Chapdelain responded stating staff felt the proposed definition was most appropriate for Sarasota; noted Florida Statutes prohibits municipalities from requiring permits, licenses or regulations pertaining to food trucks however municipalities can define and regulate them through the Zoning Code; said it was not the intent to prohibit food trucks in residential areas or in the downtown; noted the recycling plan requirements are spelled out in the regulations; and pointed out the ability of the Development Services Director to expand operating hours on a case-by-case basis was not part of this particular proposal. PB Chair Ohlrich stated her questions were answered in advance (see attachment to these minutes); and pointed out the word "of" on page 37 should not have been stricken out. General Manager Chapdelain noted that was correct however that would be part of the next discussion. 2:09:43 PM General Manager Chapdelain reviewed the proposed regulations relating to Open Air Market Bazaar-Hours of Operation stating the use is currently permitted through a Provisional Use Permit; noted the current hours of operation are limited to daylight hours; said staff felt it would be beneficial to allow expanded hours on a case-by-case basis; pointed out the proposed compatibility provisions; and discussed the safeguards that are in place. PB Member Gannon questioned how staff could determine compatibility without input from the neighbors. Director Panica appeared and discussed the public notification requirements for when a Provisional Use Permit application is submitted. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss and PB Member Blumetti stated they had no questions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 4 of 23 PB Vice Chair Salem stated he felt the City should refrain from giving the Director of Development Services authority to expand the hours of operation; said the hours of operation should be written rules that all have to follow; said sales should be permitted in the right of way; and pointed out that currently occurs with pick-up orders from restaurants. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly noted this is a Zoning Code issue; pointed out the Zoning Code only regulates uses on private property; and noted sales in the right of way are regulated by City Code. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Ohlrich noted the typo on page 37 that she had pointed out earlier. 2:17:24 PM General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed changes to the Limelight District pointing out the area the Limelight District is located in; stated area residents approached staff requesting assistance in revitalizing the area; said staff looked at the current permitted uses in the area; discussed the additional uses staff was proposed be permitted; noted the citizens in the area had reviewed staff's proposal and supported the recommendations; and presented a map showing the areas of the City that are zoned for industrial uses, noting the majority of the industrial uses are in the Limelight District. PB Member Morriss questioned what citizens in the area staff worked with. General Manager Chapdelain stated Ms. Kim Livengood and the Limelight District Board members. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed caretaker dwelling requirements. General Manager Chapdelain stated the intent is to allow a non-employee of a business to reside on-site as a caretaker; noted the use did not currently exist in the City; said staff would be looking at a future Zoning Text Amendment to allow live/work units in the industrial areas; and discussed the requirements. PB Member Blumetti, PB Vice Chair Salem, PB Member Gannon and PB Member Morriss had no questions. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned if the use of converted shipping containers could be permitted. Discussion ensued regarding conflicts in the Zoning Code; compliance with the Florida Building Code; and allowing one caretaker unit for a building with multiple units. 2:26:57 PM General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed modifications to the Administrative Height Adjustment for Site Plan and Conditional Use modifications (appurtenances); discussed minor versus major modifications to approved site plans; and stated the intent is to avoid projects having to go back through the public hearing process for a minor increase to a rooftop appurtenance. PB Member Blumetti stated he felt 10% was too low. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Salem had no questions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 5 of 23 PB Member Gannon questioned how the percentage was measured; and noted the impact the increase in height would have on the view from the surrounding condominiums. General Manager Chapdelain stated the percentage was based on the height of the appurtenance. Discussion ensued regarding previous projects that went back through the public hearing process for a minor increase to the rooftop appurtenance. PB Member Morriss stated he agreed the percentage should be higher than 10%; and suggested the language needed to be precise as to what an appurtenance is and how it is measured. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she agreed the percentage should be higher. 2:33:08 PM General Manager Chapdelain stated the proposed changes to the Photometrics section were based upon changes to technology and industry standards; and noted an engineer was available via Zoom to address any questions. PB Member Morriss stated he had no questions and noted it was a good update. PB Member Gannon requested clarification as to why 'multi-family" was struck out under Purpose and Intent but not under Repair and Maintenance; and questioned the requirement that a streetlight cannot be visible from a right of way or adjacent property. Director Panica noted the verbiage was currently in the Code and clarified the requirement refers to opaque housing for the light bulb versus the light bulb itself. General Manager Chapdelain stated it was struck from the Purpose and Intent section due to enforcement concerns and left in the Repair and Maintenance section SO a new lighting plan would not be required for minor repairs and maintenance. PB Member Blumetti, PB Vice Chair Salem and PB Chair Ohlrich had no questions. 2:35:56 PM General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed changes to the Electronic Message Board stating the proposed language is based on an affidavit currently required as part of a permit submittal. PB Member Blumetti and PB Vice Chair Salem had no questions. PB Member Gannon questioned the definition of "nits". General Manager Chapdelain stated it measures brightness. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss and PB Chair Ohlrich had no questions. 2:39:15 PM General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed revisions to the language in the Rosemary Residential Overlay District (RROD) stating the changes clarify that the RROD provisions only apply to new development. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 6 of 23 PB Chair Ohlrich, PB Vice Chair Salem, PB Member Blumetti and PB Member Morriss had no questions. PB Member Gannon questioned why a provision requiring Community Workshops for development applications in the RROD and downtown was not included. Discussion ensued. 2:43:31 PM General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed revisions relating to Mezzanines noting there is no current definition; said the proposed language only applies to Downtown Zone Districts; reviewed the proposed standards; noted the provisions were already contained in the RROD; and stated this would expand the provisions to the entire downtown. Planning Manager Smith discussed the need for flexibility for existing buildings. General Manager Chapdelain presented photos of examples. PB Member Blumetti questioned how the allowable square footage would be calculated. Planning Manager Smith stated the Florida Building Code allows for up to one-third of the square footage of the room the mezzanine is located in. PB Vice Chair Salem had no questions. PB Member Gannon questioned if additional parking will be required due to the expansion of the square footage. Planning Manager Smith stated for existing buildings no additional parking would be required. Discussion ensued regarding parking options in the downtown. PB Member Morriss stated the maximum square footage for the mezzanine should be defined. Discussion ensued. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs pointed out there are no parking requirements for structures in the downtown that are under 10,000 square feet. PB Chair Ohlrich stated her questions had been answered in advance and noted that information will be attached to the meeting minutes. 2:51:46 PM General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed revisions to the Housing Authority Overlay District stating restaurants, cafes and delicatessens would be permitted by right rather than Minor Conditional Use approval as is currently required; noted the provision only applies to the area along the MLK corridor within the mixed-use area of Janie's Gardens; and stated the intent is to promote economic development in the area. The Planning Board members had no questions. 2:53:28 PM General Manager Chapdelain discussed the proposed revisions to the Fences, Walls and Hedges stating the City Commission directed staff to make the revisions; and discussed the history of the issue. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page! 7 of 23 PB Member Blumetti questioned if staff foresaw expanding the increased height to residential areas. General Manager Chapdelain stated that was not anticipated. PB Vice Chair Salem had no questions. PB Member Morriss questioned how the larger footings encroaching into the setbacks would be dealt with. Director Panica stated that would be addressed as part of the permit review. PB. Member Gannon questioned if consideration had been given to allow the higher fences between multi-family and non-residential or G zoned properties; and asked if there were any restrictions on painting, adding murals, or placing deterrents to climbing walls on the top of the wall. General Manager Chapdelain responded that allowing the higher walls in other areas was not being considered; noted staff was responding the direction they received from the City Commission; pointed out the higher wall would not be as effective for multi-family structures as they are higher than single-family structures; and noted there is a section in the Code that has provisions for ornamental decorations. PB Chair Ohlrich stated her notes indicate the following items had no recommended changes or discussion: Limelight District, Photometrics, Electronic Message Boards, Housing Authority and Fences/Wals/Hedges: 3:00:37 PM Citizen Input: Ms. Mary Fuerst appeared and stated she represented the Tahiti Park neighborhood; discussed the history of the issue that led to the City Commission direction; and stated the Tahiti Park neighborhood supports the recommended changes. 3:03:55 PM PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti suggested the Planning Board vote on those items without any recommended changes first. The PB members agreed. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she would entertain a motion to find Zoning Text Amendment 20-ZTA-06 regarding the Limelight District, Photometrics, Electronic Message Boards, Housing Authority and Fences/Wall/Hedges components consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (1998) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval by the City Commission. PB Member Morriss SO moved. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. PB Chair Ohlrich stated there were two items, Food Trucks and Open Air Market Bazaar that the PB members had concerns about regarding the hours of operation. Discussion ensued regarding appropriate motion. PB Vice Chair Salem made a motion to find Zoning Text Amendment 20-ZTA-06 regarding Food Trucks consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (1998) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 8 of 23 approval by the City Commission with the revised operating hours of 6:00 am to 2:00 am. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Salem amended the motion to the hours of 6:00 am to 2:30 am. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PBI Member Morriss stated he did not support expanding the evening hours noting people tend to be out drinking versus eating during the late-night hours. PB Member Gannon requested the motion be restated. PB Chair Ohlrich restated the motion. PB Member Gannon stated he supports the 6:00 am start time but not the extended evening hours. PB Member Blumetti stated he supported the motion noting Food Trucks would be able to capitalize on the market and it would be safer as people would not be out driving late at night. PB Vice Chair Salem pointed out brick and mortar restaurants close around 10:00 to 11:00 pm; said the later hours for the Food Trucks would provide an option for people that work late; and noted the economic benefits. The motion failed 2/3 with PB Member Morriss, PB Member Gannon and PB Chair Ohlrich voting no. Discussion ensued regarding the process in place to expand the operating hours; codifying the expanded hours in the Zoning Code; revisiting the issue in the future if necessary; and expanding the start time to 6:00 am. Attorney Connolly noted the need for ai new motion since the initial motion failed. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she would entertain a motion to find Zoning Text Amendment 20-ZTA-06 regarding Food Trucks consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (1998) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval by the City Commission with the revised start time of 6:00 am. PB Member Blumetti sO moved. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. Discussion ensued regarding the provision that the Development Services Director has the authority to expand operating hours for Open Air Market Bazaars. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find Zoning Text Amendment 20-ZTA-06 regarding Open Air Market Bazaar consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (1998) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval by the City Commission. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PB Chair Ohlrich noted the previous discussion regarding the maximum percentage increase that could be approved administratively for the height of appurtenances. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find Zoning Text Amendment 20-ZTA-06 regarding Administrative Height Adjustment up to 25% consistent with the Sarasota City Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 9 of 23 Plan (1998) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV- 1206 and recommend approval by the City Commission. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion, noting the need to define how the appurtenances are measured more clearly. Discussion ensued. The motion passed 5/0. PB Chair Ohlrich noted the Planning Board's earlier discussion regarding a recommendation that Community Workshops be required in the RROD that staff did not bring forward. Planning Manager Smith stated staff had not included that provision previously; pointed out it was a suggestion by one of the Planning Board members; and noted the RROD working group staff has been working with did not request that provision. Discussion ensued regarding previous discussions on the issue and the fact that component had not been advertised and therefore could not be voted on at this hearing. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find Zoning Text Amendment 20-ZTA-06 regarding the RROD consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (1998) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval by the City Commission. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. PB Chair Ohlrich noted the earlier discussion regarding concerns with no additional parking requirements when mezzanines are installed. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss made a motion to find Zoning Text Amendment 20-ZTA-06 regarding Mezzanines consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (1998) and find that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval by the City Commission. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon stated he could not support the motion without a requirement for additional parking. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Member Gannon and PB Chair Ohlrich voting no. The Planning Board Took a Fifteen Minute Break C. Ouasi-ludicial Public Hearings 1. En Pointe (509 Golden Gate) (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 12, 2020 AND JANAURY 13, 2021): Site Plan Application 20-SP-05 is a request for Site Plan approval for development of a 4-unit multi-family condominium project on approximately 0.16- acre property located in the Residential Multiple Family (RMF-5) zone district, with street address of 509 Golden Gate. Point. The applicant proposes to utilize the Alternative Development Standards for Golden Gate Point. Eight parking spaces are proposed on the ground level. The existing building will be demolished. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) PB Chair Ohlrich reconvened the meeting and requested Roll Call. All members were present. Attorney Connolly discussed applications for Affected Persons status from the November 12, 2020 meeting and called upon the following persons that had been granted Affected Person status previously: Joan Lovell representing the Golden Gate Point Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 10 of 23 Association; Cathy Antunes; George Loesel, Waldron Kraemer, William Noonan, and Judith Mower. Ms. Lovell, Mr. Kraemer, and Ms. Mower were present. Attorney Connolly noted Ms. Lovell would be allotted 20 minutes as she represents the Golden Gate Point Association; and Mr. Kramer and Ms. Mower would be allotted 5 minutes each. Attorney Connolly explained the Quasi-Judicial public hearing procedures. PB Members disclosed ex-parte communications for all four quasi-judicial hearings on today's agenda as. follows: PB. Member Blumetti had none; PB Vice Chair Salem had none; PB Member Morriss discussed three of the applications with City staff; PB Member Gannon has visited the Quay Sarasota Scenic MURT site on several occasions; and PB Chair Ohlrich had discussions with David Lough, Virginia Hoffman, and City staff. 3:40:29 PM PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing for 20-SP-05. Applicant Presentation: Attorney Steven Rees, Architect Kourtney Gonzales, and Architect Andrew Edder appeared. Attorney Rees noted the application had been continued from a previous Planning Board meeting and stated the applicants had worked with the neighbors as requested by the Planning Board. Ms. Gonzales discussed the changes that were made to the proposed site plan regarding streetscape compatibility and parking maneuverability noting the applicants had worked with the Golden Gate Point Association; discussed the streetscape changes made including the driveway width; the size oft the landscapel buffer; the location oft the driveway; the angle of the access to the parking garage; and the size of the trash/ recycling pick-up area; stated a pedestrian path from the existing curb cut was added; noted the building footprint was unchanged; stated the neighborhood had accepted the proposed solutions; discussed the parking maneuverability changes noting parking spot number one was relocated; the internal columns and internal trash/recycling staging area were redesigned to allow an increase to the size of parking spots two, three and four; parking spaces two through six were, shifted south; the width of parking space seven was increased; there were: no changes to parking spot eight; the back-up distance had been maximized as a result; and said the applicants have gone above and beyond to address the neighbor's concerns. Ms. Gonzales discussed the turning templates stating the parking buffer would not be crossed over; presented graphics depicting exist movements for parking space one and reasonable movements for parking spots two through six; noted parking spots seven and eight maneuvers were based on larger vehicles; pointed out the condominium owner could restrict the size of vehicles parking in the garage; and discussed the existing conditions. Attorney Rees appeared and requested the Planning Board's approval; reviewed the proposed development; discussed the neighbor's S concerns; pointed out staff has found the Standards of Review have been met; presented examples of techniques used to minimize Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 11 of 23 the impacts of driveways and parking lots; discussed competent and substantial evidence; reviewed the applicant's efforts to address the neighbor' S concerns; stated the applicants were willing to proffer the development would be a condominium; and requested the Planning Board adopt a motion approving the Site Plan. PB Member Morriss noted the proffer that the development was not in the materials. Attorney Rees responded that the proffer is now being offered. PB. Member Blumetti had no questions. PB Member Gannon questioned the length of the vehicles used for the turning templates; noted vehicles backing out encroach into other parking spots; noted affluent people that will be living there, and they tend to drive large vehicles; and asked why the building footprint cannot be expanded. Ms. Gonzales noted the owner will have the ability to limit the size of vehicles allowed; said the probability that all spots would be full all the time was low; and pointed out the footprint could not be expanded in a meaningful way due to the setback requirements. Attorney Rees noted all parking spots were Code compliant. PB Vice Chair Salem had no questions. PB Chair Ohlrich requested clarification of the hatched and speckled areas; and questioned the difference in the size of the existing versus new units. Ms. Gonzales stated those areas are permeable hardscape; and said the existing units were smaller than the proposed new units. 4:13:12 PM Staff Presentation: Development Services Senior Planner Dobbs and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs reviewed the history of the application; discussed parking and streetscape concerns; noted the changes the applicants had made since the November 12, 2020 public hearing; and stated staff recommended approval. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the number of units is not changing sO thereis no change to the traffic analysis; stated driveway and parking lots are acceptable as long as dimensional standards are met; pointed out the standards do not address the size of vehicles; said the back-up space required by the Code is an 18-foot drive aisle; and noted the applicants are proposing a 26-foot drive aisle. PB Member Blumetti stated the applicants had done a good job addressing the streetscape concerns; questioned if a developer has the right to limit the number of parking spaces allotted to residents; and questioned if the Planning Board had jurisdiction over the number of times a vehicle has to maneuver to back out of a parking space. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs noted two of the eight parking spaces were potentially problematic. PB Member Gannon questioned if the applicants could seek an administrative adjustment to reduce the setbacks to increase the buildings footprint; and questioned how staff could now determine the parking is adequate given the minimal changes the applicants had Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 12 of 23 made. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs noted adjustments can only be made in the Downtown zone districts; said the applicants could request a variance from the Board of Adjustment; and stated the changes the applicants made addressed previous concerns. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for residents of the new building parking on-street rather than in the parking garage. PB Vice Chair Salem had no questions. PB Member Morriss discussed the concerns related to on-street parking and questioned Assistant City Engineer regarding the difference in parking behaviors between condominium owners versus apartment renters. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated there were no fundamental differences, noting people with expensive vehicles tend to park where they feel it is safest. PB Chair Ohlrich stated her concerns regarding owners versus renters using on-street parking. Ms. Joan Lovell, Affected Person, questioned staff as to the difference in the size of the existing versus new units; the number of residents per unit; the number of vehicles per unit; where guests would park; the distance from nearby parking garages; if staff had been to Golden Gate Point and was able to find aj parking space; and the assumption that people with luxury cars would park in the garage. Staff responded stating the difference in the size of the units between the existing and proposed, the number of residents per unit and the number of vehicles per unit was unknown; the traffic analysis is based on the land use; noted guests arrive using various means of transportation; noted it was likely that guests would use on-street parking; estimated the distance. from nearby parking garages was approximately one: mile; said staff had not experienced attempting to park on Golden Gate Point; noted guest parking on the street was no different than other single or multi family neighborhoods; and pointed out there is no basis for using vehicle size as a measurement. Affected. Persons: Attorney Connolly stated Ms. Joan Lovell, representing Golden Gate Point Association, is the first Affected Person, and has been granted twenty minutes for her testimony. 4:48:03 PM Ms. Joan Lovell appeared and stated she was speaking as a resident and President of the Golden Gate Point Association; stated service vehicles have difficulties locating parking spots; voiced concerns regarding impacts when Golden Gate Point is built-out; noted the Golden Gate Point residents self-taxed themselves to install and maintain the streetscape; stated many residents could not attend the hearing to voice their opposition since many are elderly; discussed previous parking proposals for other sites on Golden Gate Point that were denied; noted the larger units will bring more density than the existing which will exacerbate the parking issues; said staff did not address ensuring people will actually use the parking spaces in the garage; stated the turning templates show maneuverability will be challenging and that will result in increased on-street parking; discussed the Standards Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 13 of 23 for Review; said the residents are older and can'twalk long distances sO they need the on- street parking spaces; pointed out the applicants were using the Alternative Design Standards; said the proposed building was too large for the lot; discusses thel history of the iterations of the proposed site plan; pointed out residents are not opposed to new development because it reduces their taxes; stated her opposition is due to the lack of overall parking on Golden Gate Point and approval will set a precedent; noted 175 +/- signatures in opposition have been submitted; and requested the Planning Board deny the application. Ms. Judy Mower appeared and stated she lives across the street from 509; stated there are limited public parking spots on Golden Gate Point; said contractors and caregivers have difficulties locating parking spots; stated the proposed garage was too small to allow for adequate maneuvering; noted rental units generate more parking needs than condominiums; and requested the Planning Board deny the application. PB. Member Blumetti asked Ms. Mower if the spaces in front of her building were specific to her building or public spaces. Ms. Mower stated those were public. Mr. Waldron Kraemer appeared and stated he felt PB Member Blumetti's suggestion to limit the number of vehicles allowed per unit and/o or stacking the parking were not work due to monitoring and cost concerns; stated the turning templates show maneuvering will be challenging and that will result in people using the on-street parking; pointed out due to the cost of the units only wealthy people will live there and they tend to drive large vehicles; and pointed out there are other vacant properties on Golden Gate Point that when developed will add to the parking issues. Ms. Denise Watermeier appeared and stated her opposition noting Golden Gate Point has limited parking that is already at capacity; and noted there is already new development occurring. 5:13:02 PM Affected Person Rebuttal: Attorney Connolly noted the Affected Persons were only permitted to rebut the citizen that spoke. There was no Affected Persons rebuttal Staff Rebuttal: Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared and reiterated the issue is parking demand on Golden Gate Point; pointed out it is an overall community issue; noted the applicants have met all Code requirements; said it is a common problem in cities; and noted apartment dwellers tend to have less vehicles per unit. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Rees, Ms. Gonzales, and Mr. Edder appeared. Attorney Rees agreed with Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein that parking demand is a citywide issue; noted property owners will know in advance what the parking issues are before opting to purchase; said the purpose of developing the site as a condominium versus apartments is to have better control over parking requirements and enforcement; pointed out the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 14 of 23 current conditions require on-street parking and noted the neighborhood's concerns are speculation rather that competent and substantial information. Ms. Gonzales stated the Golden Gate Point residents will only support the project if the parcel is developed with the only use on the site being a parking garage that is large enough to resolve all of the existing issues; said the residents of their proposed building have the same rights to the public parking as others; stated it is not the responsibility of this applicant to resolve the longstanding parkingi issues on Golden Gate Point; discussed the size of the parking spots in the garage noting those are: not designed for sub-compact or compact cars as suggested; and stated ift the parcel is not developed the parking demand issues will still be a problem. Mr. Edder noted the Pearl was recently built on Golden Gate Point; that lot is two times the size of the subject parcel and contains two times the number of units they are proposing sO is the same density; and reiterated the parking spots in the proposed garage are not designed for sub-compact or compact cars as suggested. PB Member Gannon questioned the statement that the Golden Gate Point residents were objecting unnecessarily; and asked if the applicants were proffering that the residents will only park in the garage. Ms. Gonzales reiterated that iti is speculation that the vehicles will not use the garage; and noted the parking space dimensions exceed Code requirements. Discussion ensued. Attorney Rees reiterated it is a citywide issue; and noted the applicants were proffering a condominium that will allow for private restrictions. 5:26:04 PM PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti stated he understood both points of view; said the parking issues on Golden Gate Point go beyond this project; said the current conditions are not applicable to the proposed building; noted will reduce on-street parking; pointed out that this proposed project will not, and should not, resolve the guest/contractor parking issues; questioned if there would be opposition to the project if there was no existing parking demand issue on Golden Gate Point; noted the significant improvements that have been made to the streetscape and parking with the exception of two of the eight parking spaces; stated he supported the project; and noted it would be very costly to change the footprint of the building at this point in the process. PB Member Gannon stated he appreciated the extra efforts regarding the streetscape; and said the project does not meet Code relating to traffic circulation. PB Member Morriss agreed the proposed development cannot be held responsible for the existing issues; noted the Code requires adequate" parking; and said the question is what is adequate for a particular project. PB Vice Chair Salem stated the applicants had made a good effort to address the issues; pointed out the project meets Code requirements; said the opponents had made a good point about the vendor parking issues; stated it is a community issue; suggested the Golden Gate Point Association purchase one of the vacant lots and use that to address the overall parking deficiencies on Golden Gate Point; and said the application should be approved as it meets all requirements. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m, in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 15 of 23 PB Chair Ohlrich stated she agrees the project should not be required to resolve the existing issues however it will exacerbate them; and stated the design of the parking garage does not meet the Standards of Review 4 and 6: for Site Plans. PB Member Blumetti stated he agrees that parking behaviors of condominium residents are different than those of apartment renters; discusses adequate versus minimum; noted the City sets the minimum; if the minimum Code requirements are met then the project has met the requirements; and said if the minimum is not adequate then the. Zoning Code should be changed. Secretary Cover pointed out zoning decisions cannot be made based on the length of a vehicle. PB Member Gannon stated he had not seen a written proffer that the project would be condominiums. Discussion ensued. Attorney Rees confirmed the applicants were proffering a condominium. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find Site Plan 20-SP-05 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the three conditions, with a fourth condition that the project will be a condominium. PB Vice Chair Salem seconded the motion. The motion failed 2/3 with PB Member Gannon, PB Member Morriss and PB Chair Ohlrich voting no. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss made a motion to continue for further information, stating the need to see the condominium documents. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK A RECESS UNTIL 6:45 PM Secretary Cover called the roll. All members were present. 6:45:52 PM 2. Citadel LLC (2040 6th Street): Site Plan Application No. 20-SP-02 and Minor Conditional Use Application No. 20-MCU-01 are a request for Site Plan and Minor Conditional Use approval to locate a Suncoast News Network (SNN) office at the subject property with a street address of 2040 6th Street. The property is zoned Downtown Neighborhood (DTN) and has an Urban Neighborhood Future Land Use classification. The site fronts 5th Street and 6th Street, which are both classified as primary grid streets. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel J. Freedman and Mr. Chris Gallagher appeared. Mr. Freedman stated they represented Citadel, LLC; noted the location of the subject property; stated there is an existing office building on the site; noted a Minor Conditional Use is required for an office use in the Downtown Neighborhood zone district, and a Minor Conditional Use requires Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 16 of 23 a Site Plan; stated the Site Plan is the existing development and no changes were being proposed to the site; discussed the Site Plan stating the site fronted two primary streets; said the existing parking and driveway cut on 5th Street would be eliminated; noted there are three satellite dishes on the site that receive only and are buffered; noted there would be some minor changes to the interior of the building and signage; and stated there was aj previous Minor Conditional Use on the site for a Religious Institution/Day Care/Office use and they are modifying the Minor Conditional Use to be an office use only. The Planning Board Members had no questions. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs appeared; pointed out the location of the subject property, the size of the site, the existing use, and the existing zoning; stated the applicants were proposing the change the use to a SNN office; noted the non-conforming parking and driveway along 5th Street would be removed; noted the usei is considered low intensity; discussed the Standard for Review noting those had been met; said the project had been deemed de minimis, the required Community Workshop had been held and no citizens attended, and the DRC had signed-off on the project; and stated staff recommended approval. The Planning Board Members had no questions. Affected. Persons: There were none. Citizen Input: There was no citizen input. Rebuttal: There was no rebuttal. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Gannon made a motion to find Site Plan 20-SP-02 consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and find Conditional Use 20-MCU-01 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code, and approve the petitions, subject to the three conditions. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. PB Chair Ohlrich noted there was a Change to the Order of the Day and the next public hearing would be the Quay Sarasota Scenic MURT Adjustment Application. 3. Quay Sarasota Scenic MURT (601 Quay Commons): Adjustment Application No. 21- ADP-01 is a request for Adjustment approval to allow lighting fixtures that exceed Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 17 of 23 the dimensional standards of 30 inches in height in the required waterfront setback located at 601 Quay Commons. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) 6:53:02 PM Attorney Connolly called on Pamela Mones who had requested Affected Person status. Ms. Mones was not present and therefore could not be granted Affected Person status. Applicant Presentation: Attorney Charles D. Bailey III; Bret Blank, Quay Ventures; and Melanie Smith, Project Engineer appeared. Attorney Bailey stated the requested Adjustment to the Downtown Code was. needed in order to install lighting along the portion of the Quay Sarasota Scenic MURT that is in the Waterfront setback; noted other adjustments related to the project had been approved by staff; pointed out Quay Ventures was required by Code to provide the Bayfront MURT, noting the Scenic MURT was: not required; said the applicants agreed to construct the Scenic MURT along the water edge; presented a graphic depiction of the proposed light poles; discussed the types of lighting and the height of the light poles; presented photographic samples of how the light poles appear once installed; stated the light poles would only be along this segment of the Scenic MURT; reviewed other non- related improvements that had been made to the overall Quay Sarasota site; stated staff recommended approval with one condition and the applicants agreed to the condition; and requested the Planning Board approve the Adjustment Application. PB Member Gannon stated he had no questions regarding the Adjustment Application however questioned the route a bicyclist would take to get to Quay Commons when traveling west from US 41. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti had not questions. PB Member Morriss questioned if the entire MURT should be included in the Adjustment Application. Attorney Bailey noted Block 7 and Block 8, where extensions of the MURT will be included, will come before the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated the Adjustment Application being considered at this hearing cannot be amended to include additional portions of the MURT. PB Vice Chair Salem and PB Chair Ohlrich had no questions. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs appeared; presented a graphic of the overall Quay General Development Plan; pointed out the location of the proposed MURT; noted the zoning is Downtown Bayfront; discussed the zoning of the surrounding area; reviewed the history of the Quay Sarasota General Development Plan and Development Agreement; noted the Quay Sarasota Scenic MURT is required as part of those approvals; reviewed the various phases of the MURT; noted the adjustment was required due to the proposed height of the light poles; said an administrative adjustment had been approved for benches, bike racks and planters; discussed the intent of the regulations; noted the lighting will provide safety along the Scenic MURT; said staff has determined the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 18 of 23 Standard of Review have been met; and said staff recommended approval with one condition. PB Member Gannon questioned what the spread of the light from the ring lights would be at: nighttime; and if the lights would remain on overnight. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated the applicants could better address that. PB Member Blumetti, PB Member Morriss and PB Vice Chair Salem had no questions. PB Chair Ohlrich stated her questions were addressed during the presentation. Affected Persons: There was. no Affected Person testimony. Citizen Input: There was none. Rebuttal: Attorney Bailey and Mr. Blank appeared and responded to PB Member Gannon's questions regarding the brightness and hours the lighting would be on stating it would be regulated the same as parks are; pointing out some of the lighting is required to be on 24 hours a day per the Building Code. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss made a motion to find Adjustment 21-ADP-01 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the request for adjustment subject to the one condition. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed 5/0. 7:22:07 PM (This item was moved to the end of the agenda under Changes to the Order of the Day) 4. Cocoanut Arts Rezone (1290 Boulevard of the Arts and 1245, 1259, 1265, and 1275 5th Street): Rezone Application No. 20-REN-02 is a request for rezone approval to the subject 1.805-acre property with street addresses of 1290 Boulevard of the. Arts and 1245, 1259, 1265, and 1275 5th Street from Downtown Edge (DTE) to Downtown Core (DTC). The Future Land Use Classification is Downtown Core. The site currently contains 11 residential units (three duplexes and five single-family dwelling units) and the SRQ Modern hotel. The SRQ Modern hotel will remain in use on PID 2026-12-0031. No changes to the site are proposed at this time. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner Attorney Connolly stated Ms. Pamela Mones had applied for Affected Person status however was not present. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 19 of 23 Applicant Presentation: Attorney Bradley Ellis; Mr. Philip DeMaria; and Mr. Michael Beaumier appeared. Attorney Ellis stated the proposed rezone including five parcels that are under common ownership; discussed the proposed conditions stating the applicants were opposed to the staff condition that the property fronting Cocoanut Avenue must be designed and constructed in compliance with the primary grid street regulations; said the applicants were proffering an additional Community Workshop prior to submitting for Administrative Site Plan approval; provided an overview of the proposed rezoning noting the location, surrounding uses, and Future Land Use classification; stated the Future Land Use classification is Downtown Core and the only implementing zone district for that Future Land Use classification is Downtown Core; noted a previous opinion from the City Attorney that if there is only one implementing zone district the property owner has a reasonable expectation that a rezoning to the implementing zone district will be approved upon application; discussed existing, proposed and surrounding maximum density and heights; reviewed the existing conditions of the subject parcels; noted the traffic study was based on the most intense uses permitted in the Downtown Core zone district; reviewed the criteria; noted requiring the primary grid street regulations be met would set a precedent; and said the City should change the Zoning Code to designate Cocoanut Avenue a primary street rather than place conditions in a rezone ordinance. PB Member Blumetti asked if the applicants were stating that if the City changed Cocoanut Avenue to a primary street they would comply with those regulations at the time of development; noted the Planning Board cannot deny the rezone request since Downtown Core is the only implementing zone district; and pointed out if the applicants apply for a building permit prior to the redesignation of Cocoanut Avenue to a primary street the development will not comply with the primary grid street standards. PB Member Morriss noted the issue was walkability and had no questions. PB Vice Chair Salem had no questions. PB Member Gannon noted the Standards of Review are based on the most intense use under the proposed zone district and questioned how theapplicants were demonstrating that a ten-story building would not impact the light flow; and questioned how the applicants would judge the needs of the Rosemary neighborhood. Attorney Ellis stated there is an 11-story building and a parking lot where the light flow could be impacted; noted there is no Site Plan or development plans being considered at this hearing; and pointed out the proffer regarding the additional Community Workshop. PB Chair Ohlrich stated her appreciation for the proffer of the additional Community Workshop; asked if the applicants were willing to forego Administrative Site Plan approval; questioned what the setbacks are under the Downtown Core zoning; and asked what the setbacks for McCown Towers were. Attorney Ellis stated the applicants were not willing to forego Administrative Site Plan Approval. Mr. DeMaria stated the setbacks for Downtown Core zoning are zero; stated he did not have the information for the setbacks for McCown Tower; and noted McCown Tower was developed under a different Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 20 of 23 Code. PB Chair Ohlrich noted the applicants had stated they were not contemplating development at this time, pointed out the proposed development that was included in the traffic study; and questioned if that was hypothetical. Attorney Ellis stated the maximum proposed intensity was assumed for the traffic study; and noted if the proposed development were to exceed that an additional traffic study would be required. PB Member Gannon questioned what the plans for the existing cottage on the subject parcels was, noting the property owner had previously committed to turning it into a coffee shop. Mr. Beaumier stated no decision had been made yet. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs reviewed the application pointing out the location, existing zoning, existing Future Land Use classification, and existing uses; stated the current zoning of Downtown Edge (DTE) is not an implementing zone district; stated the applicants are requesting rezoning to Downtown Core (DTC) which is an implementing zone district; noted no development is proposed at this time; discussed the surrounding zoning, Future Land Use classifications, and uses; presented a Zoning Comparison Chart; pointed out the boundaries of the RROD and discussed the RROD standards; noted the proximity of the subject parcels to the RROD; stated staff is considering revising the Zoning Code to designate Cocoanut Avenue as a primary grid street; said the primary grid street designation would promote walkability;said the traffic study found the project to be di minimis; noted the applicants were proffering an additional Community Workshop prior to submitting an Administrative Site Plan; said a Community Workshop was help and staff's proposed Condition #1 mitigates the concerns expressed by citizen's at the Community Workshop; noted the project has received DRC sign-off and meets the Standards of Review; and stated staff recommend approval with two conditions. PB Member Gannon questioned if staff had considered the impact on light; and stated RROD2 defines the needs of the neighborhood. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs noted there is no site plan to review; and stated the recommendation that the primary grid street standards be met will preserve air and light. Discussion ensued regarding the impacts of zero lot line setbacks and narrow sidewalks on walkability; and ways to require an 8' sidewalk with a 4' amenity zone. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated the applicants would have to proffer that. PB Member Blumetti questioned how staff determined the primary grid street standard should be met and asked why staff did not designate Cocoanut Avenue as a primary street. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs discussed the process for revising the Comprehensive Plan and subsequently the Zoning Code; and pointed out precedent was set when 711S. Osprey rezoning was approved. PB Member Morriss noted the subject parcels are not located within the RROD and wondered why that is part of the discussion. Discussion ensued regarding walkability. PB Vice Chair Salem had no questions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 21 of 23 PB Chair Ohlrich stated her questions had been answered as part of the discussions. Affected Persons: There was no Affected Person testimony. Citizen Input: Mr. David Lough appeared and stated he resides on Cocoanut Avenue; noted previous rezonings without a site plan in the area did not abut the RROD; stated developing the west side of Cocoanut Avenue using different standards than what is on the east side creates incompatibilities; and suggested mitigation measures be employed. Staff Rebuttal: There was none. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Ellis and Mr. DeMaria appeared. Mr. DeMaria stated zero lot line setbacks implement urban land use; noted the existing zoning has zero lot line setback requirements also; pointed out a central amenity on the subject property noting the developer is not going to develop the surround parcels in such a manner that light would be impacted; and discussed the difference in the standards for the RROD versus primary grid streets. Attorney Ellis discussed the maximum densities for the Downtown Edge, Downtown Core, and RROD zone districts; noted if the rezoning is denied the RROD would have higher density than the subject parcels which is inconsistent with the transects; noted the City has not made any policy decisions regarding expanding the primary street grid; and stated the condition that they must adhere to the primary street grid standards sets an unlawful precedent. 8:21:55 PM PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Blumetti questioned Attorney Connolly regarding approving the rezone without the benefit of a site plan. Attorney Connolly reiterated City Attorney Fournier's opinion regarding only one implementing zone district. Discussion ensued regarding amending the Zoning Code to address the concerns, and setback requirements on primary streets versus non-primary streets. PB Member Morriss questioned if staff's S proposed Condition #1 addressed the concerns. Attorney Connolly stated the Planning Board may include conditions along with the reasons for the conditions; and stated any conditions must tie back to the Standards of Review and be based upon competent and substantial evidence. Discussion ensued regarding including the RROD2 standards and requiring the primary street grid standards be met. PB Member Gannon stated staff's proposed Condition #1 was in line with Attorney Connolly's comments and it achieves compatibility. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned if changing the setback requirements would achieve the wider sidewalk and amenity zone. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti stated the Standards of Review are moot since there is only one implementing zone district.; said he agreed with the applicants that a piece meal approach is not appropriate; and stated the City should Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 22 of 23 amend the Zoning Code. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she agreed with PB Member Blumetti regarding the Standards for Review being moot; said a rezone without a site plan application is complicated; noted Administrative Site Plan review does not come before the Planning Board; and pointed out other developers had stepped their buildings back to help mitigate the zero-lot line setback. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned if the setbacks or the width of the sidewalk was the issue. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti made a motion to find Rezone 20-REN-02 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the two staff conditions and the condition proffered by the applicants. Discussion ensued regarding staff's recommended Condition #1. PB Member Blumetti reworded his motion to read "find Rezone 20-REN-02 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to staff condition #2 and the condition proffered by the applicants. PB Member Gannon stated he could not support the motion without staff's S Condition #1. Discussion ensued. The motion passed 3/2 with PB: Member Gannon and PB Chair Ohlrich voting no. IV. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 13, 2021 The Planning Board approved the minutes as submitted by consensus. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action willl be placed on thei next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by staff. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Vice Chair Salem stated at the January 28th special meeting a City Commissioner entered the chambers while the Planning Board was in session; said he felt it was undermining how the City Commissioner interacted with applicants for The Bay Park Phase 1 that was being discussed; and stated the Planning Board should be shown more respect. Discussion ensued regarding if that occurs in the future, call the point of order, state the concern; and the Chair or Vice Chair will address the issue. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 10, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Via Communications Media Technology Page 23 of 23 PB Member Gannon noted the minutes of the January 28, 2021 special meeting were not in today's packet for review/approval, and questioned when the matter would be going before the City Commission. Secretary Cover stated the City Commission had scheduled a special meeting for March 8, 2021. Discussion ensued regarding ensuring the meeting minutes are included in the material as well as the recommendation that the conditions proposed by Attorney Lincoln be strongly considered. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:47 PM Kohu Kte DS StévénR. Cover, Planning Director Kathy Kélley Ohlrich) Chair Planning Départment Planning#Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board] Planning Board February 10, 2021 20-ZTA-06 1. There are ten unrelated issues being proposed as one ZTA. It seems they should be discussed individually and if there are objections or changes to be recommended to one or several items, they should be pulled, as done with consent agenda items, and voted on singularly. Comment? Staff agrees. Food Trucks 1. P. 25 = to what does the "(5)" alongside P refer? This number should be corrected to "6" which references the footnote listed on page 29. 2. P. 29, Note 6 = If the City Manager increases the number of food trucks allowed at a location, is it for one event only or for all subsequent events? This would be up to the discretion of the City Manager, on a case-by-case basis, as such a use would be on City-owned property. 3. P. 31 - Yellow Note = this note says HB1193 preempts local govts from requiring licenses,.. Yet in (i),2,d it reads, "The operator must provide a recycling plan to the City prior to the City's operational license being released. Is this contradictory?-- This appears to be in conflict and staff suggests removing the referenced language (last sentence) as the first sentence in this provision still satisfies the intent. 4. P. 32, the memo from Connolly to Chapdelain - paragraph 3 reads, "Furthermore, a municipality, county, or other local govt entity may not prohibit food trucks from operation anywhere within the entity's jurisdiction. The ZTA is limiting food trucks to certain zone districts. On P. 33, section 509.12 provides clarity that a municipality, may not prohibit mobile food dispensing vehicles from operating within the entirety of the entity's jurisdiction. To me that means a municipality may not ban food trucks all together but may limit where they may operate within the municipality. Correct? Yes-F Please also see subparagraph (3) on the top of page 34 for additional clarity. Open Air Markets 1. P. 36, X,(3),c - how is compatibility determined? Compatibility will be determined the same way as any other application that requires a finding of compatibility. Staff will be looking at the potential impacts, scale, intensity etc. of the proposed open air market on the surrounding area. Compatibility will be ensured if the open air market and the surrounding area can exist in harmony together. 2. P. 36, X,(3),k = will enforcement be complaint driven? Enforcement will be handled the same way as any other site in the City. Staff has the ability to place conditions on the Provisional Use permit and to require another application to be filed after a year in order to check in and see how the use is working out. 3. P.37,(4) - Do not delete "of" Agree, appears to be a formatting error. Limelight District 1. Have there been discussions with the neighborhood? Yes, list of proposed uses allowed was presented to group on 11/5/2020, with two other previous discussions with the group on promoting economic development of the area. 2. P.49 = is it impossible to read this page. During the meeting, please put the page up and identify the ILW areas. Thanks. Will do. 3. P. 50, Sec. VII-904,(5) = were any restrictions considered as to uses of the caretaker's dwelling unit? There were not. What if a caretaker wanted to have a shop in the unit? Would it be permitted? If yes, what's the process? Does that need to be clarified in this ZTA? The caretaker's unit would be allowed to be in the same building as an allowed non-residentia use. Admin Height Adjustment for Site Plan and Conditional Use Modifications Photometrics 1. What were your sources of information when generating this ZTA? It contains very industry specific jargon and details. Just wondering. There was some consultation with an Electrical Engineer who does work all around the state and had a few suggestions on how best to update some of the photometric sections based on technology changes within the industry. Electronic Message Boards RROD Mezzanine 1. Could this add to the height of a building? Yes, new buildings could be constructed an additional 7 feet in height as the first floor ceiling height with an mezzanine could be 21 feet VS. 14feet without a mezzanine. No, for existing buildings. 2. Pps. 81 - 87 - I do not see any substantive changes. Did I miss something? No, only updating the name of the Development Services Department by striking 'neighborhood and. M 3. P. 117 = why was the mezzanine ZTA originally proposed for the RROD but later revised to include DTB, DTC, and DTE? Originally conceived for the RROD which has DTE for its underlying zoning, the City has received interest in allowing for the construction of first story mezzanines without being counted as an additionalstory in other parts of downtown. Staff decided that expanding the concept to other downtown zone districts (DTB, DTC, and DTE) would be beneficial in that mezzanines can be used in many. flexible and cost- effective configurations. Mezzanine space may be used for additional seating capacity in restaurants, or provide additional retail, office or storage space for businesses. When installed in residential units, mezzanines are many times referred to as lofts that provide additional living space. Mezzanines may also add to the aesthetics of interior spaces. In general, the Florida Building Code will allow the aggregate area of a mezzanine within a downtown zoned room to not be greater than one-third of the floor area of that room or space in which it is located. Housing Authority Fences and Walls and Hedges Planning Board February 10, 2021 20-SP-05 509 GG Point En Pointe 1. Applicant - Regarding circulation in the parking garage, please be prepared to demonstrate how the new plan differs from the original, how the new plan facilitates ingress and egress. The applicant has been notified and will be prepared to demonstrate how the new plans differ from the original. 2. Applicant - I did not notice any amenities, such as pool, workout room, gathering area. Are any of these provided and - I missed them? The applicant does not have any planned shared amenities proposed for the project. 3. Staff - P. 12 - in the first full paragraph, Mr. Ohrenstein concludes that the probability of incoming and outgoing cars to meet at the entrance/exit is once every six years. How did he come to that conclusion? Mr. Ohrenstein completed a Probability Distribution Analysis based on the number of trips per hour. 4. Staff - P. 12, (4) - regarding traffic circulation and other areas of compatibility, would the city have any liability if this development is approved and built and subsequently traffic circulation becomes a very real problem? There is no legal liability on the city if traffic circulation becomes a very real problem. Planning Board February 10, 2021 20-MCU-01 and 20-SP-02 2040 6th Street 1. Applicant - There are three satellite dishes. Where will they be placed? I'd appreciate seeing that during the meeting. The satellite dishes will be placed as shown on the site plan. 2. Staff - P. 53 = Have items A-C been incorporated into the site plan? The parking stripes and driveway on 5th Street will be removed and closed off (Item A). There is no access from 5th Street, SO the ADA walking path is only needed, and is provided, from the 6th Street side (Item B). Bicycle racks will be at the front door, / entrance (Item C). Planning Board February 10, 2021 20-REN-02 Cocoanut Arts Rezone (without site plan) 1. Staff - On P. 76 it says a school concurrency determination will be required at the time of the site plan. Yet, on P. 81 it says the SCSD is "good to go for approval on this project. 1 Which is it? On page 81, the statement "good to go"is referring to the completeness review and DRC sign-off. The Letter of Receipt is required for all Rezone Applications in order to be assigned the school concurrency application number. However, this is all that needs to be completed at this time of the review. 2. P. 87 = Have the recommendations A-D been incorporated into the applications? Should they be proffered as part of the motion? A traffic study was completed after the initial analysis that provides an additional set of recommendations that trump the recommendation provided in the initial review. The Traffic Study concluded that the level of uses anticipated in the application would be a de minimis impact and is attached to this email. 3. Staff - P. 97 = The agreement for the transportation study is not dated or signed. Why? Is there a signed and dated copy? I have reached out to Dan Ohrenstein for a copy. However, the completed traffic study has been attached to this email. 4. Applicant - P. 136 - At the community workshop there was discussion of the administrative site review process. Counsel's response was "our client would be amenable for further commentary and information from neighbors. Would the applicant be willing to proffer additional community workshops?The applicant is willing to proffer the requested one additional Community Workshop prior to submitting for Administrative Site Plan Review. Planning Board February 10, 2021 21-ADP-01 1. Applicant = P. 5, paragraph 4 - says features include 5 light poles, 4 ring light poles, 2 ring lights. During the meeting, please be prepared to show exactly where the lights will be placed. The applicant is prepared to show the exact location of the lights. 2. Staff - What residential buildings are closest to where the lights will be placed? How far are they? What is the potential for negative impact on existing residents? It appears the Condos on the Bay are the closets existing residents to the proposed Scenic MURT which are located on the other side of the boat basin and are approximately 500 feet away. The lighting will be required to meet the Zoning Code requirements of Section VII-1402 and should not have a negative impact on the residents. The adjustment is to the height of the structures and the views of the residents which not will not be impeded by the light poles.