CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Chair Members Present: Chris Gallagher, Vice Chair Members Robert Lindsay, Mort Siegel, and Vald Svekis City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager, Neighborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Ahearn-Koch called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF' THE DAY There were no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading of the Pledge ofConduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. Attorney Connolly reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures and the recommended time limits for the petitions. Board Members agreed to the time limits. The oath was administered to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. Ex-parte communications were disclosed. Chair Ahearn-Koch stated she had spoken with Ms. Kafi Benz, Ms. Gretchen Serrie, and Ms. Pola Sommers regarding the Bayou By The Bay application, noting the discussions involved back-up information that will have no effect on her decision making. Chair Ahearn-Koch further stated she had been at the City Planning office while Courtney Mendez and Christian Hershman were discussing the State Street Eatery Expansion application, noting no specifics of the application were discussed with her. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 11 B. Quasi-ludicial Public Hearings 1. BAYOU BY THE BAY [1114, 1124, 1140 SYLVAN DRIVE): Rezone Ordinance Amendment application 13-ROA-02 proposes to amend a previously approved rezone ordinance to remove the previously proffered Site Plan (now expired) from the Rezone as approved under Ordinance No. 07-4721 and instead offer a Proffer Statement limiting the development of the property to residential single-family and allowable accessory uses under the RMF-1 zone district. The previous Site Plan included six multi-family units in three buildings plus a clubhouse/ pool building and accessory docks. Under the revised proffer, up to five single-family homes could be built. [Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner). Attorney Connolly noted the, Affected Person status request from Mr. Paul Verizzo. Mr. Verizzo was present and by consensus the Planning Board granted the status. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Robert Lincoln, Attorney with the Icard Merill law firm appeared and stated he is the agent for the owner, First America Bank. Mr. Lincoln discussed his background and noted the application is an amendment to an existing rezone approval. Mr. Lincoln stated the 2007 Site Plan for multi-family development has expired which requires going back through the process to eliminate the conditions, the owner wishes to develop the property as single family and is proffering same, the single family standards under multi-family zoning will be adhered to, up to 5 lots are proposed, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and there are no concurrency issues. PB member Lindsay questioned if a survey to determine the number of lots has been completed. Mr. Lincoln stated a 2007 survey was completed, however the property is being resurveyed prior to applying for a lot split. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated the notes from the Community Workshop indicate the property owner stated "let me be clear, we are: not going to have any profits". Mr. Lincoln responded the bank had taken the property back through foreclosure, they are underwater on the property, and felt based on the current market single family versus multi-family is the higher and better use: for the land. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated an additional statement at the Community Workshop that read "We think it's in the best interest of the community, the bank, and everyone involved to go ahead and put a stipulation in place that we'll develop single family homes. We wouldn't develop the homes" and questioned if that meant they want single family but won't be actually developing. Mr. Lincoln stated the intent is to sell to an individual or multiple developers who would then build on the property. PB member Svekis questioned if the bank was delaying the sale to make their balance sheet look better by waiting for the property to appreciate. Mr. Lincoln stated the context of the discussion at the Community Workshop was the neighbors were concerned about the property being sold quickly which would negatively affect the property values in the neighborhood. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated there was a minor housekeeping item to be addressed, noting the Future Land Use Map included in the packet did not reflect an update of a parcel catty-corner from the site noting that had no impact on this application. Senior Planner Mendez stated a Site Plan for six multi-family units, community rooms, and accessory uses was approved for the property, that the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 11 approved Site Plan is being removed and a proffer added to develop the property as single family residential with customary accessory uses and/or structures, even though the property is zoned Residential Multi-Family. PB member Svekis questioned when the approval would expire. Senior Planner Mendez stated the approval does not expire. PB member Svekis questioned the maximum length of the proposed docks noting Whitaker Bayou is 80 wide. Senior Planner Mendez stated the docks cannot encroach on the middle 50% of the waterway. PB member Svekis questioned if a 100 boat could go on the docks. Senior Planner Mendez stated boats cannot encroach on the waterway either. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated 23 docks had been previously approved for the property, then the rezoning to multi-family that preceded this request allowed 6 she believed, and now we are jumping to 15. Senior Planner Mendez stated the docks approved under the preceding rezoning were community boat docks and that the Code allows 1 dock per unit. PB: member Lindsay stated docks rather than the number of boats are regulated, Sarasota is a waterfront community, some people choose jet skis and others choose large boats. PB member Lindsay further noted the need to keep in mind that Whitaker Bayou is a commercial waterway, has been for about 100 years, multiple fish houses and boatyards have been located on the Bayou with one boatyard remaining, and questioned why the focus on rationing boats in a community where boating is a big part of the economy. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated she was not focusing on rationing boats, just looking for the logic behind going from 6 to 15, and questioned if the 305 boat slips at the yacht center across the Bayou had been taken into account, noting her concern regarding the potential impact on the Bayou. Senior Planner Mendez stated the number of docks proposed is consistent with the single family zoning and the underlying multi-family zoning does not allow for additional docks. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch questioned when the change to the Comprehensive Plan was made and noted she wanted it clear in the record that there was a significant amount of disapproval from the neighborhood, the change to the Comprehensive Plan was not supported, and the neighborhood did not object to the 2007 rezoning since the Comprehensive Plan change was final and the proposal was the least intensive in multi-family. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch questioned the process for tree protection under this proposal versus multi-family given there is no site plan review. Senior Planner Mendez stated the same tree preservation requirements apply. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch questioned if an updated tree survey would be required. Senior Planner Mendez stated a tree survey will be required for each single family lot as they are developed. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated she understands the applicant wants to expedite the application and questioned why a Comprehensive Plan change cannot be processed concurrently. Senior Planner Mendez stated due to the processing schedule in place for Comprehensive Plan Amendments the project would be delayed about 1 42 years if processed concurrently. PB member Svekis stated the narrative for this proposal does not address the adjacent Marietta property that goes to US 41 and questioned if the Marietta property goes NT or NTOD how would the single family development on this property affect that? Senior Planner Mendez stated staff looks at the transition in future land use and zoning and noted that while the development may be single family the underlying zoning is still multi-family. PB: member Svekis questioned the allowed accessory buildings on each lot, noting due to FEMA regulations those structures would have to be elevated. Senior Planner Mendez stated lot coverage limitations and required setbacks would have to be adhered to. PB member Svekis noted the wording on page 7 that states "such slips cannot be rented to non-residents of the units" and questioned if Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 11 that meant the docks could be rented to residents. Senior Planner Mendez noted since the development would be single family, if the docks were rented to residents they would be renting to themselves. Senior Planner Mendez stated that wording was included to clarify the difference from the previous rezone. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated the proffer could be undone by 3 votes and questioned if someone were to combine lots would the same rules apply. Senior Planner Mendez stated single family lots cannot be combined, each structure has to be on its own lot, and any changes would require processing an additional rezone ordinance amendment. PB member Svekis questioned the difference in the acreage shown in the community workshop materials versus the rezone ordinance amendment. Senior Planner Mendez stated the 1.08 acres contained in the rezone ordinance amendment materials was based on the application materials provided. Affected Person Testimony: Mr. Paul Verrizo appeared and stated his support for the project. Mr. Verrizo stated his family has owned property in the area for a long time and they want to see the single-family character of the area retained. Citizen Testimony: Ms. Yvonne Lacey appeared and, after being sworn in by Attorney Connolly, stated her support for the project, that she was delighted the property was going back to single-family, and questioned if it would be possible to change the designation in the Comprehensive Plan at a future date. Ms. Kafi Benz appeared and stated her support for the project, however would like to see the history corrected. Ms. Benz stated the neighborhood did not oppose the previous rezoning as it was a compromise after the Comprehensive Plan change, which the neighborhood fiercely fought. Ms. Benz questioned if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment could be processed once the property is sold, requested assurance that the property would not be sold as a unit, and questioned why a site plan was: not required. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Lincoln appeared and stated the number of docks permitted is a function of the State, the number of boats is not regulated, the Bayou has been dredged sO the deep water goes to the edge, and noted the docks could potentially be constructed parallel to the land. Mr. Lincoln further noted site plans are not required for single-family lots, and the landowner has a right to develop the property, however put proffers in place to address the neighbor' S concerns. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch closed the public hearing. PB member Svekis stated that since the bank indicated at the community workshop they were in no hurry to redevelop the property an additional condition was needed to require at least one lot be sold within 18 months. PB: member Siegel made a motion to find Rezone Ordinance Amendment 13-ROA-02 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code, and recommend approval to the City Commission, subject to removal of the associated Site Plan 06-SP-32 and addition of the following proffer (#1) and conditions (#2-3): Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the! Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of1 11 1. The property will be developed with Single-Family residential structures and uses, including accessory structures and uses, consistent with the RMF-1 zone district and the Zoning Code. 2. Prior to building permit submittal for the first single-family residence, the applicant shall apply for a Zoning Lot Split determination dividing the property into up to five single-family zoning lots consistent with the standards of the RMF-1 zone district. Such application shall be made in the proper form and submitted to the City Auditor and Clerk's Office. Proof of completion of the lot split by the Sarasota County Property Appraiser following City approval of the Zoning Lot Split shall be provided as part of the building permit submittal. 3. 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 Gallagher seconded the motion. PB member Siegel stated he supported the project as it does not increase the allowable density and goes from multi-family to single- family. PB member Gallagher stated he supported the project as it is entirely consistent with the standards. PB member Svekis made a motion to amend the motion to include the necessary sale of at least one lot within 18 months of approval. The amended motion failed due to the lack of a second. The motion to approve carried 4/1 with PB member Svekis voting no. 2. STATE STREET EATING HOUSE EXPANSION [1533 STATE STREET): Site Plan and Major Conditional Use applications 13-SP-09 and 13-CU-04 propose expansion into an adjacent 1,700 square foot space, for a total 3,600 square feet. The use remains a nightclub by definition due to 4-COP alcoholic beverage license, with concurrent operation of a restaurant and accessory package sales. Proffers have been proposed limiting live music to special events and providing for no outdoor music. [Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner] PB member Gallagher recused himself from the hearing as the applicants are clients of his company. PB member Gallagher left the room at this time. Discussion ensued regarding voting with 4 members. Attorney Connolly stated a 2/2 vote would be considered a vote for denial. Applicant Presentation: Christian Hershman, Chef and Kirk Voelker, Owner, appeared and presented the application. Mr. Hershman stated the business has been opened for 1 %2 years and that long wait lines primarily led to the decision to expand. Mr. Hershman noted two objectives, the first to have better waiting space and the second to provide additional bar seats and outdoor seating. Mr. Hershman stated they would sell boutique wines and liquor and in addition a shoe shining service will be provided a few days per week. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 11 PB member Svekis questioned what the surrounding businesses and residential uses were. Mr. Hershman stated the only surrounding business is the Art Gallery next door and given they are: in the core of downtown there are no residential units close by. PB member Svekis questioned the provision of live music. Mr. Hershman stated there is no room outside, and limited room inside, noted they had proffered being allowed to have live music for special events, and stated their concept was different than a standard nightclub. PB member Siegel questioned the percentage of the business that is food versus alcohol. Mr. Hershman stated approximately 2/3 of the business is food sales and the remaining is alcohol sales. PB member Siegel stated the proposed expansion enlarges the alcohol potential greatly, noting his experience indicates the dominating restaurant becomes more of an alcohol establishment later in the evening. PB member Siegel noted the increased responsibility on the owners, that conditional uses are not a right and can be taken away, and questioned the applicant' S plans for handling the late evening crowd. Mr. Hershman stated doormen will be monitoring patrons, they hope the concept in itself will minimize problems, there will be no happy hours or drink sales, and noted the Sarasota Police Department monitors the area regularly. PB: member Lindsay questioned why proffer #4 was offered noting the lack of private space for meetings or private parties. Mr. Hershman stated City staff encouraged the proffer due to State zoning issues, that the applicants prefer the perception of two separate areas, and noted food will be available throughout the night to maintain the restaurant versus nightclub atmosphere. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch questioned how Iong Mr. Hershman had been in business and if there have been any problems, violations, or complaints at the current location. Mr. Hershman stated hel has personally been in the business for 20 years and the only problem at the current location related to the outside seating being off by a few inches and that has been corrected. PB member Svekis questioned how they could manage with a 25% maximum on package sales. Mr. Hershman stated they will be selling craft spirits rather than name brands and would only have a small inventory behind the bar. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared, stated the use is considered a nightclub, and the application was reviewed based on that criteria. Senior Planner Mendez stated that based on the facts the property is within downtown, there is a lack of retail in the surrounding area, and given the proffers offered, staff recommends approval. Senior Planner Mendez reviewed the proposed conditions stating the contiguous space requirement is based on the alcohol license. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch questioned the difference between a restaurant that is allowed to partition off areas and this one. Senior Planner Mendez stated the proposal being considered is an expansion to a single operation under one license rather than a restaurant with a bar next door. PB member Lindsay questioned why proffers number 1 and 2 were necessary stating his concern that SO many restrictions will limit the owner's ability to make adjustments to his business plan. PB member Siegel stated the applicant's S proffers were an acknowledgement of problems downtown and questioned the definition of live music. Senior Planner Mendez first addressed the issue of dividing the space, stating if two entrances are available with the inside spaces closed off it would be considered two separate operations. PB: member Lindsay stated one entrance could be closed off and questioned if the City required the proffers. Senior Planner Mendez stated the proffer Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 11 was carried over. from the previous approval, live music is not defined in the zoning code and amplified music is not addressed. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch noted staff's S recommended conditions state no outdoor live music shall be provided while the proffer states no outdoor music and noted the proffer was clearer. Senior Planner Mendez stated the Planning Board can amend the recommended conditions as part of their vote. PB: member Svekis read the definition of a nightclub from Webster's Dictionary and Wikipedia and questioned where staff gets their definition from and why it is sO different. Senior Planner Mendez acknowledged the need to update the zoning code noting this application is being reviewed based on the existing code. PB member Svekis stated his concern that a little restaurant adding on a section was being subjected to seven draconian conditions that are unreasonable and saddles people with more regulation and pain. Senior Planner Mendez stated the need to limit the alcoholic beverage sales sO that function is not considered a second primary use which would require additional Conditional Use approval. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch questioned the hours of operation and if alcohol could be sold before: noon on Sunday, where the 25% sales limit came. from, and questioned if the proffers would stay with the property SO future tenants would have to abide by the proffers. Senior Planner Mendez stated the noon restriction would apply, the sales limit was proffered by the applicant to ensure the expansion was not considered a second primary use, and confirmed the proffers stay with the property. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Hershman and Mr. Voelker appeared. Mr. Hershman stated the City had done a great job working with the applicants, however he agrees the proffers are restrictive. Mr. Hershman stated they wanted to be good stewards of downtown, that the applicants took a lot of direction from the City, however they would like to maximize their business. Mr. Voelker stated he wants the least amount of restrictions. PB member Svekis questioned the process to revise proffer #4. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch noted the applicants would have to submit a new site plan to accomplish that. Mr. Hershman stated they were ok with proffer number four and discussed the music proffer. Mr. Hershman stated they would prefer the 10:30 pm cutoff for music, encouraged by the Board previously, not be there, that the applicants went the path of least resistance, and they felt they should not be limited since other establishments are not. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch questioned why staff included the 10:30 pm cutoff and ifi it had to remain. Senior Planner Mendez stated the condition was carried over from the previous approval and the Planning Board could recommend removal. PB Siegel stated the: need to keep in mind the criteria for the Conditional Use is specific to this area, that some establishments have sound inside but still create huge problems for the residents and additional costs to the City, and noted his concern that the area is over concentrated with licenses and he fears if that continues the whole perception of the area will change. PB: member Siegel also stated the Planning Board should keep in mind what can happen if this business closes and a new one opens. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch questioned the status of the State Street Garage project. Senior Planner Mendez stated there is a firm working on the design and that several proposals are on the table that include a hotel, residential, and retail uses. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch closed the public hearing. PB: member Svekis made a motion to find Conditional Use 13-CU-04 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 11 the Conditional Use, subject to the following proffers (#1-3) and conditions (#4-7) amended to read: 1. No outdoor live music shall be provided. 2. Delete 3. For retail sales, no "small format" products will be sold. All wine and liquor will be in 750 ml format or larger. 4. The two sections of the business must operate as a single contiguous business and at no time shall the connection points between the spaces as shown on the site plan be eliminated, doors installed, or otherwise divided. 5. Deleted 6. At the time of Building Permit application, the applicant shall either install an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the structure in compliance with NFPA 13 or limit the occupancy below 100 persons. Final approval of the method and form is at the discretion of the Building Official. 7. 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 Lindsay seconded the motion. PB member Svekis stated his concern with shutting down Sarasota, stating none of it makes sense. PB member Lindsay stated his agreement, noting the areas with noise problems are located near residential and this location is about as far away as you can get from residential. PB: member Lindsay further stated the completion of the State Street Garage project is years away, and business should not be restricted without reason. PB member Siegel questioned Attorney Connolly whether the removal of condition #5 would change the use. Attorney Connolly stated if a complaint was made it could be problematic since the issue would have to go to a Special Magistrate. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate percentage to limit the alcoholic beverage sales to. Secretary Smith noted keeping the percentage under 50% maintains the secondary use status. PB: members Svekis and Lindsay agreed to the friendly amendment to their motion and second. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated she was comfortable with amending condition #5 to 49%; stated proffer #1 should be amended to stipulate no outdoor music live or amplified shall be provided, and has no objection to deleting proffer #2. Attorney Connolly clarified the motion on the table: Proffer #1: amended to read "no outdoor live music shall be provided" Proffer #2: Delete Proffer # 3 & Condition #4: Stay as is Condition #5: 25% is changed to 49.9% Condition #6 and Condition #7: Stay as is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of1 11 PB Chair Ahearn-Koch noted the need to change proffer #1 to read "no outdoor music, live or amplified, shall be provided" to ensure amplified music is not alllowed. PB members Svekis and Lindsay agreed to the friendly amendment to the motion and second deleting the word "live". Attorney Connolly clarified the motion: Proffer #1: only wording retained is "no outdoor music shall be provided" Proffer #2: Delete Proffer #3 & Condition #4: Stay as is Condition#5: 25% is changed to 49.9% Condition #6 and Condition #7: Stay as is The motion carried 4/0. PB: member Gallagher rejoined the meeting. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT There was no citizen's input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PB member Svekis noted the misspelling of PB: member Siegel's name in several places, stated his and the Chair's remarks regarding 13-SP-07 and 13-CU-03 were reversed, and that he never said anything about night time lighting. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch agreed that their remarks were reversed. Secretary Smith stated staff would review the recording and make any necessary corrections. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF 1. Discussion regarding City email accounts (Phil Hurwitz, IT Director) Mr. Phil Hurwitz, Director of the City's IT Department, was present to discuss a recent change to the City email accounts for Board members. Mr. Hurwitz discussed the changes, noting the new accounts are currently active, and any saved emails can be forwarded to the new account. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD PB member Svekis stated that on May 8th the Planning Board dealt with cluster housing and it passed 3/2. On June 17th staff presented the issue to the City Commission where staff stated the Planning Board passed it3/2 then staff went into the reasons it should be rejected. Then people spoke against it and it was incredibly unfair treatment of the Planning Board action and in fact brings the question to mind who is representing the Planning Board at the City Commission meeting, not staff, in this case staff was there representing staff for whatever reason, not the Planning Board, SO who is representing the Planning Board? PB member Svekis further stated the Planning Board needs a representative because this can't continue on each issue, that the City Commission is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 11 figuring the other side is right, and something is really wrong. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated PB member Svekis had brought this up previously on another issue. PB member Svekis stated staff brought more points to counter the Planning Board than they brought up at the Planning Board meeting and he thinks the Planning Board has to have representation with someone from the prevailing side in attendance at City Commission meetings along with staff to be sure the Planning Board is fully represented. PB member Lindsay stated past practice was for the Planning Board Chair to provide monthly reports to the City Commission, the minority side was represented as well, the practice went away due to technology, and questioned if that practice should be reinstated. PB member Siegel stated his agreement with PB member Lindsay's remarks and noted the Planning Board's function is to have discussions, air issues, and stated the Planning Board had a great debate about Newtown, everyone had different ideas, the staff person did not elude to anything discussed or the fact a thorough discussion occurred, however he is not sure the City Commission does not listen to recordings of issues. PB member Svekis stated the cluster housing issue may not be a big enough issue, however if the City Commissioners did not watch the video the Planning Board was blindsided. PB member Siegel questioned the status of the proposed workshop between the City Commission and Planning Board. Secretary Smith stated the workshop had not been scheduled yet, however will likely occur in October and will include the Form Based Code project. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch noted the issue of Planning Board representation at City Commission meetings is #4 on the list of proposed subjects. Attorney Connolly stated one thing had changed since the Planning Board presented monthly reports to the City Commission, the Snyder decision that resulted in quasi-judicial proceedings, and monthly reports would no longer be appropriate. Attorney Connolly stated a Planning Board representative would have to attend each actual public hearing. PB member Svekis questioned if staff then is a third party lobbying the City Commission and stated he does not understand staff's position. Attorney Connolly stated professional staff with planning backgrounds are hired by the City Commission through the City Manager to provide their professional opinion and if that differs from the results of a public hearing, whether City Commission or Planning Board, that should not change staff's professional opinion. Attorney Connolly stated if staff came to the Planning Board and recommended a no vote but the Planning Board voted yes, staff could report and explain the conversation however in order to maintain their professional integrity would not change their professional opinion. PB member Lindsay stated the issue appears to be staff does not adequately explain the Planning Board's majority/r minority views separate from their professional opinion and that at a minimum there should be a clear understanding of all views. PB member Svekis stated it would be difficult for staff to take three positions on an issue and keep clear when they have an overriding professional view. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated staff doesn't take positions but rather states their professional opinion in their reports, that staff should represent the Planning Board's discussion more accurately, then state their own opinion. PB member Svekis stated he willl not be comfortable until there is a representative dedicated to the Planning Board's position. Secretary Smith questioned Attorney Connolly regarding legal issues that could arise with the Planning Board testifying at the public hearings. Attorney Connolly stated that would be ok legally. PB Lindsay stated the Planning Board members should state their no votes clearly and those should be clearly reflected in the minutes. Attorney Connolly stated that could be helpful, particularly in instances of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 11 litigation. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch stated she has felt the minutes were too short for a long time and those need to be expanded sO the City Commission can spend 10 minutes reading rather than 3 hours listening to the recordings. PB member Svekis restated the need for the Planning Board to provide live input as it is difficult for the City Commission to get the nuances of the discussions from the minutes. PB member Gallagher stated the issue should be discussed further after the joint meeting with the City Commission. PB member Lindsay requested clarification between reporting to the City Commission monthly versus appearing in person. Attorney Connolly stated there would be a due process problem if the Planning Board representative can't be Cross examined. Discussion ensued regarding the need for the Planning Board members to articulate their positions and for those to be clearly stated in the minutes. PB Chair Ahearn-Koch summarized the discussion noting the need for the Planning Board member's S positions to be restated toward the end of the meeting, the Planning Board needs to encourage the City Commission to read the minutes and watch the videos, and noted having a live person at each meeting is not realistic. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed workshop with the City Commission. PB member Lindsay stated the Planning Board should also discuss with the City Commission that they should request Planning Board presence on topics they feel it is necessary. PB member Svekis questioned when the workshop would be held. Secretary Smith stated most likely in October, after the budget process is completed. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. h2. Smiil David Smith, General Manager Integration Jennifer Ahearn-Koph, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Lgal-Plarning Agency [Secretary to the Board]