CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE! SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Patrick Gannon, Chair Members Present: Eileen Normile, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner, Planning Department Jim Koenig, Senior Planner, Planning Department Megan Lui, Transportation Planner, Planning Department John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician Others Present: Demian Miller, Principal, Tindale Oliver I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. PB Chair Gannon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY 1. Request to move Presentation of Topics by Staff to top of the agenda. Director Cover stated that in the last budget cycle, staff requested three new positions, which were approved by the City Commission, and he would like to introduce the three new employees: Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner came from the MPO; Megan Lui, Transportation Planner came from Sarasota County; and Jim Koenig, Senior Planner came from the City of Venice IV. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Cover read the Pledge of Contact. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 29 Attorney Connolly explained the procedures for Non-Quasi-judicial public hearings, and administered the oath for all who intend to speak this evening. B. Non-Quas/-Judicia: Public Hearings 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION No. 18-ZTA-03 - proposed Zoning Text Amendment to Appendix A and Section IV-203 of the Zoning Code relating to traffic impact study methodologies and procedures, including site access/safety evaluation and mitigation, on-site/off-site traffic circulation, management of vested trips, trip generation thresholds, consideration of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit impacts and facilities, traffic count data usage, and appropriate peak hour usage and factoring. (Alexandrea DavisShaw, City Engineer; Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer; Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager; Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner; Demian Miller, Principal, Tindale Oliver) Engineer DavisShaw introduced to the record herself and the team: Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer; Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager; Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner; and Demian Miller, Principal, Tindale Oliver; stated that in 2016 when staff was working on the update of the Transportation Chapter, the City Commission requested staff to re-evaluate the City's traffic impact study process, update the information, make it more valuable, and do research on what other communities are doing; and introduced the City's Consultant, Mr. Miller, to present the work they have done. Mr. Miller stated that he will recap the goals of the project, review definitions of terms, discuss the key findings and recommendations, and follow up with discussions. Goals: 1. Define steps for site access and safety studies; 2. Review use of net V. total trips in study process are we looking at total trips or are we giving credit for something that was there in recent history; what is most appropriate and fair; 3. Consider multimodal impact and mitigation - how development evaluates and mitigates not just automobile traffic but also walking, biking, and transit; how is that part of the traffic study process; and how to fold that consideration in the process; 4. Review thresholds for determining study area - how the study area, the significantly impacted network, the subcomponent of the overall road system that we scrutinize in a traffic study is determined; are the thresholds and standards the city uses to determine this area appropriate; 5. Discuss use of traffic impact studies for system planning - how the impact studies also inform the overall transportation planning process to help make long range decisions about infrastructure spending, establish priorities or concentrate efforts; and 6. Consider the role of seasonal changes in traffic as part of process to study the impact of new development traffic - discuss the seasonal variations in traffic Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 29 between high season and the slower months of the summer, and how that has a bearing on the development review process. Definitions: Mr. Miller stated that there are three levels at which new development mitigates the impacts of the transportation system and the first is something that was always part of the traffic study process, but it has not been called out or defined; now it is a more explicit part of the study; it is site access and safety. 1. Site Access and Safety Study Addresses development driveway connections (e.g. turn lanes, signals); Looks at safe bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access along and to the site; May address operational issues at adjacent thoroughfare intersections(s); May address cut through traffic impacts = Since new development is usually located along a thoroughfare, there may be situations, especially with residential development, where a school or a church will generate traffic; through this site access and safety process we look at trips this development may generate on the neighborhood street; make sure that there are provisions to address these trips; and determine if we need traffic calming or a sidewalk, which can be addressed through the study process. Mr. Miller explained that this analysis will be required of all projects, because the focal point of this is safety and operations. 2. Off-Site Impacts (Concurrency) Neighborhood significantly impacted by development traffic - This is a concurrency study, looking at how the traffic from this development will impact the network, and typically some distance away from the development site; itis not citywide impact, but the impact on a significant subarea, typically emanating outward from that development site; while we know that heavily congested roads can generate some safety issues, here the focus is on Level of Service (LOS) and maintaining that; as dictated by Florida Statutes, the process by which developers mitigate their LOSi impact, as part of a concurrency study, is a proportionate share process, and this will be discussed later on. Mr. Miller referred to the diagram on the screen, and explained that the red arrows show the traffic coming out of the site; noted that 100% of that development traffic is immediately adjacent to that site; said that as that traffic processes through the network, some people turn right, some people go straight, some people turn left; noted that the volume of that traffic at peak hour becomes less and less a function of the overall traffic on the roadway; pointed out that information is used to determine the size of the study area, the area of significance; and added that the purpose of the concurrency study at the intermediate level analysis (not at the driveway, but not citywide either) is to make sure we evaluate and mitigate the impacts. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 29 3. Multimodal Transportation and Impact Fee (MMTIF) Implemented in 2016; maximized in 2017 Formula based contribution for capital improvements Net new person trips from development Cost of multimodal facilities Tax credit (net present value) Paid by all development Mr. Miller stated that a few years back the City of Sarasota participated in a countywide transportation impact fee, which was really a road impact fee; noted that developments were assessed based on how much traffic they generated, and that was factored through by the costs of adding a passage to the roadway system with impact fees; pointed out that a credit was also given, because most developments will pay into various taxes that are used for transportation infrastructure; explained that if they pay into the local optional sales tax, some of that goes to transportation, sO we try to estimate that over the life of the development, what is the present value of the taxes they will pay, not all the taxes, just the taxes that are directed to the same infrastructure to which the feei is for, in this case transportation, and that becomes part of the calculation as well; stated that in 2014 the City separated itself from the countywide fee and adopted the Multimodal Impact Fee; noted that in some respects, it is very similar to the way it is calculated and managed; added that the main difference is that, ifit is in the City's best interest to invest in roadway improvements, they can do that, but if it is in the City's best interest to provide pedestrian facilities, bike trails, transit shelters across the various different modes, then they can prioritize for that, sO it offers more flexibility in options; when this fee was first adopted within the City, the County, as well as other jurisdictions, had been discounting their impact fees; added that the City calculated the maximum fee that can be legally defended, based on case law and statutes; noted that a lot of communities say that it seems high sO let's take that down to 50% or some other arbitrary number; pointed out that, because of the background condition with the County, when the City initially went on its own, the City chose to match the rates the County was charging, to avoid creating a disincentive for the City VS. County; stated that last year the City decided the economy is doing well, and adopted fees at the maximum level; noted that we are actually required by state law to periodically reevaluate the data input that goes into this, every five years or more frequently; stated that the important thing about the impact fee, besides the fact that the City adopted fees at the most aggressive rate we can defend, is that it is designed to cover citywide impacts; sO as those trips trickle out of the development and split again and again, the overall system impacts for that are addressed by the citywide impact fees. Mr. Miller clarified the terms Total, Vested and Net trips, as follows: Vested Trips: Traffic from previous development Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 29 Maybe there was an old shopping center on the property, or another building that was knocked down in the last couple years; engineers refer to the Traffic Generation Manual; said that the contents of this manual are based on empirical studies of developments, where they have observed traffic coming and going from sites, and they have correlated that data with dozens of other studies to say that a shopping center of 1,000 sq. ft. generates "x" trips, a single family home generates "y" trips, a condominium generates "z" trips per unit; noted that this information is used within the City's procedures; pointed out that there is some flexibility for unique cases, but generally this is the source; then engineers say that, based on the Traffic Generation Manual, the current use or the most recent use at that site generates 100 trips. Total Trips: Traffic generated by the proposed development After establishing the Vested Trips, engineers look at the proposed use, which may generate 300 trips; this would be the total trips, that is how much the new development is expected to generate based on the available data. Net Trips: Total Trips - Vested Trips (not less than 0) Net Trips is the total trips of the new development taking out the credit for the trips the previous development generated; noted that there is a problem when the site * may have been vacant for a while, and we know that in reality it is generating no traffic, has partly vacant structures, or has tenants who are of a lesser intensity than those originally occupying the building years ago, and they may be generating less traffic than what might be suggested in the Traffic Generation Manual. Key Recommendations: 1. Site Access and Safety Studies - Extend to adjacent thoroughfare intersections for larger-scale projects Do not credit site access and safety mitigation against MMTIF Include local street traffic calming or sidewalks if project will significantly increase traffic on neighborhood streets Mr. Miller said that they wanted to be more specific about "Site Access and Safety Studies," and to set some guidance for when this aspect of the overall traffic impact study process ought to look only at the driveway, make sure that it is designed correctly, and had the appropriate access control, versus when we needed to go to the next intersections; noted that they have set some thresholds in the procedures, which are based on when there may be enough traffic at that next intersection down the line, where you may need an auxiliary lane or signalization; said that they took the benchmarks that would trigger the need for modifications, made them thresholds, and looked at the next thing out; pointed out that most of the projects will be of a moderate scale, SO as part of the site Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 29 access process, typically, they would be lookingj just at the median itself; clarified that this process describes concurrency; pointed out that impact fees are about maintaining LOS on a system; added that the site access is about safety and a lot of the criteria used to determine if safety improvements are necessary; for these reasons we believe that while developer contributions for the concurrency part of the study, that intermediate geography, as required by state law, must be credited against whatever their 1 impact fee obligation is; site access and safety is a separate realm than the systems the impact fees deal with; SO they are recommending that if you need to make improvements to get people in and out of the front door safely, that is not something that draws down what you need to pay for your impact fee. Mr. Miller pointed out that they will be drawing trips down the local street, will tie it to the City's criteria for traffic calming procedures, and will be able to evaluate that for the larger scale developments; said, for example, if someone is building two townhomes in the neighborhood, engineers will not talk to them about traffic calming, they would ask them to build sidewalks out to the thoroughfare; added that, ifiti is a medium size apartment complex, something that will generate a significant amount of traffic, engineers will include this consideration, because itis a safety issue as well; for example, yesterday my kids could play soccer in the street after school, today they cannot, if it is a dramatic overnight change, we want to have the means to mitigate for it. 2. Net versus Total Trips Use total trips for the access and safety analysis Mr. Miller stated that they recommend the use of total trips for the access and safety analysis; added that in order to determine if the new traffic is going to require a turn lane or a signal, engineers need to look at actual, nothypothetical, traffic numbers. Use hybrid approach for off-site (concurrency) analysis 0 Existing structure: greater of 12 ITE estimate or actual trips Demolished structure: 12 of ITE for 5 years, reduced by 20% each of the subsequent five years. For the intermediate development, Mr. Miller noted that they recommend the use of a hybrid approach; explained that currently the City gives them credit; for example, ifi it is an existing derelict structure, we look at the square footage of that, we look at the ITE manual, figure out how much traffic it generated when it was new, and credit it to whatever they are proposing; added that, likewise, if a prior use has been demolished within the last five years, now the City will give that full credit; pointed out that what they are proposing is a moderate approach, saying that whether you had a building that you knocked down and you plan to redevelop, or you have a building, odds are that, if the property is attracting money through redevelopment, the land use on that is not operating at full vibrancy, it is probably not a busy shopping center, and it Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 29 does not have the same trip generation as when it was new, maybe it has vacancies or has lost its anchor; explained that they are using a lot of commercial development examples, because that is what they see being redeveloped; added that they see old shopping centers being reconfigured and turning into a new product, maybe the grocery store that was the anchor is now a gym, or a call center, and does not generate the same traffic any longer; noted that whether something was recently knocked down or there is an existing building the City will give you half credit; pointed out that if someone argues that it is a viable shopping center and the only reason they want to knock it down is because it is a better deal for them, that is something that the engineers can physically observe. Mr. Miller continued, saying that they can put hoses in the driveway, not in the downtown but everywhere else, they can measure that, and say, "Yes, you are right, it is a thriving shopping center, is 95% of what the book says, and we will give that; noted that nine out of ten times, it is generous to take it at 50%, because, in some cases, we want to incentivize someone to take down a vacant structure; we do not want to create a situation where hanging on that half credit becomes a disincentive for someone to clear their site; said that you can go in with Code Enforcement for code violations, but that is not really the best way; noted that, as part of this, they also want to provide a five year grace period, same as if it were an empty building, but after that, we reduce it by 10% a year, and after ten years, there is no credit; clarified that if itis a situation where the City negotiates a different deal with a specific developer, that constitutes a Development Agreement, and would be specific to that site; and stated this is a straight forward administrative thing to deal with. Use net trips for multimodal transportation impact fee (MMTIF) assessment Consistent with state and national practice Impact fees (unlike concurrency) address citywide impact and average costs and conditions over the (reasonable) life of the development. Impact fee calculations include adjustment for taxes paid over life of development. 163.31801 F.S. places burden of proof on government. Mr. Miller continued with a discussion of the recommendations for citywide traffic impacts; stated that they recommend to continue with the full credit, for the reason that this is consistent with statewide and national practices, it is the legal norm, and because impact fees, unlike concurrency, are over a long period of time; explained that they are. looking at conditions over a long period of time, unlike concurrency and site access, which are very time and place specific, looking at conditions and costs right now, and specifically where the development has impacts; pointed out that impact fees have in them the idea that those developments contribute taxes overtime; noted that it becomes a very sticky process to try to unravel a site that used to exist and paid taxes for Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 29 a while, and how it all works out; stated that state law, strongly and literally, places the burden of proof for impact fee assessments on the local government; and added that for many other things the local government gets the benefit of the doubt, but for impact fees it is incumbent for the local government to prove that they are "up to snuff" on the amount. Attorney Connolly confirmed that Mr. Miller has correctly sited the law. 3. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Mitigation Current code requires sidewalk or multi-use recreational trail (MURT) to be constructed along property per Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) Recommendation to also consider transit stops. Developer to grant easement along property, if public right of way is too narrow. Improvements not creditable against MMTIF. Mr. Miller stated that the City Commission and the citizens asked them to look into other transportation modes as part of the traffic impact study process, the idea that we are a multi-modal city, and this is not just about cars; added that the team feels, based on the typical trip length when people walk or bike, that the best place to deal with this is in the Site-Access part of the overall mitigation process, as well as in the Multi-modal transportation impact fee; noted that the fee, on a citywide bases, allows us to use developer contributions to build the sidewalk network, multi-use recreational trails, transit shelters, and other capital infrastructure; pointed out that, based on the City's existing Zoning Code, the developer is to provide safe access to the site; added that the City already allows development along the property line, if the sidewalk is not there, they need to build a sidewalk, if the right of way is not there for the sidewalk, within reason, they need to provide an easement for that right of way; noted that when a developer demonstrates that compliance with these requirements substantially reduces his ability to develop the property, it is considered a "taking" and there is a process for that discussion; pointed out that this consideration is extended to bus stops; said that a developer may not always want a bus stop, or there may be situations where the developer wants the bus stop but SCAT does not agree with that location for a bus stop, and it becomes a multilateral conversation; added that, for larger scale developments, they want to talk about the need for a crosswalk, and that becomes a discussion not just with the City and the Developer; explained that, ifi it is a state maintained road, they have to consider if this is the best place for a crosswalk, if it is going to ease safety concerns, or is it going to create issues; added that some of these decisions require input from the City's transportation partners, but engineers have the ability to consider these issues as part of the site; clarified that, if there is an intervening property, between this development and the next thoroughfare intersection, and not only there is no sidewalk in front of the development that is coming in for permit, but there is missing sidewalk in the parcel over, if there is a reasonable determination that creating that connection is necessary for safer access (this is in the City'sZoning Code) then that can be required of the developer; pointed out that the City cannot ask a private developer to get right of way, there is a constraint Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 29 there, the right of way must be available or the adjacent property owner wants to give an easement; concluded that the City needs to look further into the extended connections, within reason, and the test for that is not a formula, it is reasonableness and proportionality; and concluded that these are minimum requirements not creditable against MMTIF. 4. Use of Data for Systems Planning Archive studies in central repository Recycle traffic count data as appropriate Track cumulative impacts on roadways/intersetions Mr. Miller said that the City uses the data from the traffic studies in a unique way; in most communities the developer finds a traffic engineer, who interprets the local government's procedures, they do the study, their client is the developer; said that the City reviews the study, or hires someone to doit, they argue with the developer about it, then engineers are replaced by lawyers, and it becomes a drawn out process; Sarasota, wisely, hires consultants to do these studies, there is a pool of consultants, the studies get done for each project, and then they go on a shelf. Mr. Miller recommends that this data be aggregated sO that it becomes a resource, because depending on the area and the type of data, it can be good for six months up to three years, depending on how much things are changing in that part of the network; added that having this as a resource, it can reduce the time and money, and it can also provide a data bank for the City, and recycle this data as appropriate; added that the City needs to keep track of small developments; explained that each one of them, alone, may not be enough to trigger proportionate share, they are all mitigating by paying impact fees, but we may be able to say, well, it seems that little by little we are loading up this intersection, maybe, we can advance that on the priority tree, and get something done sooner. Those are the things that we can do with the data that has been collected. 5. Study Area and determination of Significant Impacts If development traffic is > 1% of thoroughfare capacity, a study is needed Recommend City retains 4.5% LOS "D" threshold for study Area determination and significance test: Lower thresholds may identify more deficiencies for developer proportionate share BUT the assessment for the additional impact would be small Address minor impact through MMTIF and acute impacts through traffic impact studies Mr. Miller stated that another thing they were asked to do is to discuss how the Study Area is determined; pointed out that a traffic study is done only if the development generates traffic more than 1% of the capacity of the road, then they apply this traffic on the road system, and the point where it reaches the standard of 4.5% for LOS "D" Capacity is the boundary of the study area; at that point they Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 29 need to do traffic count data, micro simulation analysis, and look at the LOS; their recommendation is that the 4.5% threshold is appropriate; if they used a lower number, it would result in bigger networks, to study more intersections, and on occasion you would be calculating proportionate share on an intersection that otherwise you would not; but because the developer trips at that intersection are less than 4.5%, the amount of their fair share of the costs for that improvement is relatively low, sO it is a "nickel and dime" process; added that he could say, make the studies more complicated for everyone, and maybe you would collect $20,000 dollars for improvements, but the fact that the City has maximized its impact fees, means that it is an effective and a better tool to take care of the marginal impacts; that is the reason he recommends the City retain 4.5% LOS"D" threshold for study Area determination and significance test, for concurrency studies, but thatis where you are considering acute issues, not incremental over time. 6. Seasonal, Traffic Variation: CURT Study ongoing to determine whether current seasonal adjustment factors are reasonable. Count station in Sarasota (Ringling Causeway) Factors are used to adjust counts taken throughout the year to the 100th highest hour of traffic (Corresponding with "shoulder" season rush hour). For example: Counts taken in June (low season) are factored up to 100th hour. o Counts taken in February (high season) are factored down. Factors impact system performance measures and planning: How are the roads really doing? a If counts used to determine current LOS are increased/decreased based on new seasonal adjustments LOS reported on roads could change. 0 Factors DO NOT substantially impact traffic impact study process but MAY under some circumstances influence outcomes. Mr. Miller stated that they were asked to talk about seasonal traffic variations, the idea that traffici is more substantial during season than over the summer; noted that because of activism in the City of Sarasota, FDOT gave $450,000 dollars to the University of South Florida to study this; added that their process was to go to coastal communities and do year-long samplings of traffic volumes; stated that previously, most of the state data was collected at the 24/7/365 stations, which were near the interstate, and the idea is that you do not have the same seasonal variation back on I-75 as you do on US41 and the Ringling Causeway. (one of the stations is on the Ringling Causeway). Mr. Miller continued that it is important to understand how the data that FDOT collects is used for levels of service, and everything else; explained that, if we take a traffic count (a three day count) in June, how much do we need to increase it to reflect the 100th highest hour; said that on every given day, the worst hour usually is the afternoon rush hour, SO think about the 100th highest hour as the 100th worse Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 29 rush hour of the year, basically, not the worst three months, but at the edge of that, SO that is your shoulder season; noted that, it is the industry standard, by which they look at how to adjust counts throughout the year to standardize that at this sort of high average point, to use for system performance measures; stated that when the data comes back shows that the variation they pick up here is more significant that what we pick up near the Interstate; said that FDOT may publish different adjustment factors for the coastal parts of the state; stated that the impact that this will have on the City is that when we update the City's LOS, it could affect the way the City is doing; added that as we see the counts that are collected, how they are seasonally adjusted, you may find that depending on when the count data that goes in that report card was collected, some things may be better or worse than they are today; said that this could affect the outcome of a traffic impact study; you may have thought that a road was pretty good, but now you find that the count was maladjusted and the road is at the cuspi noted that this may trigger mitigation from the developer, get the impact fee, and don't worry about it. This may affect the outcomes, but he does not think it affects the process. Mr. Miller said that they are here to make recommendations to improve the process; added that he wanted to be sure that this discussion took place; said that we still need to wait until the study results come out, to see what FDOT does with that. Then they will come back, and he is sure FDOT will also come and talk with them. Conclusion 1. More accurate studies 2. More thorough studies 3. Better guidance for staff 4. More attention to walkers, bikers, and bus riders Mr. Miller concluded that there should be more. accurate studies, using actual counts as opposed to hypothetical counts; said that there should be more accurate studies considering multimodal traffic, specifically showing what is done about site access and safety; need better guidance for staff, staff already has flexibility to go beyond the minimums in the procedures, but this enhances the minimums and lays out the framework between the different parts of the traffic studies (site access, concurrency, and the impact fees) all work together to make sure we are doing right by the systems; and pay more attention to other transportation modes. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the majority of her questions related to the chronological order of the pages in the packet they received; and asked if there is any data to indicate an impact on development since the multimodal fees were maximized in 2017. General Manager Chapdelain responded that there was not a negative effect, however that is due to market forces more than anything else. PB Member Ohlrich asked on what is the reduction over time for vested trips based. Mr. Miller responded that they are trying to avoid externalities in the market, "I have to do something Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 29 tomorrow because I am going to lose 100% of my vested trips credits" added that partly this is based on the precedent of what the City already does, after five years you are drawing down by 20% each year, SO we used it as a model; explained that the philosophy behind it is that you do not want to create a situation where somebody goes out and does something that may not be the best use of the land, and now you are stuck with it for 30 years, because they realize that they may lose their rights. PB Member Ohlrich asked on what is the current practice based. Engineer DavisShaw said that the current practice was established in the 1990s. PB Member Ohlrich asked if other municipalities in the state use similar practices, is it an industry standard, or did you come up with it on your own. Mr. Miller stated that different communities have different approaches to sunsetting, sometimes there is a formal noticing process via registered mail, some communities have a process where you have to come in and affirmatively claim your right, but most communities have a phasing out approach to that, but generally we are trying to soften the curve of what you lose as rights. PB Member Ohlrich stated she is very interested in the recommendation to aggregate the data of traffic studies over time; and asked if that is written in as a step in the traffic study. Mr. Miller responded that it would be up to staff to decide; added that one way: is for that to be done as part of the scoping process, the City can require that as part of that the agency provides the count data in a standardize format, pretty much organize the deliverables from that traffic study in a way where the key aspects are in a standardized format, then it is easy on the staff to deal with it. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein, who is working with this data, suggested a GIS file. PB Member Ohlrich added that this is a valuable recommendation and hopes it does not get lost in the shuffle of things. Engineer DavisShaw said that they can write it up SO each consultant can provide the information in a consistent manner, noting staff will probably do an operational manual SO that when Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein is out someone else can follow the operational manual. PBI Member Ohlrich referred to the 4.5% threshold; noted you do not want a developer to pay for concurrency improvements that are really the responsibility of the people; but also on the other hand you do not want the people to pay for something that is really the responsibility of the developer, and in her mind it is a very fine line; and asked Mr. Miller to talk a little bit more why you recommend the 4.5% threshold. Mr. Miller said that it is a slightly more conservative approach than the 5% which was the default for the state when they were looking at DRIS, which are larger forms of development, and the City has been using it for a long time; noted that they are looking at incremental increases in traffic over time; noted that the incremental increases in traffic is the City at large, the County, it is regional, it is FDOT dollars, and the way the developers deal with this is with the impact fees; added that if you do not have the courage, you may: need to rely more on the concurrency process to help get revenue to deal with these incremental impacts, but the 4.5% threshold, we think, from a traffic perspective, is appropriate in terms of are the conditions going to be noticeably worse to the common person before or after this development comes on line; stated that thinking about the different policy purposes of the site access, the concurrency and the impact fees, they really want to limit the concurrency part of this, to be where today was OK, tomorrow is broken because that development just came in. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 29 PB Member Ohlrich asked if they can consider the concurrency fees in isolation, or they have to be considered along with the multimodal fees, which have been maximized. Mr Miller responded that it is prudent to do it this way. PB Member Blumetti asked if the MMTIF is site specific or citywide. General Manager Chapdelain responded that it is citywide. PB Member Blumetti asked who allocates those funds. Engineer DavisShaw responded that they are allocated by the City Commission. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein added that they are allocated through the CIP process. PB Member Blumetti asked for additional information regarding the recommendation to use total trips instead of net trips. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein explained that the site access and safety study is based on the total trips; this means for a development they see in the manual the number of trips generated by the development on a given day and use this number to evaluate the impact for the site access and safety study; pointed out that a concurrency study looks for impact in a wider area, you use the net number of trips, we also look at what was there previously. Engineer DavisShaw explained that for concurrency, the traffic impact of a proposed development is based on the number of net trips, which is the difference between the number of trips generated by the previous land use and the number of trips generated by the proposed land use. Mr. Miller explained that, from the engineering perspective, the primary purpose of a site access and safety analysis is not the LOS, not the money, it is to evaluate the safe operation of the access to the site, and that is why you want to take the most conservative approach. PB Member Blumetti asked what is going to trigger an impact fee. Attorney Connolly explained to PB Member Blumetti that the team is talking about safety; said that PB Member Blumetti's questions imply that, he is arguing that, if the site access for the previous land use was safe, then the site access to the propose land use will also be safe. That does not work. It does not matter what used to be there; if you are coming in now, it has to be safe or we are not going to approve it. PB Member Blumetti asked where does the 50% come in, and a year later.. Mr. Miller explained that in this process there are three bubbles of analysis, the site - which is your driveway and it is about safety, the intermediate level is about concurrency and LOS, it is an important consideration for the quality of life, and the economics of the city, people's frustration and road rage, but it is not like if we do not put a traffic signal here, someone is going to die; pointed out that, because it is a quality of life issue instead of a safety issue, it is important that you give consideration to prior uses, there have been cases where there was a previous development that paid taxes and that went to the overall system, or the developer had a traffic study done many years ago and he was given permit to build; said that a peer review showed that communities are all over the mapin their approach of previous credits, some give nothing for previous credits and others give all, and we split the difference, SO that it is fair an defensible; it gives a more accurate picture of what is happening; and said if you go too far it is difficult to manage, and we are trying to avoid it that. PB Member Morriss referred to page 22 of 38 and asked for clarification on the term passer-by- capture trips." Mr. Miller explained that passer-by trips are when for example you are on your way home, you realize that you need milk, and instead of going two blocks away to the grocery Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 29 store, you stop at a 7-11, pick up the milk and continue home; and stated that depending on what study we are doing, this situation generates, or does not generate a trip. IfI am interested in the driveway safety of the 7-11, I am interested in this trip, but if I am studying the impact of the 7- 11 traffic on the next intersection, this is not a trip, because you would be crossing that intersection anyway, you just stopped at 7-11 for a little bit; added that this trip is counted in the site access and safety study for 7-11; and pointed out that the studies that show the impact of 7-11 on concurrency and LOS, or on the impact fees, are not interested on passers-by, but rather on the trips of persons who left their home to travel to the 7-11 and returned home. PB Member Morriss asked what is a reasonable standard that would not be burdensome to developers on the sidewalk stuff. Mr. Miller said that the idea that we do now, and we will continue to, is require a sidewalk along their property, but if the developer gave that to make the new development safely accessed, we are also going to ask them to build a sidewalk that connects to the next juncture. Attorney Connolly stated that this is something that would be reviewed under the Site Plan criteria in Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code, noting there is a list of approximately twelve items to review of which item 1 (5) says: whether the proposed development design and layout has made adequate provisions for vehicular, pedestrian access, safety and traffic circulation both internal and external to the project.. - Attorney Connolly further stated SO, when you are looking at a site plan you have to make this decision, it has nothing to do with concurrency/LOS or multimodal impact fees, it is purely "is this a safe development / and if it is, you can approve it, if it is not, you can deny it, or you say you cannot approve it until you can address these safety issues, sO in that example would be ifit is possible to get to a sidewalk from your site, which is, let's say, mid-block, down to the street which is a half a block to the west, if you can find a way to do that safely then you can approve the site plan. Mr. Miller added that consistency is a big part of that; there is a reasonableness of is it a couple feet of sidewalk or a couple miles, and that becomes a reasonableness and proportionality question, and are we treating everyone the same, and that is incumbent on staff and City Attorney to make sure that the City is being consistent. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that one of the things that we have not talked about is what she calls a "realistic" traffic study, something that a lay person can read; explained that the reason there is a need for that is because the decision makers, who are the Planning Board and the City Commission, and even planning staff, have a hard time reading concurrency studies, they have no idea what they mean, when they ask "What about traffic?" about a proposed development, the answer that comes back from the planners is "it passes concurrency, which no one has an idea what it means; noted that there is a screaming need for some kind of a paragraph, or a separate section on these traffic studies that a normal person can read; pointed out that major decisions are made at the Planning Board level and at the City Commission level, without their being able to take-in the information, particularly in light of what you put out in your report, which was an excellent report, regarding the fact that transportation needs can actually be taken into account when deciding ifa future land use request is accepted of rejected. According to Mr. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 29 Miller's report, transportation needs can be a basis for rejecting a future land use request, possibly not on a rezone but on a land use request. Asked how do you do that if you cannot read a traffic study? Not everyone is going through this process of learning how to read a concurrency study; said that site access is not going to do it either. Let's look at the Quay, which has its own traffic study, it had 837 vested trips, they got to keep 60% which was 502 vested trips, the total for the fake site plan, which does not exist anymore, but it is used because it is part of the Development Agreement but they are not building anything like it anymore, showed that it would create 922 trips, for which they got 500 trip credits; stated that anyone who has not sat through "Traffic Study 101" and maybe subsequent courses, would think that 500 trips in the peak hour, not in a day, is going to hit Fruitville and US41, when in fact is 922 trips; noted the Quay has been empty for several years, and if you believe the ITE numbers there are going to be approximately 900 trips hitting that intersection if the Quay builds exactly what the Development Agreement has in it; stated there haven't been any trips from the Quay in years and years, SO there will be 900 and something new trips in the new environment of the City of Sarasota, the Quay was torn down ten years ago, a long time before Sarasota begun building and booming and adding traffic; concluded that it is important for some statement, as part of a concurrency study or traffic study, whatever the Planning Board decides tonight, it should be a part of that, that there is a certain portion that the decision makers can read and understand, and planners can understand. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein responded that it makes perfect sense to add an executive summary, where staff simplifies what the final findings are, the degree of the traffic impact, in understandable terms, what specific ways to mitigate or what to build out in the right of way to make it better. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that the key to all this, whether it makes sense or not, whether it is real or not real, is the vested trips. Engineer DavisShaw stated that what is presented to the Planning Board today is different than what was done at the Quay; stated they can have an executive summary, a description of how the decision came to be, and what staff can do with the consultants, in the Appendix, is state here are the things that are part of the traffic study, and can easily add that as part of the requirements you need to develop an executive summary, based on certain parameters that will be listed in the scope, along with the requested format for the report, SO that people can understand the information. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if this can be built into the Zoning Code SO that when the RFP goes out for the traffic study it requires that there will be an executive summary. Mr. Miller suggested that staff can do that as they draft the RFP. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein stated that in the most recent scope he sent out, he requested an executive summary. PB Vice Chair Normile stated we do not want a summary for the concurrency study, because the concurrency study has all the vested trips in it; and stated as a traffic consultantyou know that 900 trips will hit thati intersection at peak hour. Engineer DavisShaw asked if PB Vice Chair Normile wants a better description of what is included in the traffic study sO that people understand it. PB Vice Chair Normile responded that a concurrency study has to follow certain guidelines because of statute requirements, this would be a summary stating for example, we decided that the peak hour is between 4 PM and 5 PM, and at that point, based on what the developer is planning to build, and based on the manual we expect, 900 trips to hit that intersection between 4 PM and 5 PM; added that at the current time there are no trips at that intersection from that development, so that the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 29 decision makers know what to expect, because vested trips are really about money and fees are a separate issue; stated that for informational purposes, you need reality, you do not need a summary of the concurrency study, you need something that people can read and understand the impact of this development; and say the Quay was still there, and had 800 trips coming out, and it would be only 100 more, you can write that in, at the current time it is producing 800 trips and we expect 100 more during that 1 hour at night, it is not hard to do but it is sO crucial. Mr. Miller said that he will speak with the person in his agency that does these studies, and he is sure that everybody else has a person that can write plain speech sentences. Engineer DavisShaw stated that if the site is vacant, we can have good estimates of the numbers of trips generated at that site; noted one of the recommendations is to give 50% of what the ITE says, but only if they object we then do a driveway count; added that, it seems that PB Vice Chair Normile wants a driveway count regardless if developers are objecting to the vested trips the City is providing; and asked PB Vice Chair Normile if she wants to include in the study an accurate existing count in all proposed developments. PVVice Chair Normile responded that she guesses that is what has to be done, stating in order to make it clear to the people who need to know what the impact of that development is, you would need to say right now it produces 200 trips, she does not see how else it can be done. Engineer DavisShaw stated that one of the things staff struggles with is that we require developments of all sizes to do this, sO some of the smaller places, like the bakery on Main Street that does not even have parking, but they were required to do a traffic study. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that they were required to do a concurrency study. Engineer DavisShaw agreed, and explained that they were not required to do an existing counts study on their site. PB Vice Chair Normile asked what are the additional costs. Mr. Miller suggested to set a floor on that. PB Vice Chair Normile noted that there are thresholds that we will get to; asked what if a small development was not required to do a concurrency study, she understands that a small development like that should not have to go through the tremendous expense like that, but she also understands that the expense for projects like the Quay, the Vue, is SO de-minimis, approximately $14,000, these are not that expensive for a large development, although she understands that we want to keep the costs down for a small shop. Engineer DavisShaw stated that if it is an active existing site that we do not make them do counts, but if it is something that is partially vacant.. Discussion ensued. Mr. Miller said that what PB Vice Chair Normile is talking about is that we do not have the information in the report, we are making assumptions about a process for the sake of the legalistic process and mitigation, and we are not gathering the data to show that in reality it will have more significant impacts than what we are: measuring; said it always goes back to that impact fee versus concurrency versus site plan; proposed that OK, it generated 10 more trips, or 5. less trips that we thought, it is incremental and small, and when we go to collect the traffic data, either at state highway or city street, at least every three years, we are picking up that performance, we can look back at our permitting data, we can make some systems planning analysis for these incremental small time impacts, but it sounds like, when we have a big project, and because they have a prior development agreement that makes things move a certain way, or because we are making some assumptions for the concurrency study, those are the ones that we would want tohave a parallel study to collect some Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 29 extra data, and say here is what we did by the book, but here is what we think is really going on, and be able to document that and report it in the study; and added that we need to find a reasonable threshold above which we want to require that additional empirical data. PB Vice Chair Normile said that is what we are looking for, the threshold, but she would not make it too terribly low. PB Chair Gannon followed up on PB Vice Chairs Normile's suggestion about the executive summary, stating it was very helpful with the presentation of diagrams, and asked if capturing the outcome could be presented in some diagram as part of that executive summary, that way it is simplified; added that some people are more visual, SO that would be a way to show them that this street gets more impact than these other streets; and said that is something to consider on how this might actually be more meaningful. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein explained that we could ask for these things; pointed out that everything we add to the scope of the study will also add to the cost of the study; and noted for bigger developments it is not sO much an issue but for smaller developments it is more of an issue. PB Chair Gannon asked who has to do the traffic study; stated in 2016, when the Planning Board approved the multimodal transportation chapter, in the chapter were the different thresholds; and asked if it is not part of this proposal, is there a reason why it is not. Engineer DavisShaw stated that the Commission did not approve those thresholds; added that at this point, we are not looking at pay-and-go thresholds; if it is something the Planning Board recommends, staff will incorporate it back into, or do modifications, and take a look at that, because that is one of the challenges, having these smaller developments.. the costs between a small traffic study and a large traffic study is not huge, but it is for a "Mom and Pop," who is trying to open versus the Quay, to them the cost is significant and we need to do something to protect the small folks. PB Chair Gannon stated that they have heard from some developers that there is some pushback on why they have to do traffic studies in downtown and also have heard from developers who are trying to provide lower cost housing, and that affects the cost of the housing, and SO if we want to achieve that we have to be cost conscious. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein pointed out that some of the proposed language includes a threshold of 1% at which point the development must do the study; noted there is a gradation as to whether it is an onsite study or an offsite study, which is set at a higher level; stated the state's threshold is 5%; stated the City has a more conservative 4.5% threshold at which point a study is required for roads with LOS thatis D or better and lower when the road has LOS less than D;and noted there is also an exception for sites in Downtown and Newtown, which is listed in the language. PB Chair Gannon asked about the multimodal impact fees, if the funds that are paid into that go to the General Fund or to construction programs. Engineer DavisShaw explained that they go to as separate Transportation Fund, and projects that provide capacity for multimodal use (where in Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 29 the past it was just vehicular capacity improvements, now the improvements can relate to pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers and transit) the improvements can be funded by the Transportation Fund. PB Chair Gannon asked about the references to the Capital Improvements Program (CIP); Engineer Shaw stated that the Transportation Fund is a subsection of the CIP, for the multimodal transportation: impact fees. PB Chair Gannon stated that the process of approving capital improvements falls into that process, butitis a separate fund that is drawn: from. Engineer DavisShaw and Mr. Miller concurred, and noted that there are more restrictions than the general Capital Improvements Program. PB Chair Gannon asked if that fund can be used for bus stop shelters, instead of requiring the developer to build a sidewalk, the developer can be asked to build a bus stop shelter. Mr. Miller said yes, if it meets the criteria, usually it is a large scale development; added that in the transit mode share, if a development would generate 100 trips maybe 2 are bus trips, SO we are saying that if there is a large development, and there is existing transit service, and based on SCAT'scriteria of when a shelter is needed; the short answer is yes, but we have incorporated some recommended thresholds where not everybody has to do it, because it would be difficult to demonstrate that the small development would suddenly create the need for that. Engineer DavisShaw stated that in some cases, they are requested to do a pad, SO if they are not currently triggering the trips, the pad can be used in the future. Mr. Miller noted that this is a good point, because the issue with transit is that you need 8 ft. of depth for ADA, and sometimes that 2 ft. easement is critical, sO that is something staff will be able to review. PB Chair Gannon stated that if the City is serious about multimodal transportation, then we have to be serious about transit; said we have heard testimony that waiting for Sarasota County to put in even a bench or a shelter one has to wait forever, and that is one of the reasons many residents do not ride the bus, because in the middle of the summer you are not going to stand there for the bus; said that he wants to see that, with these changes, the City has the ability to drive that forward within the City, and asked if the impact fees can be used to fund i-Ride. Engineer DavisShaw stated the operation of 1-Ride is not a capital improvement. PB Chair Gannon asked about buying the vehicles. Mr. Miller explained that impact fees are for capital investments not operating and maintenance. PB Chair Gannon referred to the seasonal variation counts and asked how they select the 100th hour. Mr. Miller stated that those adjustment tables are put together by FDOT, they are looking at how a suburban model traffic operates, sO when they say 100th highest hour, typically that would correspond to the afternoon rush hour at the worse month and stated what he wants to get across is that if we wanted to report not the 100th hour, we want to select the worst day of the year, we can do that, using the information from the same tables, but the result would be that more city roads will be red. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Gannon referred to page 22 of 38 of the report, and asked if this is the proposed zoning text, what will be in the Zoning Ordinance and recommended consistency in the way the term passer by trips" appears in the report. PB Member Morriss, in the interest of getting some text in this, suggested that the executive summary should be memorialized in the text of the Zoning Ordinance; and asked if there is an easy way to include it now and not wait until the next round. Mr. Miller suggested the additional language be included at the top of page 26 of 38, in section "(d) Requirements ofTrnsportation Study. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 29 General Manager Chapdelain suggested that in addition to the executive summary, maybe this section should also include reference to the data of the traffic study and the format in which it should be submitted to facilitate the aggregation of data. Discussion ensued regarding the level of specificity of the language and the format in which to collect the data, concluding in favor of the use of general language referring to these two items, so as things evolve, we do not need to amend the Zoning Ordinance. PB Member Morriss asked Attorney Connolly when you go from 1 credit to 1.5 credits for the vested trips, can it be construed as a taking. Attorney Connolly stated it definitely is not a taking, but he does not know if it would be a Burt Harris Act issue; added that what you have seen here is a legislative hearing that has provided a pubic purpose for it, he does not think this has an inordinate burden to a particular piece of property because of the factual background that has been described by the engineer; and concluded that he would have no problem doing that. PB Member Gannon followed up on the requirements for the executive summary noting he did not see any reference in that section about the format of the data requirements. General Manager Chapdelain responded that it would be better in the scope. Discussion ensued. PB Member Normile stated that she is not interested in an executive summary, because it would be a summary of the same old stuff that has to be done because it is state law; said it has to be a separate thing, done differently, and explained; said that for you it makes sense, but for those of us who look at the development, itl has to be explained; referred to the thresholds which are using net peak hour trips; stated that as soon as you get to net, she gets nervous, because everything depends on how you are: netting them out, and that is where the trips become significant to trigger ai traffic study; and asked what is the formula for netting out trips for determining thresholds. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein stated that the formula is as follows: you calculate the trips of the new use according to the book, you subtract half of what they can prove was the previous use and that is the net. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she has concerns about them, referred to page 24 of 38, and discussed the two lane road, LOS "D" Volume to Capacity V/C < 1, which means it is at capacity, the next column is about a two lane road, LOS "D" which is over capacity, and the trip numbers drop down; said ai two lane road could be a road going through Laurel Park, where there is no available roadway, sO if you have some kind of change of use, or some other issue there, you can easily put 30 of 50 cars on the road, you would think that would need to trigger a traffic study. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein stated that this is the threshold for an off-site study, the concurrency study, where the threshold for an on-site study is at 1%; the townhomes at Laurel Park, let's suppose there were 18 townhomes, and the generation factor is 0.7, therefore it is a little over 10 net trips, and it would need an on-site study, but it is less than 50 net peak hour trips, sO it would not require a concurrency study; added that we still do a study for site access and circulation; depending on the complexity, we may need to send out for modeling, we can collect counts depending on how impactful or if there are particular site characteristics, but it is over that when we order an off-site study, we model off US 301 and on Osprey, but it is a few drops in the bucket. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 29 Mr. Miller noted that when they have these small-scale developments that fall right at that weird point and we end up asking them to do a traffic study at the cost of $9,000 to $14,000 dollars, we do not require them to pay a proportionate share; said that often what we do for a project of that size is, let's say the project is 50 townhomes, their impact fee is $3,500 to $4,000 dollars apiece, generating a total of $200,000 dollars, if they did the concurrency study, and if we find that the 50 trips push it over a the brink of the LOS, their fair share for that improvement will be way less than their impact fee; noting they are still doing the onsite study, which can go to the next thoroughfare, at staff's discretion. PB Vice Chair Normile requested additional information regarding the exceptions in the Downtown and Newtown areas, which are also discussed on page 24 of 38 of the report. Mr. Miller stated that because we did not make the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan last year that would have used the different review threshold levels, we still have the TCMA and the TCA which give a different status to these areas, especially in the Downtown area; said that, because of the shared parking the way they collect data is complicated, because you cannot measure the traffic from the door of the site because they are parking everywhere, partly is to honor the historical benefits in these areas; explained that in Newtown, they are stimulating economic development and they are not creating higher costs for smaller projects; ;added that in Downtown, because you have a lot of small changes of use that are not going to have all of these overall network impacts, and because of the site itself, sO normally it would be driveway impacts, they are spread all around downtown parking, SO you do not have the likelihood of this acute issue on the site, and you have the grid, and the support street network, and those trips are spread out; and explained that because the trips distribute more quickly in the downtown they think it is "OK" in a change of use scenario to create a little bit more of a buffer. PB Member Ohlrich stated that there is still no conclusion as to what we are going to do about PB Member Normile's concern for an executive summary, and her own concern to ensure that the data is provided after a traffic study sO that it can be added and aggregated. Engineer Shaw stated that they have information here to hand out; that they are going to get the data in a digital fashion; staff will have to talk about the details, but staff has kept notes to do that; added that the executive summary is both an executive summary and also clarification of the things that PB Vice Chair Normile wants to see that were not part of the reports before, such as detailed information of what is generated on the site presently, how many additional trips will be there when the new use is fully operational, SO that it is easy for people to see the difference; said that one of the concerns is not to make the traffic study more complicated, maybe we can include explanations of terms graphically, sO people will be able to see the difference between what is going on today and what is coming in, all written in lay terminology. PB Chair Gannon referred to page 26 of 38, and asked if the language on that page is forwarded to the developer as the list of things that they need to include in the study or staff sends out something more specific; and asked if staff is going to provide more examples, or it is necessary to be more specific in the Zoning Ordinance. General Manager Chapdelain responded that the specific language will be incorporated in the scope. PB Chair Gannon wanted to know how this is communicated to the developer; and asked if there is a standard set of documents. Mr. Miller explained that the City consultant is doing the studies, and the developers are informed as to Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 29 what the requirements and the expectations are; said that staff hires the consultants and say to them that, as part of your services, we require that you provide the count data in such and such format, we require an executive summary that contains not only the results of the concurrency study but also notes or results of pre-existing agreements, and other information that might create differences between what the study says and what is actually happens, all that can all be dictated by staff. PB Chair Gannon asked how much more descriptive we have to be when we have a motion to approve, what else needs to go into this text amendment, or does it suffice to say that it is executive summary, and staff then will elaborate based on the comments here. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 29 of 38; said that when she met with staff they reviewed Section 3. Evaluation of adjacent thorouglfare intersections, Subsection (ii) Elements that should be considered include:, and they agreed that the word "should" would be better replaced with the word "shall," also, they reviewed page 31 of 38, near the bottom the paragraph that begins "Pursuant to 163.3180 (5)()1.c., Florida Statutes,. 1 they agreed that at the end of the first bullet, it would more clearly reflect the intent to remove the period and add the word "and;" and asked if we need toinclude those changes in the motion if we make a motion. Attorney Connolly replied if staff is confident they understand these changes and you trust them, then the answer is "No." PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the Planning Board must approve this document this evening; added that it is complicated, and they are discussing sO many things, SO that it makes sense to come back, and for the Planning Board to read it through, rather than just approve a period here and something else there. PB Member Morriss asked if there will be another PB Special Meeting fori it or will it be done quickly. PB Vice Chair Normile said it would not be a special meeting, this could be discussed at the next meeting. Attorney Connolly pointed out that they have missed the deadlines for the next Planning Board meeting. PB Vice Chair Normile said that she wants to read it page by page, this is an Ordinance going to the City Commission, including important and substantial changes, and she wants to know how it reads before she votes on it. PB Member Ohlrich agreed with that, because she said that there were several comments about areas thatneed to be cleaned up, there are some word changes, and said that she is not comfortable voting on something that must be changed after she votes on it. General Manager Chapdelain suggested that they go through, page by page this evening; pointed out that Mr. Miller does not come for free; added that everyone is here now, it is a Special session, the changes that were discussed are non-substantive; and pointed out some changes to the traffic study, on page 26. of 38. Engineer DavisShaw pointed out the correction on page 22 regarding 'passer-by" trips. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she has a question about development agreements, the fact that there are development agreements, such as the one for the Quay, which rolled over for another ten years, and froze their vested trips; added that the numbers in the traffic studies have to be recent, within a year for the concurrency study, however, the vested trips, for instance for the Quay,are frozen in place; they received 60%, and yet the site has not been developed, and the vested rights would have gone away had they not been frozen in the development agreement; and said she feels it is not fair to other developers who do not have a development agreement, and that the trips should not be frozen in an agreement like that. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 29 Engineer DavisShaw stated that when they had the first development agreement there was a building on the site, and when they started having negotiations it was adjusted to less than 60%, but she will look it up. PB Vice Chair Normile said that they got 60% and it is frozen now because they have a trip budget of 500 cars. Attorney Connolly stated that nothing can be done because that is a negotiated contract between the City and the Developer, there is nothing to be done here to change that in the future; and stated that is a contract and contracts are negotiated from square one. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the Zoning Code says that you cannot freeze trips, then they would not be able to negotiate that in the development agreement. Attorney Connolly disagreed, pointing out that it is a legislative decision of the City Commission, over which the Planning Board has no jurisdiction. PB Vice Chair Normile asked even if it is in the Zoning Code. Attorney Connolly stated that what PB Vice Chair Normile is proposing now she cannot do at all. PB Vice Chair Normile said that answers her question. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 35 of 38, Section () Credits, noted that paragraph (1), regarding vacant structures, was deleted and replaced with another paragraph (1), regarding property with existing structures, and asked if this applies to vacant as well as occupied structures. Mr. Miller responded that the idea is that if we are talking about a property that has a structure on it, and the owner seeks to redevelop that, there is no differentiation whether on the day they come in for the permit there is a tenant or there is not a tenant in the structure; if the structure is there, we will grant you half of the value in the book, and if you want to demonstrate that it is more than that, then we have that process by which we can verify. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page 35 of 38, Section (2) Demolished Structures; asked why provisions a., b., and C. about demolished structures do not apply also to "too long vacant structures;" stated that if a building has been vacant for an extended period of time, she thought that subsection b. and C. which remain under item (2) would apply for that building, as well as the building that is demolished. PB Member Morriss suggested that is what the ten-year erosion is about. PB Member Ohlrich said that she does not quite understand the number of years that have been applied to the reduction in the percentage of vested trips. Engineer DavisShaw stated that presently, if there is a structure on the site, you get 100%, sO we are going to change that, SO that you start lower if you have a vacant structure; if in the future you demolish the structure, you start lower but you start losing trips. PB Ohlrich asked where the 10 years comes from. Mr. Miller responded that it comes from the current process; explained that currently you get full credit for the first five years and decrement it over the next five years; pointed out that probably you can pick some different number, but asked on what basis; noted thati it is important that there be some period of time when you retain the rights you had before you knocked a building down, and then a ramp down over time to keep people from making bad development decisions. PB Member Ohlrich recalled that there was a lot of discussion on vested trips back when they were discussing the multimodal transportation plan, and a lot of people wanted a year certain that there would be no more vested trips, they wanted that to come down; and asked if there was any discussion or consideration of that. Mr. Miller responded that by reducing that from full credit Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 29 to half credit, we are being more conservative, and realistic; and concluded that this is one way to do it, and another is changing the time frame. PB Chair Gannon referred to page 35 of 38, Section (2) Demolished structures, b., you say you start with 50%, and then it is reduced by 20% each year for the next five years, it is 20% of the 50% not of the original number of trips; said as an example, he wants to see how this applies to the Quay, if it were to come in this year or next year, how would it be calculated, would the 837 trips have started at 418 trips. Mr. Miller stated that if the Quay did not have the Development Agreement that laid out unique terms in it, ifit were any old development without this legal document, then yes they would have not gotten as much credit for the prior use, as what they would have otherwise gotten under these new standards; and noted they came in at 7 years and got 60% but with the proposed rules at 7 years they would have gotten 30%. PB Chair Gannon noted that by adopting these rules, that is the change that would be affected, and Mr. Miller's point is that this is significant enough where we do not need to shorten the time period to less than 10 years. Mr. Miller stated that they tried to stay consistent, when they could, and make the changes according to the direction they were given. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that since there was discussion about some traffic studies in future land use applications, how do we get a traffic study on a future land use application if they do not have a site plan, stating it seems that it is an integral part of a land use decision for a large project. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein said that the details are a little fuzzy at the Future Land Use Map level, you look at the overall change on potential trips, hopefully the developers have given you some kind of amount of what they plan to do; said that currently he is reviewing an application, and the applicant stated that they are wiping away what they can do in commercial, and have proffered to build 180 residential units; said that you can scale it to that, and add a note that they will have to do a traffic study when they have a site plan, which will be reviewed in more detail; said that if they offer some kind of scale ofv what they plan to do, then you can estimate the number of trips it will generate, and the traffic concurrency initial review, and if they have a site plan, then staff can analyze and give recommendations based on that. Mr. Miller added that if the scale of the land use amendment is significant, then they are a little nervous about the ability of the network to absorb that; added that if it is a clear case of this is going to be a disaster, you do not do the comprehensive plan amendment, otherwise you condition the comprehensive plan amendment, almost the same way the development agreement is protecting the Quay from us going back and renegotiating, you are almost doing this in reverse; said that, based on the protections the changes to the Florida Statutes give to a developer in a concurrency study, you say, under certain conditions you are volunteering to a higher level of scrutiny when you come in for the site plan review, and the developer agrees to do that. PB Member Morris said that, looking at the big picture, this discussion is about money, because if concurrency requires you to do something special, that amount is going to be deducted from the multimodal fees; asked how they decide the money value of things; all these mitigations factors do not apply to that; let's say the capacity of the land is 10 and they are going to do 20, Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 29 you only charge them for 10, because the half applies only to the concurrency; how do you calculate the multi modal fees. Mr. Miller said that for the multimodal impact fee they give them full credit, and the reason is that they are paying taxes all these years, that is the statewide practice. PB Member Morriss used the Quay as an example, and said, let's say they are doing 3000 cars, under what conditions could a project like that be stopped because of the traffic impact. Mr. Miller said it is getting harder and harder; the Florida Statutes specifically said that if you are not talking about a land use plan amendment, and you are talking about a site plan, a subdivision, a building permit, as long as it meets all other zoning requirements, for transportation alone, the State law says that if the developer agrees to pay their proportionate share of their impacts based on a certain methodology and the normal way of doing business, concurrency alone is not standing to deny their project; said there may come a time that a City does, and it gets sued, and the case goes to the Supreme Court and that statute could be considered unconstitutional, but we are not there, nobody has done that; stated that where the right of the local government to protect the welfare of the citizens stops and the state's authority to tell you where fair play starts is always in flux, but right now the statute of the land says that if they want to pay, let them go. PB Member Morris stated that there were discussions that safety concerns, ingress/egress conditions, could kill a project. Mr. Miller spoke about the costs; said that we have always done proportionate share, it was required for DRIS, very-large scale developments, and sometimes it was applied to smaller developments, it was for things like this, the improvement project is a grate separated intersection and that is such an expensive thing, that even your proportionate share is way too expensive; added that the other thing the statutes have done is to require the local governments to assume that the background improvements are made, you cannot charge for the cure when you really are using band-aids for the last twenty years; it used to be that even in a proportionate share scenario, you could still have some of that, even if you didn't procedurally deny it, it was de facto denial because of costs; and said there may be situations where the site access and safety stuff cannot be reconciled, and the costs can make the project go away. PB Member Morriss said that in other words if we entitled stuff and we did not have the infrastructure for it we are out of luck. Mr. Miller said that you would have a lot less room to operate. PB Member Blumetti asked if the trips relate directly to LOS. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein said it depends on what is already there, existing trips added to whatever is already there makes for the LOS; explained that if you have 1,000 trips and you add 1,000 more trips you can lower the LOS; added that if you have 1,000 trips and the road is doing fine, and you add 10 trips and it is still doing fine, then you do not affect the LOS. PB Member Blumetti asked in the case where a development does not create trips, such as a parking garage, but changes traffic patterns, do they still have to do a traffic study. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein said they must do a site access evaluation, to evaluate the driveways and access points. PB Member Ohlrich noted that thinking about denying projects it is more likely to happen at the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment request phase or the development review process when they say this is not consistent with our Comprehensive Plan or the Future Land Use Map. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 29 PB Vice Chair Normile asked to go page to page and provide comments: Page 22 of 38, Item (7) Transportation (a) Determine the number ofi net nez external trips generated by the proposed project during the p.n. or a.1. hour,... PB Vice Chair Normile suggested the addition of wording such as "the appropriate peak hour;" explained that sometimes you have drive-throughs that have their peak hour at odd hours in the afternoon, it is not necessarily the a.m. or the p.m. peak hour; suggested the following wording "the a.m. or p.m. or other appropriate peak hour;" added that they had some issues with the drive-through Starbucks, and it was not quite the a.m. or the p.m., but it was a very intense project, sO it created its own peak hour; and concluded that that it gives staff flexibility to decide which peak hour they wanted to choose. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Gannon asked for clarification of the definitions for the terms "a.m. peak hour," and "p.m. peak hour." Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein said that the a.m. peak hour is 7a.m. to 9 a.m., and the p.m. peak hour is 4p.m. to 6p.m. Mr. Miller stated that the easiest way to address that is in the memo for the requirements for traffic studies to say that these are the minimum requirements to the traffic study, but staff reserves the right to request additional data if there is a legitimate reason to do sO; and pointed out that staff needs to be consistent when they do that. PB Vice Chair Normile said as long as staff has the flexibility, that is all she was concerned about. Page 22 of 38, Item (7) Transportation, (1) Site Access Safety and Circulation: PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she would like to see some wording that looks at potential cut through impacts for adjacent neighborhoods; added that this was mentioned in Mr. Miller's paper, that this is something that should be studied. Attorney Connolly stated that this section addressed internal site access safety and circulation, explaining that when you get off the site, you get into the concurrency area, which comes a little later in the report. PB Vice Chair Normile asked where can that be included, because that is crucial these days. Assistant Engineer Ohrenstein suggested it be included on page 29 Of 38, in Item 4. Local street impacts. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that this is different. Mr. Miller noted that this section focuses on how trips are generated; said the general premise of the concurrency study is trip generation, trip distribution and then analysis; and noted that the wording at the bottom of page 29 of 38 refers to traffic calming. PB Vice Chair Normile stated that she would like to see some wording to make sure. For instance, when they look at Fruitville Road and talk about narrowing Fruitville Road, there should be some study of cut through impacts of local neighborhoods; and said if it is a large development, there will be cut through impacts, as we have at Ritz Carlton Drive. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 29 PB Member Morriss stated that staff already does that, and it is addressed in the document. Mr. Miller stated that what we are looking at here is if the development is putting trips on the local streets; noted that if a development has a driveway on a local street, then it is logical that it will increase traffic on that local street, so in addition to thinking about the LOS questions, Iwould want to think about how to mitigate that traffic on the local street; pointed out that these are two separate conversations, one is this development, this street, cars, deal with it, the other is over time conditions get worse, and people start cutting through the neighborhood, that is the incremental impact of the development; said that you have a traffic calming program, funded different ways, you have a multimodal transportation impact fee which can be used for sidewalk projects and safety projects; stated that he feels that this is written to address this development, this street, right here, and right now, which is the purview of the traffic study; added that the idea that incrementally, over time, we are going to have cut through traffic, because we have congestion, is not part of the traffic study but is more on how you deal with your overall transportation system. Page 30 of 38, Section b. Multimodal Access, 1. Pedestrian, (ii), end of 4th line PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the use the word "hardship" is a legal term, or are we just saying "it is tough. "; and asked if we do not tighten that up, is that going to create a litigation issue? Attorney Connolly stated that it is a defined term in the context of Variances, and he is comfortable with using that term. Public Input: There was none. PB Chair Gannon closed the legislative hearing. PB Chair Gannon noted that there are a number of edits; and asked on how the PB Members would like to capture those. PB Member Morriss said that Council has given the best suggestion, PB Members can trust staff with the changes. PB Member Morriss moved to find 18-ZTA consistent wuith the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and find that it satisfies the Standards for reviezo in Zoning Code Section IV-1206 and recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Chair Gannon seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss stated that PB Members have reached a comfort level with the basic consensus of the group with the concept and some of the changes that have been made, particularly the half credit, it is an important step forward; added that it has also been established that no matter what we do here, you are not going to stop development in Sarasota, you are just going to cost more money for somebody, the discussion about the text changes and editing, staff knows what were are looking for and can make those changes SO that this would be palatable for the City Commission. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 29 PB Member Blumetti asked if there will be any changes regarding impacts on local streets, in relation to PB Vice Chair Normile's comments. PB Member Morriss stated that we are talking about the here and now, this project, this moment, this impact, and what PB Vice Chair Normile was talking about happens over time; asked if it is fair to say that in "x" number of years in the future you guys have to anticipate there is going to be a problem; and added that sometimes even though something is probable it is not always a certain thing that the cut through will be a problem. PB Member Blumetti stated that residents in Sarasota have lived with this problem for years, that we were looking forward to it. PB Vice Chair Normile said she pulled the language out of Mr. Miller's report; stated that she trusts staff to make the changes, however we are in the middle of Zoning-Code-mania, and there are SO many meetings and extra meetings, and she would like to send to the City Commission something that she feels is done, rather than hoping that they will pick up on tweaks later on; added that there is too much in the pipeline for everyone to deal with, and she would be more comfortable having it come back with the changes, and voting on it as a completed project. PB Member Morriss stated that he feels there is nothing substantive that the PB has not touched on, it is a matter of text, and if you feel it is really important that you have that bit of language to talk about future potential impacts on neighborhood side streets PB Vice Chair Normile added and the executive summary is key, if it is not worded exactly right it is not going to give us the successful information that the City Commission needs to make the decisions in the future. PB Member Ohlrich agreed with PB Vice Chair Normile; said that she is not accustomed to voting on documents that will be changed after she voted on them, she is very uncomfortable with that; and added that the PB talked about a lot of changes to this document, it is not that she disagrees with the document, but she likes to get her hands on the final product. PB Chair Gannon stated that the PB talked about a lot of things, and what he likes to make sure is that there is agreement on exactly what those changes are, they can go through, it is actually a fairly limited number of specific changes, it is worthwhile to move forward but to be sure PB Members are in agreement on what is been changed, and then it is up to staff to make the edits; added that the PB has sO much else coming down the pipe to deal with, he prefers that they dispense this here, if they can get agreement, that is why he was suggesting they can take the motion on the table and make amendments to change such and such, and then as each of those is voted in, then we vote on a major motion, as amended. PB Member Ohlrich asked who has kept track of all the changes. PB Chair Gannon offered to start with his notes. PB Chair Gannon made a motion to revise the report as follows: 1. Page 22 of 38 - edits dealing with consistency of the term pass-by," Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 29 2. Page 26 of 38 - (d) Requirements of transportation study, (1) Study introduction: add executive summary as another item. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Normile disagreed, pointing out that it is not an executive summary she is looking for; she does not have a name for it, she calls a realistic summary, an executive summary is a summary of the traffic study, and it is not the concurrency study summary that she is looking for. PB Member Morriss suggested the term "Layman's Summary. - PB Vice Chair Normile said that it would need to be flushed out more than that. PB Chair Gannon said that if they cannot describe it he does not know how they will convey it to staff; Vice-Chair Normile agreed. Chair Gannon continued with the list of revisions for his motion: 3. Page 26 of 38 - (d) Requirements oftransportation study, (1) Study introduction: add electronic data. 4. Page 29 of 38 - 3. Evaluation of adjacent thoroughfare intersections; (ii) Change the "should" to "shall." PB Member Morriss said: 5. Page 31 of 38 - (10) Conclusions, bottom of the page, add the word "and" at the end of the first bullet. PB Chair Gannon, the motion maker, and PB Member Morriss, the seconder agreed to amend the motion to include the above five amendments to the document. The motion passes with a vote of 4 to 1, (PB Vice Chair Normile voted "No.") V. 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 none. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Introduction of new staff members. (Was moved to the beginning of the agenda) Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting February 28, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 29 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 Member Ohlrich stated that in the last meeting the PB Members received the calendar for the upcoming Form Based Code Meetings, Workshops and Hearings, which she disseminated to CCNA, and she received several comments from people that the calendars had no dates and no reference that it was a document from the City of Sarasota and she promised to report it; and said she thinks it is important to have dates on documents, and some indication of who prepared it. Secretary Cover said that there were dates on what was handed out. PB Chair Gannon clarified that the comment referred to the date of document publication. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly said that there is confusion about the dates and times, because two calendars have been published, and people do not know which one is the latest; and recommended publication dates on documents. PB Members requested a revised calendar with the publication date and the source. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:31 PM. Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Patrick JBannon, Chair Planning Development Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]