CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Terrill Salem, Chair Members Present: Dan Clermont, Vice Chair Members Michael Halflants, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Damien Blumetti Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Kevin McAndrew, General Manger, Development Services Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services 1:38:38 PM I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Salem called the meeting to order and General Manager McAndrew [acting as the Planning Board's Secretary] called the roll. PB Member Blumetti was not present. 1:39:26 P.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1:40:10 P.M. III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Staff requests item numbers 1 and 2 under Quasi-judicial Public Hearings be continued to a date uncertain. Secretary McAndrew stated the public hearing for the Corona Cigar Company was being continued to the March 9, 2022 Planning Board meeting, noting an Adjustment application was required and was being advertised for the March 9th meeting; and stated the public hearing for Sarasota Memorial Hospital was being continued to a date uncertain, and said the application would be readvertised. Attorney Connolly announced the public hearing for Application Nos. 22-SP-02 and 22- CU-01 have been continued to the March 9, 2022, Planning Board meeting to be held at 1:30 P.M. in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1565 1st Street. PB Chair Salem pointed out there were three items on the agenda that were basically housekeeping items and questioned if the PB members wished to group those together. Attorney Connolly stated the Applicants would have to agree to that; and pointed out three Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 11 separate motions would be required. PB Member Ohlrich stated her objections. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those wishing to speak at today's public hearings; and stated the suggested time limits. 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 thel Planning Board.) A. Reading oft the Pledge ofConduct Secretary McAndrew read the Pledge of Conduct. 1:46:25 P.M. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 22-ZTA-05 = A request for Zoning Text Amendment approval pertaining to The Bay Park for land owned by the City of Sarasota to allow pedestrian amenities greater than 30 inches in height by right within the 30-foot waterfront setback located in Zoning Code Section VII-1301 - waterfront property and Section VI-1201 - encroachments into required setbacks. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager of Long-Range Planning) Staff Presentation: Manager Smith appeared and noted Mr. Bill Waddill and Planner Philip DeMaria, representing the Bay Park Conservancy, were also present; stated the City Commission authorized an expedited Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) application be processed relating to the Waterfront Property and Docks and Encroachments sections of the Zoning Code; said the proposed revisions relate to the implementation of The Bay Park Phase 1 site plan; discussed the process for expedited ZTAs; noted no staff report has been provided; and stated the Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the proposed revisions. Mr. Waddill stated these are a first of several ZTAS that will be needed to implement the overall Bay Park plan; and said the proposed ZTA was necessary for implementing the proposed improvements along the waterfront in Phase 1. Mr. DeMaria discussed the history of The Bay Park project and the need for the ZTA. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if the City owned other waterfront properties; pointed out the City could acquire additional waterfront properties in the future; and stated it would be more efficient to make the proposed language applicable to all city-owned waterfront properties. Manager Smith stated the PB could make that recommendation to the City Commission. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly pointed out that would have to be a separate recommendation because that has not been advertised. Discussion ensued. Citizen Input: There was no citizen input. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 11 1:57:20 P.M. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find 22-ZTA-05 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and that it satisfies the standards for review in Section IV-1206 of the Zoning Code and recommend the City Commission adopt the zoning text amendment. PB Vice Chair Clermont seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to recommend to the City Commission extend the same exemption in 22-ZTA-05 to all city-owned, waterfront properties. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Corona Cigar Company (22 North Lemon Avenue) [Staff Requests Item be Continued:Site Plan. Application No. 22-SP-02 and Major Conditional Use. Application No. 22-CU-01 are a request for Site Plan and Major Conditional Use approval to establish cigar retail sales with a bar holding a 4-COP liquor license in an existing 4,400 square foot building space with a street address of 22 North Lemon Avenue. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) This item was discussed under Changes to the Order of the Day. 2. Sarasota Memorial Hospital (1705 and 1717 South Osprey Avenue) [Continued From 12/14/21; Staff Requests Item be Continued): Rezone Without a Site Plan Application No. 21-REN-06 is a request for Rezone Without Site Plan approval for parcels with street addresses of 1705 and 1717 South Osprey Avenue from the Office Professional Business (OPB) zone district to the Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) zone district. The Future Land Use classification is Metropolitan Regional Site 8-SMH for all properties. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) This item was discussed under Changes to the Order of the Day. 1:58:56 P.M. Attorney Connolly stated there were two applications for Affected Person status and called Heidi & Duffin Newman. Heidi & Duffin Newman were not present and therefore could not be granted Affected Person status. 3. 1708 & 1710 5TH STREET: Adjustment Application No. 22-ADP-01 is a request for Adjustment approval to allow for a finished floor elevation that does not meet the required minimum finished floor elevation of 24 inches above the average elevation of the crown of a dedicated public street abutting a front yard for the main house and the accessory dwelling unit with street addresses of 1708 & 1710 5th Street. (Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Gabriela Donley, Agent, appeared and stated her company had been hired to construct a main house and accessory dwelling unit; stated errors and omissions on the City's part had caused the necessary permits to be issued even though the finished floor elevations were non-compliant with the Code; said an inspection by the City found the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 11 errors; and discussed the history of the project; reviewed the actions that would be necessary to fix the errors if the requested adjustments were not approved. Maria Balashova, property owner, appeared and discussed the financial hardships she has experienced due to the issues. Harry Taylor, Landscape Architect, appeared and stated he had prepared the site plan, and noted he had made an error on the finished floor elevation on the plans that were submitted to the city. Jeff Matthews, Architect, appeared and stated he was the architect for the project and was available to answer questions. 2:09:08 P.M. PB Vice Chair Clermont noted the applicants had stated the City was at fault; pointed out the applicants had submitted plans that contained the errors; and questioned how stormwater runoff from adjacent sites would impact this site. Mr. Taylor discussed the surrounding area and the existing stormwater runoff requirements. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants discussed stormwater runoff requirements and stated he did not feel there would be any issues. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the applicants had built the structure based on what the city approved; questioned if the applicants were aware of the fact the plans they submitted did not meet code; and pointed out the plans the. applicants submitted should have been drawn to code. Ms. Donley reviewed the process to-date; stated the applicants were not aware the plans submitted did not meet code; said Mr. Taylor does work in a lot of municipalities; stated codes change frequently; and said the city should have caught the error. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Salem pointed out errors were made by both parties; asked at what point the applicants found out about the error; and questioned at what point during the design oft the structure the applicants found out the structure had to be two feet above the road. Ms. Donley stated the error was found when an as-built survey was reviewed by the city; and said the engineer used his judgement to determine the appropriate finished floor elevation. 2:20:12 P.M. Staff Presentation: Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner, and Dan Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer, appeared. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski noted the location, zoning, acreage and Future Land Use classification of the site; stated a primary residential unit and accessory dwelling unit were being constructed; said due to oversight by City staff the error in the finished floor elevation on the submitted plans was missed; stated the error was found as part of the spot survey review; pointed out the applicants had voluntarily stopped construction at that time; stated the application is a request to allow a 35%t reduction to the: required finished floor elevation; and stated staff found the application complies with the Standards for Review. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 11 Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated drainage from adjacent sites will not impact the subject property. PB Chair Salem questioned why zoning staff was not present. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated management has addressed the issue with zoning staff; and pointed out the purpose of the adjustment application is to rectify the issue. PB Chair Salem questioned how the applicant would have known what the finished floor elevation requirements were. Assistance City Engineer Ohrenstein stated that information is provided on the plans that are submitted; zoning staff verifies the information; and pointed out the applicants submit signed and sealed plans. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski noted the plans submitted by the applicants must meet code; said city staff reviews the submittals; and noted there was oversight by both parties. PB Member Halflants noted the code is 800+ pages; said due to that it is easy for applicants to miss something; and said the city gave the green light to move forward SO they missed the opportunity to argue about the height. Assistance City Engineer Ohrenstein noted the reduction in the finished floor elevation is no danger to the public. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski agreed the error should have been caught earlier. PB Member Halflants stated due to the amount of construction that has already occurred the applicants should be able to proceed. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski pointed out approval of the adjustment application would resolve the issue. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich questioned why this variance was being proceed through the Planning Board versus the Board of Adjustment; stated the materials address protecting the structure but not the City if the structure floods; and questioned what the City's liability is. Attorney Connolly pointed out the site is in the downtown; said the Zoning Code allows for adjustments versus variances in the downtown zone districts; and said there is no increased liability to the City, pointing out the Assistant City Engineer has determined there is no adverse impact on public health. PB Member Ohlrich stated the applicants had some responsibility noting they are licensed professionals that should be adequately trained on the requirements. PB Vice Chair Clermont noted the professionals on both sides made errors; stated the degree of affect was important; and questioned what that degree is. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein said his analysis determined there is a less than 1% chance of flooding; and stated there is no danger to this site or adjacent properties. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated there is blame on both sides; and stated there should be repercussions. PB Member Halflants pointed out the site is not in a flood zone; said there is a less than 1% chance of flooding if constructed at grade; and stated raising structures two feet above grade as required by the code is not always workable. Discussion ensued. 2:38:11 P.M. Affected Persons: Attorney Connolly again called upon Heidi & Duffin Newman who were not present. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 11 Citizen Input: Mr. Jesse Balaity appeared in opposition citing flooding potential and aesthetics. Ms. Elizabet Castaldi appeared in opposition citing setting a precedent. 2:44:12P.M. Staff Rebuttal: Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated staff had no rebuttal. PB. Member Ohlrich questioned if staff was aware of flooding in the area; if any homes had been flooded; and if the applicants had stopped work when: notified of the problem. Assistant City Attorney Ohrenstein stated one foot of flooding in a neighborhood during a 25-year event is allowed; said staff is unaware of any flooding issues in that neighborhood; and pointed out the County maintains the stormwater system. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated the applicants had voluntarily stopped work in December 2021; and pointed out no official stop work order had been issued. PB Member Halflants questioned if raising the structure 8" to: meet code would have an impact on the flooding potential; and questioned if the two-foot finished floor elevation requirement was part of the Duany plan. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated 8" would not make a difference; stated he did not know where the two-foot requirement came from; and said it does provide a certain level of safety. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated staff review the potential impacts specific to this site. PB Vice Chair Clermont requested Attorney Connolly address the issue of setting a precedent. Attorney Connolly stated the criteria for adjustments is applied on a case- by-case basis and therefore does not set a legal precedent. PB Member Ohlrich questioned of a condition of approval could be that the City is released from any liability; noting the applicants are not accepting any responsibility. Attorney Connolly stated that would not be legally enforceable; noted the evidence presented at today's meeting establishes culpability on both parties; and pointed out the Assistant City Engineer has determined there will be no impacts on public safety. 2:50:55 P.M. Applicant Rebuttal: Ms. Donley appeared and stated the code violation was not deliberate; acknowledged the applicant's S engineer had erred as well as the City;noted all other code: requirements had been met; pointed out the reduction in the finished floor elevation will not impact flooding in the area; said the applicants do not object to correcting the problem, just don't want to tear down the structure; and stated the applicants had voluntarily stopped work per Mr. McAndrew's request. PB Chair Salem pointed out the structure was not built to code as indicated by Ms. Donley. Ms. Donley stated she was referring to other structures her company has constructed; and pointed out the city had approved the plans. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 11 2:54:42 P.M. PB Chair Salem closed the public hearing. PB Member Halflants made a motion to find adjustment #22-ADP-01 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the request for adjustment. PB Vice Chair Clermont seconded the motion. PB Member Halflants stated the applicant had taken responsibility for their errors; noted the City had acknowledged their mistakes; said the applicants should have been allowed to proceed without having to have an adjustment approved by the Planning Board; and said the neighbor's concerns regarding flooding were unfounded since the structure will be lower than the adjacent structures. PB Vice Chair Clermont stated he supported the motion noting honest mistakes had been made. PB Member Ohlrich stated she supports the motion and pointed out this is a perfect example of the importance of continuing education on both sides. PB Chair Salem stated he supports the motion noting the applicants initially blamed the city; said the architect had taken responsibility for his mistakes; and stated the city had missed the mistake as well. The motion passed 4-0. 3:00:55 P.M. 4. 1236 5th Street: Rezone Application No. 22-REN-02 is a request for Rezone Without Site Plan approval to rezone the subject parcel with a street address of 1236 5th Street from Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district to Downtown Core (DTC) zone district. The Future Land Use Classification is Downtown Core (DTC). The site is 0.24 acre in size and currently occupied by a 1,588 square foot single family home. No changes to the site are proposed at this time. (Tom Sacharski, Development Review Senior Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Patrick Seidensticker, Agent, appeared and presented an aerial view of the site; pointed out the location, existing zoning, and Future Land Use classification; noted the adjacent sites are zoned Downtown Bayfront; stated Downtown Core is the only implementing zone district for the Downtown Core Future Land Use classification; said the City has found the request meets the Standards for Review; and requested the PB recommend approval to the City Commission. PB Member Ohlrich questioned what the future plans for the site are. Mr. Seidensticker stated that was unknown; said ten stories is the maximum height; noted most of the surrounding properties have already rezoned to the Downtown Core zone district; and pointed out the few that have not have the same right and will likely follow suit. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 11 PB Member Halflants noted the property to the west is zoned for eighteen stories and the three other side already have the right to build to ten stories. 3:07:35 P.M. Staff Presentation: Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski appeared and noted the acreage, location, existing zoning, and Future Land Use classification of the site; stated the request was to rezone the property to Downtown Core; said Downtown Core: is the only implementing zone district for the Future Land Use classifications; noted no site plan is proposed at this time; reviewed the surrounding zoning; stated the traffic analysis had found the project di minimis; said a traffic review would be required when a site plan is submitted; stated staff has found the project meets the Standards for Review and staff recommends approval; and said the applicants have proffered to omit all office uses. PB Member Ohlrich questioned if Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski was the case planner for all three rezones without site plan applications that are on the agenda. Discussion ensued regarding combining the three hearings. Attorney Connolly noted this application has a proffer associated with it; and suggested the PB could incorporate this staff report into the other two hearings then ask staff if they have additional information to offer. PB Member Ohlrich stated her concerns regarding cars parked along the 5th Street and the alley to the south, noting both are very narrow; and questioned what could be built if the zoning remained Downtown Edge. Development Review Senior Planner Sacharski stated the parking issue will be addressed as part of the site plan review; stated density and height are the two primary differences between Downtown Edge and Downtown Core. zoning; and pointed out Downtown Edge is not an implementing zone district. Attorney Connolly stated the site can be developed under the existing zoning; and noted Downtown Core is the only implementing zone district. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned why the rezoning has to go before the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated because the zoning was not changed when the Future Land Use classification was changed. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants questioned if the current City Commission could initiate a rezoning of the remaining Downtown Edge zoned sites. Attorney Connolly stated the PB could make a motion separate from this application asking the City Commission to direct staff to process the rezonings. PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find Rezone 22-REN-02 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval of the Rezone to the City Commission, subject to the proffer provided by the applicant and the condition proposed by staff. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. PB Member Halflants made a motion to ask staff to suggest to the City Commission a city initiated legislative rezoning be processed. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 11 3:17:34 P.M. The Planning Board agreed by consensus to combine the public hearings for the abutting properties subject to applications 21-REN-04 and 22-REN-01. 5. 4th Street & Cocoanut Avenue: Rezone Application No. 21-REN-04 is a request for Rezone Without Site Plan approval to rezone the subject parcels from Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district to Downtown Core (DTC) zone district. The Future Land Use Classification of each parcel is Downtown Core (DTC). The parcels are located at the southwest corner of Cocoanut Avenue and 5th Street, and the northwest corner of Cocoanut Avenue and 4th Street. No changes to the site are proposed at this time. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) 6. Marina Solo (1270 5th Street): Rezone Application No. 22-REN-01 is a request for Rezone Without Site Plan approval to rezone the subject parcel with a street address of 1270 5th Street from Downtown Edge (DTE). zone district to Downtown Core (DTC) zone district. The Future Land Use Classification is Downtown Core (DTC). The site is 0.24 acre in size and currently occupied by an 1,802 square foot single family home. No changes to the site are proposed at this time. (Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner) Applicant Presentation: Attorney Ben Sorrell appeared on behalf of the property owners; pointed out the location of the subject properties; stated the applicants were seeking a rezoning to the Downtown Core zone district; and requested the PB recommend approval. PB Vice Chair Clermont questioned how binding the recommendations on page 55 of the staff report are. Attorney Sorrell noted those are part of the traffic concurrency review. Attorney Connolly stated those are recommendations the traffic engineer makes to City staff for consideration as part of the site plan review process. PB Member Ohlrich stated there is no rationale for including those recommendations in the rezone without site plan applications; and noted she always asks if the recommendations are included when the site plan comes before the PB. Staff Presentation: Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner, appeared and stated she had spoken with David Smith, Manager of Long-Range Planning, regarding the history of the changes to the Future Land Use classifications noting there were originally additional implementing zone districts. PB Member Halflants questioned the applicability of the step back requirements on primary streets. Development Review Planner Pintus stated a current proposal to amend the primary street map includes this block of 5th Street; pointed out parking is not permitted in the first layer of a primary street; stated the parcels have alley access; and said staff will look at the parking and site access as part of the site plan process. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to find Rezone 21-REN-04 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 11 petition subject to the condition recommended by staff. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. PB Vice Chair Clermont made a motion to find Rezone 22-REN-01 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the conditions as listed. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. V. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICETOTHE) PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which havel been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time, (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no citizen input. 3:30:34 PM VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 14, 2021 (Revised) 2. January 12, 2022 The minutes were approved as presented by consensus. 3:26:34 P.M. VII. 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. General Manager McAndrew addressed the issue of staff training and quality control within the Development Services Department stating he wanted to emphasize that management takes those issues extremely seriously; and stated there is on-going training and continuing education to minimize this type of occurrence. PB Member Halflants questioned if there was a way to avoid having to go through this process if continuing education to minimize errors such as those that are required 22-ADP- 01 occurs. Attorney Connolly stated the zoning code does not authorize administrative remedies for human error; and noted the city did not change the applicants the filing fee or advertising costs. PB Member Ohlrich stated these types ofi issues should be on the record. PB Chair Salem questioned if the adjustment had to go to the City Commission. Attorney Connolly stated only if an appeal is filed. 3:31:21 P.M. VIII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may: require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by Planning Board members. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:32 PM Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting February 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of11 U SArwlw Kevin McAndrew Terrill Salem, Chair Development Services Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]