CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY October 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board None Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-NegAborhood & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading ofthe City's Pledge ofConduct General Manager Smith - in his capacity as Secretary of the City's Planning Board, read the City's Pledge of Conduct: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another We will direct all comments to issues We will avoid personal attacks B. Non Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings Attorney Connolly, stated that according to the rules of procedures for a legislative (non quasi- judicial) public hearing, the city will make its presentation first and then the applicant. Each would have 15 minutes. There are no affected citizens in this public hearing. Then citizens from the general public will have three minutes each to speak. All PB members agreed with the time frames for the presentations. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath for all present who intended to make presentations. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 8 1. HOUSES OF INDIAN BEACH EASEMENT VACATION: Application 14-SV-04 is a request for vacation of an approximately 19.2 ft. wide drainage easement which crosses Lots 21, 22, and 23 of the Houses of Indian Beach 23-lot single family residential project located at the intersection of Bay Shore Road and Corwood Drive in the RSF-1 Zone District. The easement currently serves no purpose since the Houses of Indian Beach project has been developed with its own stormwater infrastructure. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez stated that the proposal is about an easement vacation; explained that an easement vacation follows the same procedures as a street or right- of-way vacation; introduced the subject area; shared an illustration showing the easement crossing three lots of the Houses of Indian Beach (or Casa Museo Subdivision); stated the original easement dates back to 1949, when it was part of the deed for that property; stated in 2004, a subdivision and site plan were approved for the subject property; stated the easement crosses single family lots 22, 23, and 21 of the new subdivision; the easement was overlooked at the time of subdivision site plan approval, and it was not vacated at the time; stated the original purpose of the easement was for natural drainage, stormwater, or physical utilities; stated in 2004, at the time of subdivision approval, it was required for the developer to install all infrastructure for the subdivision, and as a result the entire subdivision is serviced by a separate stormwater system, making the old system from the 1940's unnecessary; pointed out that this is a "clean-up" and the city has no objections about it. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the Standards for Review of Street Vacations and Right-of Ways are established in the City of Sarasota Zoning Code, Article IV, Division 13, and have been outlined in the staff report; stated that the proposal meets all the intents of the standards; as the easement no longer serves a valid purpose, and its vacation does not require re-arrangements of streets, staff has no recommended conditions for the vacation and recommends approval of the proposal. For informational purposes, PB: member Siegel asked if the subdivision has been built yet. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the infrastructure improvements are completed; however there are no development permits at this date. PB member Siegel asked who would have maintained the original drainage system. Senior Planner Mendez stated that since there were no improvements for drainage the city did not maintain this easement. PB member Siegel asked who is building the new system, is it provided by a private company or is it through the improvement bonds the State provides. Senior Planner Mendez explained that the drainage system is already in place, and it is a private system. PB member Siegel asked who owns the new system. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the improvements are on private property, and are owned by the property owner until they are turned over to the subdivision's Homeowners Association. PB member Siegel asked who paid for the new system. Senior Planner Mendez stated the property owner paid for the system. PB: member Siegel asked if the property owner was assessed. Senior Planner Mendez explained that in the subdivision process, a proposed subdivision is first reviewed and approved on paper, then the developer is required to build all infrastructure, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3of 8 including drainage and roads, before the subdivision is recorded. PB member Siegel asked if eventually the ownership will go to the homeowners. Senior Planner Mendez explained that the subdivision will have a Homeowners Association and they will maintain the new system. PB member Siegel asked if eventually, the property owners will contribute to the maintenance of the drainage system. Senior Planner Mendez agreed. PB: member Siegel stated that he understood the subdivision process, and that everyone involved knows they have to develop the drainage system and that there will be costs associated with the maintenance of the system; stated he is concerned about who will control the new system at the end of the day: will a private company come to buy the system and increase prices? Senior Planner Mendez explained that the proposed easement vacation is unrelated to the new drainage system. PB: member Siegel stated he wanted to know how it plays out. Senior Planner Mendez suggested PB member Siegel discuss this with the applicant. PB member Ahearn-Koch inquired as to reasons the vacation of this easement was overlooked at the time of subdivision review. Senior Planner Mendez stated she was unsure of what exactly happened in this case; she noted that there have been several similar applications recently, and she suggested that possibly the language in the Zoning Code might have been unclear as to the requirements for the easement vacation process, thus resulting in confusion; and stated that this is no longer the case. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the language in the Zoning Code has been revised since 2004, when this subdivision was approved. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the language in the Zoning Code has not been revised, but one of the items given to the Urban Design Studio (UDS) was the "clean-up" specifically to these easements. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if a situation like this could be repeated in the future. Senior Planner Mendez stated no. Attorney Connolly reminded PB Members that, in the last PB meeting, PB member Siegel requested the Attorney to provide, prior to a public hearing, an overview of the processes and standards relating to the proposals to be presented in the public hearing. Attorney Connolly offered to do SO at this time for this evening's public hearing. PB Chair Gallagher stated that he would like Attorney Connolly to provide this information before the first witness. PB member Lindsay stated that this is a good idea, because it would help the witnesses understand the topics on which they should testify; he explained that some lay people come to the meetings not knowing what issues the Planning Board has the authority to decide; and stated there are issues that are decided by other authorities. For the benefit of the Planning Board and the public in attendance, Attorney Connolly stated that the present public hearing related to an easement vacation; stated that the criteria for an easement vacation are set forth in the Zoning Code, Section IV.1306; read this section of the Zoning Code, including the five criteria in this section: When considering the criteria for a vacation, the DRC, the Planning Board, and the City Commission shall consider: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 8 1. The benefit to the general public of the existing street, right-of way, easement or non-fee interest; 2. The arrangement of streets, right-of-way, easements or non-fee interests which will be required to secure a regular and harmonious system for trafic circulation if the vacation is granted; 3. Where the street, right-ofway, easement or non-fee interest has been improved, and the extent to which it is currently, or in the future will be utilized by the general public; 4. Whether the vacation is proposed in conjunction with an application for development approval for adjacent property; and 5. Whether the proposed vacation is in the public interest. Attorney Connolly further explained that this is a legislative public hearing, and the Planning Board's task is to determine what is best for the public interest and, accordingly, develop a recommendation for the City Commission. PB: member Siegel asked what happens if a proposal does not meet all five criteria, would that be grounds to deny it? Attorney Connolly stated it is possible that the public interest could be compromised if one of the criteria is not met; further emphasized the focus should remain on the public interest, because this is a legislative procedure and the Planning Board is to determine what is in the public interest; and explained that this will be decided on a case by case basis. PB: member Siegel pointed out that in the present hearing the proposal relates to a drainage easement and it is difficult to determine ifit is in the public interest. Attorney Connolly explained that the subject ofthis hearing, the easement to be vacated, is not part ofthe stormwater system, it was in 1949. PB Chair Gallagher stated that the easement was never developed, it is not certain, therefore, that it was part of the stormwater system in 1949. Attorney Connolly explained that, based on the contour of the land, he presumed it would serve that purpose, but agreed with the PB Chair Gallagher that there is no evidence that the easement was ever improved in any way to serve that purpose. PB Vice Chair Svekis stated that this is a significant property from the standpoint ofthe neighborhood ofIndian Beach/Sapphire Shores; stated that he wishes to put it on the record in order to understand the situation for the interests of one of the largest home owners associations in the City, representing 1300 homes; stated Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores does not have aj playground; this property was named at one time the "Emerald Forest, 99 it was overgrown, the house in the back was dilapidated, and the front was broken down; he stated the property sat there for years, and then in 2004 a developer came forward to purchase the property; stated that this made many neighbors unhappy, but the development proceeded; stated that the development failed due to the "housing bubble" that followed, the bank took the property back; stated that there were intense attempts by the neighborhood to acquire this property as a park through County acquisition programs, the park was put on the top of the list, the City Commission endorsed it, and it was presented to the County for the parks land acquisition program; stated it was placed on the top ofthe list there, the County did an appraisal, it was appraised at $3.2 million, and the County made that offer to the bank; stated the bank declined the offer; stated that two neighbors were very instrumental in the city's efforts to make this a park, Mike Lasche and Matthew Reynolds; stated that these neighbors did an amazing. job to pull the community together in support ofthis idea, at one point they conducted a fund raiser, and they identified about 100 people who were able to commit funds Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 8 for the operational and maintenance costs of the park, should this property become a park; stated that the County bid sat for two years, the property value went down, the County had no more money because of the "real estate bubble," and the current developer purchased the property; stated his statements have nothing to do with the current owner, to whom he wishes all the best; and stated that his intent is to put on the record the history ofthe property. PB member Siegel asked PB Vice Chair Svekis ifl he had adverse feelings about the vacation of the easement, the subject of this public hearing; PB Vice Chair Svekis answered "Not at all." 99 PB member Lindsay stated that around 2003 or 2004 the neighborhood requested the City to purchase the property; stated that the City Commission was unwilling to purchase this land at the time, however they agreed to maintain the property should the neighborhood raise the funds to purchase it for a park; stated the neighborhood was unable to raise the funds at that time; stated that this addition to the history ofthe property may be irrelevant, but what is relevant and must be avoided in the future is the fact that it is illegal to routinely hold things up in that manner, to distract the developer, SO that the City can purchase property in a more favorable price. PB member Siegel stated that that was not the purpose ofhis questions; explained that he had extended experience with stormwater systems in residential communities in this state, and he has seen stormwater systems controlled by outside companies where they determined the budgets, the maintenance costs, added an extraordinary high administrative fees into the maintenance costs ofthe system; stated he wanted to see ifthis was neutral or ifthere should be something else the PB should be aware forl here; he concluded he did not see anything. Attorney Connolly stated that he had no personal knowledge ofthis particular developer, or development, however, he had personal knowledge of the interlocal agreement between the City and the county. Back in 1998, the City and the County consolidated stormwater management systems, because stormwater does not know political boundaries; stated that the costs oft the system are paid through ad-valorem special assessments; stated the entire County has been divided into five or six basins, and everyone in the same basin pays the same ad- valorem special assessments to the County; he explained that the County has the right to access all stormwater management facilities that are located in public easements. As there were no other questions, PB Chair Gallagher called the applicants to present. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Jeff Gersh, representing MREC Level Bayshore, LLC, current owners of the property, and Shawn Liens, P.E., AM Engineering, Inc., Agent, appeared. Mr. Liens addressed the questions of PB member Siegel regarding the costs of maintenance of the drainage system; stated that the Homeowner's Association (HOA) will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the system once it has been turned over to them from the developer; stated that he is unaware of the reasons the easement was not vacated at the time ofthe subdivision approval; stated it should have been done then, because it is an encumbrance on three ofthe lots; stated that is the reason they are here this evening to see this easement is vacated. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that he had noticed a white band around many trees, he had not seen any fencing around them for protection, and he hopes all is done according to the City codes. Mr. Jeff Gersh stated that the white bands were placed around the trees recently because a tree survey was conducted. Citizen Testimony: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 8 Ms. Kafi Benz, President, Friends of Seagate, was sworn at this time. Ms. Benz stated that she has been involved with this property for a long time; stated that at the time the City was working with neighbors trying to purchase this property, Friends of Seagate was the non-profit organization along with Florida Forever, and they would be the property holders for the City; explained that a non-profit was needed to hold the title; stated that she can explain the reason the easement has not been removed; stated there was a wetlands designation on this property which was ignored for a long time, especially with the dry weather, but the existence of the wetlands on this property has been confirmed; she stated that since this property is elevated higher than the neighboring properties, stormwater control is very important to the neighbors; stated that she recommended retention of the drainage easement, as a caution, because you can still sell a property with an easement on it; encouraged the PB: members, in their deliberations, to consider the public interest and consider the impacts on the neighboring properties; and stated the neighborhood association and property owners were eager to work cooperatively with the developers in order to achieve a smooth transition, even though the neighborhood's. hopes were dashed about having this area as a neighborhood park. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB member Siegel made a motion to find Street Vacation 14-SV-04 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation. Motion was seconded by PB Vice-Chair Svekis. Discussion ensued. PB: member Siegel explained that the new system has already been built according to Code to handle the drainage of the new subdivision, and he saw no potential drainage situation where the easement could be useful, SO it should be vacated. PB Vice-Chair Svekis stated that in reviewing the land configuration the only potential for flooding in this area would be coming in from the bay, in which case the stormwater system would have no bearing at all, sO he thought the proposal looked fine as it is. PB: member Lindsay stated that PB cannot reserve easements to serve hypothetical situations of very unlikely probabilities; pointed out that in order to keep an easement the Planning Board must have some real expectation that there will be a specific use for the easement someday, otherwise the Planning Board has the obligation to vacate the easement; stated that in reviewing the map (Exhibit A of the packet), it is clear that keeping the easement makes Lot 21 unbuildable, considering the easement is going through the middle of the lot, and considering the enforcement of setback requirements; pointed out that keeping the easement would also make the development of Lots 22 and 23 challenging; stated that the engineers have already designed and constructed a drainage system that will take care of the drainage needs of the entire subdivision; stated that Ms. Benz's point about a wetland on the property is a separate issue, not part of today's public hearing; pointed out that a wetland would not be buildable; stated that other agencies either have already reviewed, or will review and comment on the wetland issue before building permits, sO at this point he saw no reason for which the City should not Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of8 8 vacate the easement; and summarized his comments stating that a properly engineered drainage system has been installed, provisions for its maintenance have been established, and the City has no coherent or stated use for the easement, therefore it should be vacated. PB. Member Ahearn-Koch agreed with PB member Lindsay that Lot 21 would not be buildable; stated that she felt for the neighborhood because she is aware of their efforts to keep it as a park and it did not work out, but this was not the issue before the Planning Board today; stated she did not know that the easement was a designated upland, but does not think that such a designation should be a reason not to vacate the easement; stated she assumed that the new stormwater system will function well, however she agreed with Ms. Benz that it could be in the public interests to keep the easement should the new system not work, but then it would make Lot 21 unbuildable; and stated she did not see enough argument or evidence not to vacate the easement. PB member Siegel stated that it should be noted that it is not appropriate to hold off legislation based on speculation. PB Chair Gallagher stated he will also vote for approval because the easement runs through the middle of Lot 21, not in a setback; noted that the easement was never improved; pointed out there is a newly engineered system for the drainage of the new subdivision; and concluded that at this point it does not appear that the drainage easement is doing the public any good. The motion passed unanimously. IV. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICE TO' THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 3-minute time limit.) V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 10, 2014 PB member Ahearn-Koch provided corrections in order to clarify the intent of some of her comments on September 10, 2014. p.2 3rd paragraph - sentence that starts with the word Prohibited: questioned how the applicants arrived on the 15 seconds" if we could add the words "change in the sign's message." p.4 3rd paragraph when I was referencing not to use the color red please clarify that I meant very specifically in the LED sign. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 8 Two sentences later it states "include the requirement that colors should be neutral or earth tones, I meant the signage colors, those colors of the actual sign should be neutral. There was a difference between the sign colors and the LED colors. By consensus, the minutes of September 10, 2014 were approved with above revisions. 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. There were no topics by staff. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may: require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB: member Siegel requested information regarding the topic ofthe Special PB meeting of October 22, 2014. General Manager Smith stated the Special Meeting is about Site Plan Approval for Lift Station 87. PB member Siegel congratulated Senior Planning Technician Karen Grassett for the quality of her work in developing the Quick Reference Guide: Planning Board Review ofDevelopment Applications, City of Sarasota Zoning Code 2012); stated that this compilation of standards will prove useful to all Planning Board members. General Manager Smith agreed. PB Member Svekis stated that he was absent on the meeting of September 17, 2014, but when he watched the video, he was offended by the language used by the public, during public input, referring to staff members schmoozing; and stated he finds such statements degrading, unfounded, and he thinks they do a disservice to the entire City. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:38 PM. 25 1/24/14 Doud wwt CGIL David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]