CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY October 2, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Eileen Normile, Chair Members Present: Damien Blumetti, Vice Chair Members Patrick Gannon, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department (arrived 1:40 PM) Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department David L. Smith, AICP, Manager, Planning Department Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner, Planning Department Jim Koenig, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Department Dan Greenberg, Development Review Planner Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLI MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 6:01:40 PM PB Chair Normile called the meeting to order and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY Attorney Connolly announced that application numbers 19-ZTA-07 and 19-ZTA-08 have been continued to Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:00 PM in the City Commission Chambers, 1565 First Street. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge of Conduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary of the Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Marie Selby Botanical Gardens (811 S. Palm Avenue & 926 S. Palm Avenue) [CONTINUED FROM 9/18/19 and 9/25/19]: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 18-PA-01 is a request to amend the Future Land Use Map classification Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 20 of a 14.7t acre site, known as Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, with street addresses of 811 S. Palm. Avenue and 926S S. Palm Avenue from the Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Map Classification to the Metropolitan Regional Future Land Use Map Classification and to identify existing and primary uses of Botanical Gardens, commercial parking, restaurant, and basic utilities. Applicant is also requesting a Zoning Text Amendment (Application No. 18-ZTA-05) to create a new Marie Selby Botanical Gardens (MSBG) Zone District. (David L. Smith, AICP, Manager, Planning Department) (Jim Koenig, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Department) C. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. Marie Selby Botanical Gardens (811 S. Palm Avenue & 926 S. Palm Avenue) [CONTINUED FROM 9/18/19 and 9/25/19]: Rezone Application No. 18-REN-02, Site Plan Application No. 19-SP-03 and Easement Vacation Application No. 19-SV-02 are a request for rezone of an approximately 14.7 acre site known as Marie Selby Botanical Gardens with street addresses of 811 S. Palm Avenue and 926S. Palm Avenue, from the Residential Single Family-1 (RSF-1), Residential Multiple Family-1 (RMF-1) and Residential Multiple Family-3 (RMF-3) Zone Districts to a new proposed zone district called Marie Selby Botanical Gardens (MSBG) Zone District, and Site Plan approval to construct a 486 space commercial parking structure with retail, restaurant and accessory uses as well as a Welcome Center/Plant Research Building and Multi-Use Recreation Trail (MURT). Applicant also requests the vacation of an existing City utility easement and an existing sidewalk easement. (Dan Greenberg, Development Review Planner) Attorney Connolly stated the case in chief for all parties has been completed, the PB was going to start with the Affected Person rebuttal however Mr. Moore, Attorney for Bay Point Association contacted him and stated he wished to cross examine City staff and Selby staff, and requested 5-10 minutes to cross examine City staff and 15 minutes to cross examine Selby staff; said the Planning Board should ask Attorney Lincoln, Ms. Chapmans, City staff and Selby staff if they wished to do any cross-examination prior to getting into rebuttal; stated his recommendation was to allow the cross-examination; and stated the cross-examination must remain within the scope of direct examination. Attorney Connolly asked Attorney Lincoln if he wished to cross-examine any parties. Attorney Lincoln stated not at this time however he wished to reserve the right to re-cross after hearing the other cross-examinations. Attorney Connolly asked Ms. Chapman, Attorney Bailey and City staff if they wished to cross-examine any parties to which all responded no. Discussion ensued regarding the affected persons' right to cross-exam the other parties. Attorney Connolly noted the 36 parties that were provided 5 minutes each are not being offered the opportunity to cross-examination the other parties, only the affected parties that were provided 20 minutes were being given that opportunity. Responding to PB Chair Normile's question Attorney Connolly stated the Planning Board could ask questions directly related to the cross-examination and noted it best to save their questions until after all rebuttal testimony has occurred. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 20 6:08:47 PM Attorney Moore appeared and called the City staff that prepared the Comprehensive Plan Amendment staff report. Manager Smith and Senior Planner Koenig appeared. Attorney Lincoln appeared and objected noting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment are legislative matters rather than quasi-judicial. Attorney Connolly stated he agreed with Attorney Lincoln. Attorney Moore noted there is no law against cross-examination on legislative matters. Attorney Bailey appeared and stated case law was clear that affected parties have a right to due process but not cross-examination; and said the City Code provides for the opportunity to cross-examination on quasi-judicial matters. Attorney Moore noted that since the applications were combined for the public hearing, the Planning Board had the discretion to allow it. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated it was his recommendation that cross-examination that pertains to the quasi-judicial applications only be allowed. Additional discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss made a motion to accept Attorney Connolly's recommendation. PB Vice Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion failed 2/3 with PB Members Ohlrich, Gannon and Normile voting no. Attorney Connolly stated if cross-examination on legislative matters is going to be allowed a motion must be made to amend the Planning Board Rules of Procedure and noted the motion must pass by a super-majority vote since the item was not noticed. PB Member Ohlrich made a motion to amend the Rules of Procedure for tonight only. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Vice Chair Blumetti voting no. PB Chair Normile stated she supported the motion since all the applications have been lumped together up until now. PB Member Morriss stated he felt allowing it will increase the Planning Board's understanding of the issues. PB Member Ohlrich stated she agreed with PB Member Morriss' statement and added that up until now the applications were all lumped together. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated he did not understand why the Planning Board continuously goes against Attorney Connolly's advice. 6:08:23 PM Attorney Moore questioned City staff as to the data and analysis that was used to prepare the staff report for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was provided to the Planning Board; the purpose of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment; if a commercial parking garage or a restaurant are permitted under the existing Future Land Use Classification/Zoning: and what the surrounding residential areas were classified as. City staff responded they relied on the traffic study and information provided by the applicants; the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was to allow for the commercial parking garage and restaurant as primary uses; a restaurant would be allowed as an accessory use under the existing Future Land Use classification; and the surrounding residential areas are classified as very low density. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 20 Attorney Lincoln objected stating the questions were beyond the scope of direct. PB Chair Normile stated she agreed with Attorney Lincoln. Discussion ensured regarding what would be an appropriate line of questioning. Attorney Connolly stated he had contacted City Attorney Fournier, and both agree that cross-examination related to the legislative matters should not occur. PB Chair Normile noted since the applications were all combined the issue was very confusing to everyone. Attorney Moore stated he would ask his questions as they relate to the rezone application and called Planner Greenberg. 6:36:06 PM Planner Greenberg appeared. Attorney Moore questioned Planner Greenberg as to if he prepared the staff report for the rezone application that was provided to the Planning Board; what date he recommended approval; if the conditions and restrictions were contained in the Zoning Text Amendment; and if staff was proposing the creation of the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens zone district to help Selby out. Planner Greenberg confirmed he wrote the report, stated the date of the report is the date he recommended approval; stated the Zoning Text Amendment was not up for discussion; and said he would not speak to the Zoning Text Amendment. PB Chair Normile advised Attorney Moore to stick to issues related to the rezone application. Attorney Moore questioned what uses would be available under the rezone application that are not currently allowed. Planner Greenberg stated that information was provided under Appendix 7 of the staff report and clarified that a Botanical Garden is allowed under the current zoning. Attorney Moore questioned how many parking spaces are required for the proposed uses. Planner Greenberg stated 355 parking spaces were required. Attorney Moore questioned if Planner Greenberg considered the very low density residential immediately south of Selby Gardens when he said the proposed uses were compatible with the existing land use pattern and questioned what the distance was between the southern boundary of Selby Gardens is the very low residential use. Planner Greenberg said approximately 600. Attorney Moore stated Planner Greenberg'si response to the criteria avoided any reference to the need for the change. Planner Greenberg read the response in his report for the record noting a Metropolitan-kegional Future Land Use classification cannot be created without an implementing zone district. Attorney Moore questioned what data and analysis Planner Greenberg based his statement that the improvements would generate investment in nearby properties on. Planner Greenberg stated his education and background in real estate. Attorney Moore questioned Planner Greenberg's response to whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city. Planner Greenberg read his response into the record. Attorney Moore questioned if that response conflicted with statements in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment staff report. Planner Greenberg stated he did not believe there were any conflicts. Attorney Moore questioned if Planner Greenberg was aware that Selby staff did not consider alternate sites. Planner Greenberg stated he did not believe that was the case. Attorney Moore questioned who generated the proposed conditions in Motion A and questioned why the number of times the restaurant could be bought out was not included. Planner Greenberg stated there would be no way for staff to enforce that condition. Attorney Moore questioned if that was contained in the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 20 conditions Selby proposed that are included in Motion B. Planner Greenberg stated that was correct. Attorney Moore questioned if the term buyout was defined in any City regulations. Planner Greenberg said not to his knowledge. Attorney Moore questioned if there were any prohibitions of events after 11:00 PM not related to amplified sound. Planner Greenberg said there was a proffer related to new event areas. 6:55:17 PM Attorney Moore stated he wished to cross-examine the applicants and called Chris Cianfaglione. Mr. Cianfaglione appeared. Attorney Moore questioned if Mr. Cianfaglione had prepared the narrative that was submitted and questioned if a parking study had been prepared. Mr. Cianfaglione confirmed he prepared the narrative and stated the estimated growth in visitors and the associated parking needs was based on an analysis of like uses. Discussion ensued regarding the locations of the like uses and if there were shared parking facilities. Attorney Moore questioned what other data the applicants had relied on. Mr. Cianfaglione stated historic trends for Selby as well as statistics for other local comparable institutions were considered. Discussion ensued regarding a parking study that was done supplemental to the application materials. Attorney Moore questioned if any additional data and analysis was used. Mr. Cianfaglione stated the fact that Selby must use a trolley service to provide off-site parking, ranges contained in the ITE Manual and the data in the City Code were considered; and noted the 355 required parking spaces Planner Greenberg quoted was for Phase I only. 7:10:20 PM Attorney Lincoln stated he wished to cross-examine Planner Greenberg. Planner Greenberg appeared. Attorney Lincoln stated his interest was protecting the interests of his client, Hudson Crossing, and asked Planner Greenberg if the 355 required parking spaces he quoted was in fact for Phase I as Mr. Cianfaglione stated. Planner Greenberg stated that was correct noting future phases are not included in the site plan. Attorney Lincoln noted the Master Plan included a later phase and questioned if the statement that Planner Greenberg did not have the information needed to analyze the future phase was correct. Planner Greenberg stated that was correct. Attorney Lincoln asked if the 355 parking spaces included the square footage of the greenhouses proposed in Phase 2. Planner Greenberg confirmed it did not. Attorney Lincoln stated if 355 spaces were provided there would not be adequate parking for any future development within the garage and additional parking would have to be provided for elsewhere on site. Planner Greenberg confirmed that was correct. 7:14:56 PM Attorney Connolly announced the next phase of the proceedings was rebuttal; discussed proposed time limits stating at the last meeting it was decided the affected persons would be provided 3 minutes for rebuttal, Attorney Moore, Attorney Lincoln and Ms. Chapman would be provided 5 minutes, and City staff and the applicants would be provided 30 minutes for rebuttal; stated Attorney Moore had requested 15 minutes rather than 5 minutes; and stated if that was granted Attorney Lincoln and Ms. Chapman should be Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 20 offered the same. The Planning Board by consensus declined to increase the 5 minutes to 15 minutes. Attorney Connolly called Susan Renfrew. Ms. Renfrew was not present. Attorney Connolly called Louanne Roy. Ms. Roy stated she had rebuttal to offer. Attorney Connolly reminded Ms. Roy that rebuttal must pertain to any testimony that was given after her initial testimony. Attorney Connolly called Lynn Soussou. Ms. Soussou stated she had no rebuttal to offer. Ms. Roy reiterated her concerns with the proposed Master Plan. PB Chair Normile reiterated rebuttal must pertain to any testimony that was given afterl her initial testimony. Attorney Connolly called Benjamin Paster. Mr. Paster appeared and discussed Attorney Lincoln's presentation. PB Chair Normile stated that since Attorney Lincoln had presented his case prior to Mr. Paster's testimony last week anything Attorney Lincoln said should have been addressed during Mr. Paster's testimony last week. Attorney Connolly left the room. Secretary Cover called Alexis Upham representing Karen Hall. Ms. Upham stated she had no rebuttal to offer on behalf of Ms. Hall. Secretary Cover called Arthur Hall. Mr. Hall appeared and proceeded to discuss his concerns with traffic safety. PB Chair Normile noted the comments did not constitute rebuttal. Attorney Connolly called Fredrica Lindsay. Ms. Lindsay stated the parking and visitor comparisons to the gardens in Naples, London, Montreal, San Francisco, etc. were not valid due to the difference in the size of the operations; and noted Island Park is 22 acres while Selby is 14 acres. Attorney Connolly called Robert Lindsay. Mr. Lindsay stated information is being shared that if the Selby Gardens Master Plan is not approved there will be an 18-story condominium built and noted the zoning would only allow 35 to 45 feet in height; and noted in order to increase those heights a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would have to be approved. Attorney Connolly called Dana Watts. Mr. Watts stated he was rebutting the comments that the plan would not affect traffic; and discussed existing conditions, the proposed site access, and queuing of vehicles. Attorney Connolly called Elizabeth Rose, Elliot Rose and Carl Caruso who stated they had no rebuttal to offer. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 20 Attorney Connolly called Liza Caruso. Ms. Caruso appeared and stated staff! had said they had concluded the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment was not appropriate because it would allow potentially incompatible uses next to residential uses; said in addition staff said approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would further the public interest. Attorney Connolly called Susan Chapman. Ms. Chapman appeared and stated she was rebutting Mr. Annis' testimony regarding sustainability; discussed her background as a Special Magistrate where FEMA cases were considered; discussed the Environmental and Coastal Islands chapters of the Comprehensive Plan as well as applicable State Statutes noting the intent is to limit vulnerabilities; and said the proposed plan does the opposite. 7:37:20 PM Attorney Connolly left the room. Secretary Cover called Attorney Moore. Attorney Lincoln stated Attorney Connolly had indicated he would be next. Attorney Lincoln stated staff would be rebutting some of the proposals he had suggested for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and since. his rebuttal is occurring prior to staff's S he wished to indicate that he hopes he and staff can come up with a way to address those issues before everything is closed. PB Chair Normile called Attorney Moore. Attorney Moore noted Attorney Lincoln had discussed his fear of driving in the Mound Street/Palm Avenue area; referenced Police Department statistics presented previously by Ms. Chapman that indicate the Mound Street/Osprey Avenue and Mound Street/Orange Avenue, particularly the Mound Street/Orange Avenue intersection, as more dangerous than the Mound Street/Palm Avenue intersection; stated the applicants had discussed the need for the parking garage however did not provide any data/analysis justifying the need; said the applicants had stated the had used the ITE study to justify the parking needs noting that document does not contain the appropriate data to use for a parking study for this site; stated the study the applicants referenced did not address parking needs; noted the applicants had confirmed in writing that no parking study was completed and the need has not bee proven; and said the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would not provide the transitional buffer that currently exists. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated Attorney Moore had stated previously that the Future Land Use classification change to Metropoltan-kegional requires a super majority vote and once approved it would only take a majority vote to change it and asked if that was correct. Attorney Moore stated he was referring to the rezone noting the conditions and restrictions placed on the rezoning could be changed by a majority vote. Discussion ensued regarding what types of applications require a super majority vote VS a majority vote and what constitutes a study. 7:52:05 PM The Planning Board Took a Ten-Minute Break Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 20 7:53:18 PM PB Chair Normile announced City staffwould provide their rebuttal next. Manager Smith, Senior Planner Koenig, Planner Greenberg and Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein appeared. Senior Planner Koenig discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment stating staff reviews proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments to determine if on balance the change will further relevant components of the Comprehensive Plan; summarized the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed change; said staff found more strengths than weaknesses; stated staff believes the Metropolitan-kegional Future Land Use classification is appropriate for the site; discussed uses and intensity permitted under the existing Future Land Use classification versus the proposed Future Land Use Classification; discussed historic preservation noting the Historic Preservation Board approved the demolition of three structures; discussed the proposed flood hazard mitigation; and noted the applicants were employing several mitigation techniques based on public input that will maximize compatibility with the surrounding uses. Manager Smith discussed the proposed Zoning Text Amendment stating Zoning Text Amendments are reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and if the amendment furthers the purposes of other regulations, ordinances, plans, etc., and is in the public interest and serves a valid public interest; summarized staff's responses stating those were affirmative for each of those areas; discussed permitted uses for the MSBG zone district; stated the proposed Zoning Text Amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; noted a statement had been made that the Metropolitan-kegiona Future Land Use classification is incompatible with single family uses nearby which is incorrect; discussed the history of the Future Land Use classifications contained in the Comprehensive Plan; noted a statement had been made that maximum development standards were not established for the proposed MSBG zone district and that was incorrect; reviewed the proposed development standards; noted the suggestion that the existing Future Land Use classification be changed to allow a restaurant would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; discussed uses allowed under the existing zoning; said contrary to comments made previously a Botanical Garden is defined in the Zoning Code and presented the page it is on; discussed sea level rise noting the City has adopted a Climate Adaptation Plan; presented a graphic from the Comprehensive Plan showing anticipated sea level rise through the year 2050; and noted the site is not in the areas that are anticipated to be impacted by sea level rise. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discussed anticipated traffic growth stating 1% is the standard used for Sarasota background growth; said adopted procedures were used for the traffic study; stated parking requirements were calculated on full build-out; said the proposed parking garage will help mitigate spill over from large events; noted staff does not base approvals on FDOT stipulations; discussed multi-model aspects stating the EDCM calls for a MURT; said the wide MURT would encourage walking; clarified that Orange Avenue is not a no truck road, it is a no through truck road meaning trucks are allowed in the neighborhood, they are not supposed to cut through the neighborhoods on Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 20 Orange Avenue; said the turning movements were sized for trucks; noted the crash data that was presented pertained to a small area; stated Mound Street/Orange Avenue is not considered a high crash intersection; discussed site access/circulation stating Selby was making significant improvements; discussed the improvements being made; noted the two through lanes on Mound Street going east are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; stated there will be no change to the Level of Service at the intersection of Mound Street and Orange Avenue; said there would be a minimal number of left turns onto Orange Avenue from the site; said peak hour traffic on Orange Avenue is estimated to increase by one car every two minutes; and said Selby was going above the improvements that are required. Planner Greenberg discussed the rezone/site plan/s street vacation applications stating the statement that the Botanical Garden would be an accessory use was incorrect noting there can be more than one primary use; said statement was made there are not clear benefits to the proposal and there was no evidence to support that claim; said the facts show there are numerous public benefits; listed the public benefits; said construction staging times were mentioned and clarified the times construction crews can begin; stated hours of operation for accessory outdoor restaurants are limited by the Zoning Code, noting more restrictive hours of operation can be imposed; said staff believes the time limitations in the Zoning Code are adequate; stated there were complaints that the City's noise ordinance was not restrictive enough noting it is staff's opinion there is no logical reason for additional restrictions; stated the applications were being process concurrently to avoid speculation; and discussed the site's proximity to downtown. 8:23:44 PM PB Member Ohlrich questioned the statement that staff does not base approvals on FDOT stipulations. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein discussed State Statues that prohibit the City from holding up approvals. PB Member Ohlrich stated she had questions regarding the proffers. Planner Greenberg suggested the applicants could best respond to her questions noting additional materials have been submitted. PB Member Morriss questioned what constitutes an adequate transitional buffer between uses. Planner Greenberg stated required buffers are in the Zoning Code. Senior Planner Koenig stated it depends on the intensity of the uses. Discussion ensued. PB Member Morriss stated he felt the bayou between! Selby and the residential uses makes a difference. Manager Smith stated a step down in uses is often used as a transitional buffer and noted it is situation specific. PB Member Morriss questioned what corrective action could be taken if the left turn onto Orange Avenue becomes problematic. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated no problems are anticipated noting the access point improvements that will be made. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 20 PB Member Morriss questioned how citizens can be assured that what is proposed will be there in perpetuity. Manage Smith stated the FAR could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attorney Connolly stated an ordinance approving the rezone and site plan applications would contain the proffers, noting amending those would require public hearings before the Planning Board and City Commission. PB Member Gannon stated questions were raised as to why the existing Future Land Use Classification couldn't be used; said Comprehensive Plan Amendments require a super majority vote at the City Commission level while Zoning Text Amendments do not; noted a unique Future Land Use Classification is being established; and said future Zoning Text Amendments could be approved by a simple majority. Senior Planner Koenig stated the proposed MSBG zone district was the only one being offered. PB Member Gannon said the existing Future Land Use classification has defined implementing zone districts that provide protections and would not be amended for an individual site. Senior Planner Koenig noted the site is a zoning enclave SO rezoning to one of the implementing zone districts would be encouraged. PB Member Gannon requested clarification regarding whether a restaurant is an accessory use or permitted use under retail zoning. Manager Smith stated it would be a permitted use under the proposed zone district, noting the existing Future Land Use classification does not allow for a standalone restaurant. PBI Member Gannon questioned if a restaurant is a permitted use: in the: implementing zone districts for the Commercial Office/Industrial Future Land Use classification. Manager Smith stated a small café is permitted however is limited to 10% of the floor area of the structure it is in; and said a standalone restaurant with different operating hours is not permitted. Planner Greenberg stated the Zoning Code limits a small café to 10% of the floor area of an office building; said the welcome center is the largest building proposed SO it would be limited to 10% of that structure. Attorney Connolly said the Zoning Code specifies office building and noted Selby is not proposing an office building. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of an office building. Planner Greenberg stated there were other issues beyond uses such as height and FAR. Attorney Connolly noted botanical gardens are not a permitted use in office zone districts. Planner Greenberg noted a Zoning Text Amendment would apply to all sites that have that zoning. PB Member Gannon questioned how the Transportation Master Plan that is being developed will address future multi-model trends. Assistant City Engineer said those trends are being considered; noted the current bus ridership in the County is 1%; and stated economic factors govern how people get around. PB Member Gannon questioned if a circulator could be used to transport people from Selby Gardens to one of the City's parking garages. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated circulators are primarily used in the Main Street area or Rosemary District. PB Vice Chair Blumetti questioned where the 1 parking space for every 250 square feet standard came from. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated the Tampa Gardens has that and staff feels it is a reasonable standard. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 20 PB Vice Chair Blumetti questioned what implementing zone district created the densities staff stated were allowable. Attorney Connolly stated maximum allowable densities are also in the Future Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. PB Chair Normile questioned where the 1/250 standard came from. Manager Smith stated the applicants proposed the standard and staff agreed it was reasonable. PB Chair Normile noted the City is looking at revising the parking standards and questioned if the number of spaces required will be lower, higher or the same. Manager Smith discussed the history of parking requirements in the City. PB Chair Normile questioned how services such as Uber and Lyft were being worked into the standards. Senior Planner Koenig stated staff was developing a Zoning Text Amendment; said the specifics were not yet available; stated the national trend is lowering the standards, in some cases deregulating parking in downtown areas, and lowering the standards for attainable housing. Planner Greenberg discussed the existing parking standards. PB Chair Normile stated the traffic study is based on the existing uses, of which there are many, and questioned how reliable the traffic and parking numbers could be. Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated basing studies on existing uses is a professional standard and is the process that is adopted in the Zoning Code. Discussion ensued regarding using the ITE manual versus localized data for traffic studies. PB Member Morriss questioned if the graphic showing 75' and 50 was to scale. The applicants indicated it was. Manager Smith noted there is a written description accompanying the graphic. PB Member Gannon questioned if the Transportation Master Plan will include mitigating parking needs via circulators, eBikes, widening oft the MURT, etc. Planning Director Cover stated staff based their analysis on existing standards, noting the Transportation Master Plan would not be completed for another 9-12 months. PB Member Morriss noted people outside of the region visit Selby Gardens and would not be using circulators, etc.; noted the specifics of Phase 2 of the development are an unknown; and questioned if there was a prohibition on going above the required parking. Assistant City Attorney Ohrenstein noted the standards are the minimum required. Senior Planner Koenig noted there are some places that are considering implementing maximum parking standards. PB Member Morriss questioned the cost of constructing parking. PB Chair Normile stated she was told $26,000 per space. PB Vice Chair Blumetti questioned if the proffers limit the number of parking spaces. Staff confirmed that was correct. 9:14:19 PM Attorney Connolly announced the Applicants would provide their rebuttal next. Chris Cianfaglione, Agent, Jennifer Rominiecki, CEO of Selby Gardens, Dan Bailey, Attorney representing Selby Gardens, and Gary Nadeau, Senior Roadway Engineer Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 20 appeared. Attorney Bailey stated he wished to clarify that the 1/ 250 standard proposed is consistent with the Zoning Code. Ms. Rominiecki stated the need for the Master Plan had been questioned and she wished to address those comments; stated the Master Plan will safeguard the collections, accommodate visitors, preserve the historic structures, and ensure long term sustainability; discussed the existing parking conditions and number of current and projected visitors, noting the parking needs are based on number of visitors rather than the size of the Gardens; discussed the need for the proposed restaurant stating it will diversify revenues which will allow the Gardens to meet visitor expectations for a world class attraction; discussed the Strategic Plan and the proposed hours of operation compared to: restaurants at comparable: institutions; stated without the additional parking and restaurant the Garden's growth will stagnate; discussed the marketing of events noting in response to comments made at last week's meeting the Children's Garden will no longer be made available for events; discussed the endowment goals and the recently added underserved families program; discussed issues related to attempting to relocate the collections; and stated Selby Gardens had recently been awarded a grant to collaborate with Denver, New York and Chicago Botanical Gardens. Mr. Cianfaglione stated the applicants have been and continue to listen to the neighbor's concerns and revising the plans to accommodate their concerns; discussed additional proffers related to sound restrictions of the outdoor restaurant, the installation and maintenance of the Sky Garden, tree mitigation, greenhouse setbacks, vacating the outdoor terrace of the restaurant at 10:00 PM, lowering the FAR to 0.25, and striking the commercial parking garage as a primary use from the Future Land Use classification; discussed the proposed Zoning Text Amendment noting they were striking the alternative parking ratios, increasing the minimum lot size to match the size of the entire site, limiting the size of accessory cafés, placing restrictions on buyouts of the restaurant, and eliminating the need for the commercial parking garage, eliminating fireworks; said the applicants were committed to continuing tol listen and compromise to make the project better, and are implementing further restrictions for future development; discussed the layering/mass/scale: of the Sky Garden; discussed the proposed height of the Sky Garden compared to adjacent structures; compared the proposed Sky Garden to Sarasota Memorial Hospital's new parking garage; discussed screening requirements for parking garages noting they are meeting those requirements with greenery; discussed proposed landscaping stating they are planting mature trees as of day 1, are saving approximately one-half of the existing trees and mitigating those being removed although they are exempt from the mitigation requirements, and are exceeding the code requirements; said their emphasis is on above and beyond; discussed techniques being used to protect existing trees during construction; and said the height of the Sky Garden allows for 3 12 new acres of Garden space. Mr. Nadeau discussed the existing road conditions and proposed improvements stating the improvements will significantly enhance safety by removing the median cut at Palm Avenue and Mound Street, extending the left turn lanes at Mound Street and Orange Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 20 Avenue, extending the length of the right turn lane into the parking garage, widening of Orange Avenue, and extending the left turn lane from northbound Orange Avenue into the parking garage. Mr. Cianfaglione discussed the benefits of shifting the Palm Avenue access location and noted there will be no U-turn at Orange Avenue. Ms. Kelly Fearon, Traffic Engineer, Kimley-Horn, appeared and stated some of the roadway improvements will allow improvements to be made to the signal timing and phasing allowing for concurrent left turns onto Mound Street from Orange Avenue; and said a Special Event Traffic Management Plan will be implemented. Mr. Cianfaglione noted all the recommendations from the traffic study have been incorporated into the development plans. Mr. Cianfaglione stated Dr. DePew had made a statement that the project did not address multi-model transportation and noted the MURT, bicycle parking, ride share accommodations, bus parking and the proposed water taxi included in Phase 2 as examples of how multi-model transportation options were addressed; discussed the methodology used for parking demand generations and discussed the sea level rise adaptation analysis that was performed, noting the mangroves that provide shoreline protection would remain. Mr. Kelley Klepper, Senior Planner, Kimley-Horn, appeared and discussed his background in planning; stated he respected Dr. DePew's opinion however much of his analysis was superficial and flawed; pointed out the ways the Applicant's coordinated with other Governmental Agencies; and discussed compatibility noting the proposed project is more compatible than what is allowed under the existing Future Land Use classification. Mr. Gary Siebein, Acoustic Consultant for Selby Gardens, appeared and stated several noise studies have been conducted for the project; discussed the methodology for measuring sound levels; and stated the measured sound levels were within acceptable levels. Ms. Rominiecki discussed the rationale for the creation of a Master Plan; noted the process has been on-going for 2 years; stated staff has recommended approval; over 52,000 people sign a petition supporting the Master Plan; stated the Sky Garden and restaurant are critical to generating revenue and capacity; discussed the dollar value of the Selby property and the density allowed under existing zoning; stated Selby's intent to remain an: iconic presence on the bayfront; and urged the Planning Board to recommend approval to the City Commission. 9:46:37 PM Vice Chair Blumetti questioned changing the FAR to .25. Mr. Cianfaglione stated the intent was to ensure any future changes to that could not be approved with a simple majority. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and operational changes to the parking garage designed to eliminate the need for a Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 20 commercial parking garage. Responding to Vice Chair Blumetti Mr. Cianfaglione confirmed the parking garage would be an accessory use and could not be rented out. PB Member Gannon questioned which set of proffers the Planning Board was to make a decision on. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly stated Selby offered new proffers in their rebuttal and the Planning Board may or may: not make a recommendation to approve and incorporate those into what is before them; noted since the revised proffers were offered at the table this evening staff has not had an opportunity to review them; said staff willl have the opportunity to review the revised proffers between this evening and the City Commission public hearing; and said the Planning board could make a recommendation to incorporate those or not. PB Member Gannon questioned what the revised proffer relating to the green wall was. Mr. Cianfaglione discussed the proposed revised proffers regarding the green walls; noted the proffer that they can't change the site plan, it has to implemented as shown; and stated the revised proffers for the green walls provides the City with the responsibility and ability to hold Selby Gardens accountable in ensuring the green walls stay green. Discussion ensued regarding the percentage of the structure that will contain plant material, how the plant material will grow to fill in the gaps, and additional supplemental plantings. PB Member Gannon discussed the landscape plan stating 88 trees are proposed for removal;noted a Botanical Garden is not required to meet the tree mitigation requirements because it is expected that a Botanical Garden would exceed the requirements; and questioned when Day 1 that the applicants referenced was. Mr. Cianfaglione stated Day 1 is prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and noted that is anticipated to be approximately the end of 2021. Discussion ensued regarding construction timeframes, where in the materials it is specified how many trees will be planted, the required landscape buffers, and the proffer to meet the tree mitigation requirements. Ms. Rominiecki noted Selby Gardens' reputation is at risk and they have the accountability to ensure the proffers are enforced. Mr. Cianfaglione noted a building permit will not be issued until the tree mitigation requirements are met. PB Member Gannon questioned when the caliper inches will be restored to the existing caliper inches and CO2 sequestration. Mr. Cianfaglione stated the applicants anticipate ten years for net recovery and discussed the specifics of the trees that are being planted beyond Code requirements. PB Member Gannon questioned how the 10:00 PM vacation of the restaurant terrace would be enforced. Discussion ensued regarding who will enforce and Selby Gardens' commitment to ensure enforcement. PB Member Morriss noted the lack of a Business Plan; questioned the number of events that have occurred per year for the past five years and how many will occur per year once the Master Plan is approved; and stated the question is whether the restaurant is an amenity to the Gardens of the Gardens are an amenity to the restaurant. Ms. Rominiecki stated there have always been events at Selby Gardens; discussed the buyout proffer; and stated they were in discussions with Hudson Crossing regarding limiting the number of outdoor events to25 per year. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 20 Wendy Deming, COO for Selby Gardens, appeared and stated 33% of the events held are private while 66% are Selby Gardens; said 50% of the private events are held within the indoor event center; and less than 20% of the private events are held outdoors. PB Member Morriss discussed the proposed limits on the number of 100% buyouts of the restaurant; questioned if that also pertained to 95% or 50% buyouts; and questioned if fireworks will be permitted. Ms. Rominiecki stated Selby Gardens no longer allows fireworks. Mr. Cianfaglione noted that is codified in the Zoning Text Amendment. Ms. Rominiecki stated the limitation of five buyouts helps alleviate the concerns that the restaurant will actually operate as an event center and, responding to PB Member Morriss, stated the applicants were open to limiting the number of predominate buyouts versus 100% buyouts. PB Member Ohlrich questioned why the language in the new proffer 2.a.2 was revised from "east oft the former South Palm Avenue right-of-way" to' "closer to residential areas". Mr. Cianfaglione stated the new language is more restrictive. PB Member Ohlrich questioned why the language in new proffers 2.a.4, 2b, and 9 was revised from "outdoor terraced areas of the proposed restaurant" to within the accessory outdoor restaurant portion of the rooftop restaurant". Mr. Cianfaglione stated the revised language was more in line with definitions in the Code. PB Member Ohlrich requested that when the applications go before the City Commission it be made clear that the Planning Board had nothing to do with the proffers. PB Chair Normile stated the height of the parking garage and the inclusion of the restaurant are the two major issues; said the applicants had stated the reason for the restaurant was to diversify the revenue stream; noted there is an agreement with a restauranteur whereby Selby Gardens will receive $500k per year; and questioned if the $500k would ever change and if iti is percentage based. Ms. Rominiecki stated the revenue projections are based on percentage they will be receiving. PB Chair Normile questioned what the public benefit was; noted the lack of a Business Plan; and questioned how to work the data into a benefit analysis when the information is proprietary. Ms. Rominiecki stated while the information is confidential, they do have a Business Plan and they anticipate 10% of Selby's annual revenues will be generated by the restaurant. PB Chair Normile stated there was no data to base the benefit analysis on; noted the restaurant benefits a 3rd party who is not present; and requested written data justifying the revenue projections. Ms. Rominiecki stated the restaurant is owned by Selby Gardens who has a confidential agreement with the restauranteur; and stated although Selby has voluntarily shared the revenue projections, they cannot share the confidential information. Ms. Deming stated the agreement contains minimum Standards of Performance for the revenue projections. Discussion ensued regarding whether the revenues are rental income or a donation, investing the dollars for the restaurant and using the return on investment for an endowment, and the long-term benefits of the increased revenue stream versus an endowment. Attorney Bailey noted if the restaurant Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 20 were to be eliminated that would only reduce the parking needs by 60 spaces sO the parking garage would still be needed. Mr. Cianfaglione noted if the restaurant was not critical to the success of the Master Plan the applicant would not have endured a long arduous process. PB Chair Normile questioned why Park Plus was not used for the parking projections. M. Klepper stated that is not geared to site specific development. PB Chair Normile noted there was only one traffic count done and that was during a large special event. Ms. Rominiecki stated the applicants know their operation; said the biggest complaint they get is lack of parking; said they have their own data to base the parking needs on; and noted they also compared their data to Mote Marine and Ringling Museum. Discussion ensued regarding the lack of adequate data; how the traffic counts were generated; comparing parking needs with other like institutions; the likelihood of having to continue the use of off-site parking during peak hours; and Code requirements for parking. PB Chair Normile stated Florida Statutes Chapter 163 requires data justifying any change in land use. PB Member Gannon questioned the statement that the use of off-site parking during peak hours will continue. Mr. Cianfaglione indicated that was a correct statement. PB. Member Gannon questioned when the applicants anticipate reaching 350,000 visitors per year. Mr. Cianfaglione stated ten years. Discussion ensued regarding use of other modes of transportation that will reduce the parking needs in the future; factors used in determining parking needs; resources that were consulted with; proximity to downtown; regional visitors versus local visitors; and off-site parking versus on-site parking. PB: Member Ohlrich questioned the number of employees Selby has noting 3,000 had been mentioned. Ms. Rominiecki stated that was an economic impact analysis that included increased employment in construction, restaurants, etc. Discussion on the number of employees and volunteers Selby has currently and the anticipated increase. PB Chair Normile questioned the proffer that amplified sound will only be allowed between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Discussion ensued regarding Code requirements and the fact those types of events don't normally occur before noon. PB Chair Normile asked if the applicants would be willing to revise the proffer from 7:00 AM to noon to which they agreed. 10:50:10 PM Attorney Connolly stated the next step was to close the public hearing. PB Chair Normile closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated there are four motions required, first being the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Planning Board Took a Ten-Minute Break Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 20 10:52:26 PM Responding to a question from PB Chair Normile Attorney Connolly explained the motions necessary and the guidelines for review in the Zoning Code. PB Member Morriss discussed the pros and cons of the proposal stating there is clearly a public benefit and moved to adopt a motion to find that Petition No. 18-PA-01 is consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is in the public benefit or interest, and recommend that the City Commission approve the petition. PB Vice Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss stated the restaurant is needed due to the revenues it will generate. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated the applicants had provided the data and analysis to justify the proposals; said it is a public benefit; noted the development under the Master Plan would be far less dense that what could be built under the existing Future Land Use classification and zoning; and listed what he saw as the public benefits. PB Member Ohlrich stated she loves Selby also; stated there has been a lot of public input on both sides; said the reason for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to make the proposed rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as required by law; noted the Future Land Use must be compatible with surrounding development; and said based on the Standard for Review she finds the proposali incompatible and not in the public interest. PB Member Gannon said he was impressed with the overall plan, particularly the improvements to the MURT, the pocket park and the additional open public space; said there was a lack of data justifying the requests; stated he was concerned as to how the proffers would be enforced; and said given those reasons he cannot support the applications. PB Chair Normile stated the decision has to be on balance for both the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment; listed what she felt were the benefits and detriments; discussed compatibility and the applicants stated goals; said she felt the commercial parking and restaurant should be eliminated as a primary use in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and put in the Zoning Text Amendment as an accessory use; said credible data justifying the need for the restaurant had not been provided; and said she would vote to recommend approval if the restaurant was taken out. PB Vice Chair Blumetti discussed the building height stating it was not out of scale; said he felt the data provided was more than adequate; noted proffers had been offered that addressed the concerns the Planning Board and neighbors had expressed; and said the proposed improvements would meet future demands of the citizens. PB Member Morriss stated the elimination of the restaurant would address concerns raised; said Selby Gardens is a private organization and the Planning Board needed to Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 20 respect their privacy; and noted if the applications are denied the applicants will come back and the Planning Board would have to do all of this all over again. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said the Planning Board should not be defining what the Master Plan is; and noted additional proffers would be needed under the existing Future Land Use and zoning. PB Chair Normile said she would like to see the Future Land Use change but without the restaurant; said the restaurant should be put in the Zoning Text Amendment as an accessory use; and said she was not concerned about the rest of the proposals. Discussion ensued regarding other restaurants that are adjacent to neighborhoods; the scale of the proposed restaurant; the impacts on the adjacent residential; the stated goal of having a world class destination restaurant as a primary use; and whether the restaurant will be accessory to the Gardens or if the Gardens will be accessory to the restaurant. PB Member Ohlrich called the question. The motion failed 2/3 with PB Member Ohlrich, PB Member Gannon and PB Chair Normile voting no. PB Chair Normile passed the gavel and made a motion to approve Petition No. 18-PA-01 with the restaurant removed from the Future Land Use classification and included as an accessory use under the proposed MSBG zone district. PB Vice Chair Blumetti requested clarification. PB Chair Normile stated the restaurant would be smaller and would have the same hours of operation as the Gardens. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly recommended against the motion stating the Planning Board should vote on the applications before them tonight; and stated another motion was necessary. PB Chair Normile questioned if she could ask the applicants. Attorney Connolly stated only if she wanted to reopen the public hearing. PB Member Ohlrich moved to adopt a motion to find that Petition No. 18-PA-01 is not consistent with the requirements of the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and is not in the public benefit or interest, and recommend that the City Commission not approve transmittal or adoption of the petition. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. PB Chair Normile stated she did not want to throw out the entire Comprehensive Plan Amendment and thought she could make alterations versus denying the application. Discussion ensued regarding recommending approval with the recommendation the applicants revise the applications to make the restaurant an accessory use in the Zoning Text Amendment; City Commissioners consideration of each of the Planning Board Members comments; and the ability of the applicants to revise the applications before the City Commission public hearing. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 20 The motion to deny failed 2/3 with PB Member Morriss, PB vice Chair Blumetti and PB Chair Normile voting no. PB Member Morriss made a motion to recommend the City Commission transmit and adopt Petition No. 18-PA-01. PB Vice Chair Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Member Ohlrich questioned the appropriateness: of voting on the same motion twice. PB Chair Normile stated she will support the motion and recommended to the applicants consider altering the restaurant, noting a super majority of City Commissioners is required and four votes are going to be difficult to get. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Members Gannon and Ohlrich voting no. PB Vice Chair Blumetti made a motion to recommend approval of Petition No. 18-ZTA- 05. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated he felt it was the cleanest way to implement the Master Plan. PB Member Morriss noted modifications to the existing zoning would apply to all properties with that zoning. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly said the motion needed to specify the proffers are included. PB Vice Chair Blumetti amended the motion to include the revised proffers dated September 25, 2019. PB Member Morriss seconded the revised motion. Discussion ensued regarding height, the change to the minimum lot size, and including the verbal proffers that were made during the applicant's rebuttal. PB Member Ohlrich called the question. The motion passed with PB Members Gannon and Ohlrich voting no. Attorney Connolly stated staff had provided 3 motions for consideration. PB Chair Normile questioned if the proffers dated September 25th were applicable. Attorney Connolly stated that was correct if the Planning Board wanted them included and noted motion "B" would include the revised proffers. PB Vice Chair Blumetti moved to recommend approval of Petition Nos. 18-REN-02 and 19-SP-03 per Alternative Motion B, including the revised proffers dated September 25, 2019. PB. Member Morriss seconded the motion. The motion passed 3/2 with PB Members Gannon and Ohlrich voting no. Attorney Connolly stated a motion for the Street Vacation application was needed. PB Member Morriss noted Attorney Lincoln's concerns. Discussion ensued regarding the City Commission only considering the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment on October 28, 2019; when the Rezoning/Site Plan and Street Vacation applications would be heard by the City Commission; and the purpose of the Street Vacation. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting October 2, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 20 PB Vice Chair Blumetti made a motion to recommend approval of Petition No. 19-SV-02 with the six recommended conditions. PB Member Morriss seconded the motion. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Member Gannon voting no. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:11 AM. henul Steven R. Cover, Planning Director EILEEN W. NORMILE, CHAIR Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]