CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY January 9, 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 Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner Megan Lui, Transportation Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Normile called the meeting to order at 6: 00 p.m., and Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll; and read the Pledge of Contact. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes. 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 B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Rezone Application No. 17-REN-01 is a request to rezone two parcels with street addresses of 2959 Fruitville Road and 2959 Rhodes Avenue from the Residential Multiple Family-2 (RMF-2) Zone District and the Residential Single Family-2 (RSF-2) Zone District to the Commercial General District (CGD) Zone District. A veterinary office currently exists on the site as a legal nonconforming use in accordance with Ordinance 87-3042 and the applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing use. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 17-PA-03 is a request to amend the Future Land Use Classification of the subject parcels from Community Office/ Institutional to Community Commercial. (Dan Greenberg, Planner, Jim Koenig, Senior Planner) (APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 23 IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address thel Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was none. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CODE: Additions are underlined; deletions are strickew-thresgh 1. November 14, 2018 PB Member Ohlrich stated that she has electronically submitted her revisions to the minutes, on pages 23 of 43 and 29 of 43, where the condominium complex The Glen is called Glen Oaks; explained that these are two different condominium complexes. PB Member Gannon stated that p.3 3, line 7 should read: u External Insulation Finishing Systems (EIFS) eifs-systems; there have been cases where the EIFS eifs adhered to the exterior of the structure... P.7, first paragraph, line 5 should read: 1 greater than ef 5,000 sq. ft., 2. December 12, 2018 The Planning Board adopted by consensus both the revised minutes of November 14, 2018, and the minutes of December 12, 2018. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented arei informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Transportation Master Plan Colleen McGue, Chief Transportation Planner, and Megan Lui, Transportation Planner introduced themselves for the record; Chief Planner McGue stated that they will present an update to the Transportation Master Plan; stated that the name of the Master Plan is Sarasota in Motion; pointed out that staff put together Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for consulting services based on the overview that was presented to the Planning Board last May, and staff received responses from six firms; noted that the City's Committee selected the best three proposals to make an in-person presentation of their proposals, they are VHB, ADEAS-Q and Nelson Nygaard, all internationally renowned planning firms; said the proposals were impressive and the committee had a three way tie, however the committee concluded that ADEAS-Q was the best proposal; noted that ADEASOspecializesi in the technical component of transportation planning, combined with engineering and design, and the committee felt that this Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 23 combination will save a lot of time in terms of how to get the plan implemented; pointed out that ADEAS-Q has an eight year history of working with the City of Sarasota, and their project manager, Dr. Jason Collins, has a nineteen year history of working with the City and implementing the plans that he has developed; offered an overview of the scope; stated that the project objective was to develop a multimodal transportation plan that supports the expansion of transportation options throughout the city; stated that as part of this plan, they will focus on expanding transportation options for city residents and those who travel through the City; added that the plan will provide a vision for a long term multimodal transportation system, it will provide policy direction, and most importantly it will guide the implementation of transportation projects throughout the City; pointed out that there are a few steps in the process; said that the consultant will assist staff as part of the master plan development, and will also assist with communications and stakeholder engagement, including public meetings, and coming to the Planning Board throughout the process, as different phases of the plan are developed, to receive Planning Board input; added that they will be doing an existing conditions assessment, which is a more technical piece of the plan, and, as a part of that, there will be a citywide traffic network study, which is part of the City Commission's Strategic Plan; stated that they will be doing a needs analysis, and they will identify opportunities; noted that then they will write the plan, and will return to the Planning Board with an update to the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; pointed out that this process will take approximately eighteen months; stated that at the beginning they will be working with scenario development, existing conditions, and assessments, which they have already started; said that communications and engagement will be throughout the process, as each of the phases of the plan are developed, and updating the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan will happen in the end. Planner Lui stated that they will present this information to the City Commission on January 22, 2019, as a contract, SO they are presenting the Planning Board with a preview of what is going to be presented to the City Commission. PB Member Morriss stated that he loves plans, but he loves things happening more, and asked if there is a funding mechanism in place to fund the implementation of this plan. Chief Planner McGue said that the funding that has been designated for this project is BP Oil Spill Funds that were set aside for transportation years ago, SO that is the funding staff is requesting for this project; pointed out that funds are not coming out of the General Fund; and stated that the set aside funds are a little over $400,000 and need to be used within a certain time. PB Member Ohlrich asked at what point in the process they will return to the Planning Board for a discussion. Chief Planner McGue stated that they will be coming to the Planning Board regularly, but she is not sure of the timeline yet; and added that the timeline will be clear once the consultant comes aboard and the project starts moving. PB Member Ohlrich asked for which purposes would the team come to the Planning Board, other than reviewing the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 23 Chief Planner McGue stated that the team will be sharing with the Planning Board the results of the visioning process, the results of the different community engagement forums, and the draft of the plan when they start putting together the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the team will go to the CCNA during the community engagement forums. Chief Planner McGue stated that they plan to go to the CCNA, noting they will be an important partner in this process. Chief Planner McGue stated that she misunderstood PB Member Morriss' earlier question about funding, when she referred to the $400,000.00 dollars, and asked if he wanted to know how much money will be spent on projects. PB Member Morriss confirmed; and added that having a plan but no funds to make it happen is a waste of time. Chief Planner McGue stated that part of the consultant's scope is to identify financing; and added that they have some money to play with, including the penny, the multimodal impact fees, grants, federal grants, MPO, state grants, etc., but the consultant will identify creative financing. Planning Director Cover stated that one of the challenges they will give to the consultant is identifying a financing system for the Transportation Plan that is as independent as it can possibly be from state and federal funding, trying to make the City as self-sufficient as they possibly can; added that this is a big challenge, but they will explore it, because every year state and federal funds keep dropping, and they are not necessarily a reliable source; and concluded that the more the City can support itself the better it will be. PB Member Gannon referred to the document they just received from the team; noted that this was not part of the background material and the Planning Board did not have time to review it; and asked if they will go to the City Commission for approval or just for approval on selecting the company. Chief Planner McGue said that they are going to the City Commission for approval for selecting the company; confirmed PB Member Gannon's statement that the contract has already been published, and stated the scope is part of the contract. PB Member Morris asked if they are before the Planning Board this evening to receive comments on the scope. Planner Lui stated that they are here to update the Planning Board about the status of the process, as promised when they initially shared with the Planning Board their work on the Transportation Plan; and added that the scope is very similar to what they presented in May [2018], with the exception of some details, but the information is the same. PB Member Gannon referred to the Existing Conditions Assessment list, on pages 4 and 5, and asked if there is a hyperlink version of this document that links to all those other documents. Planner Lui said, "No." PB Member Gannon asked if that could be provided; and asked how the documents were provided to the consultant. Planner Lui said that they provided electronic files of the documents to the consultant, but not in a hyperlink form, and noted the documents have already been submitted to the City Commission and they cannot make any edits at this time. PB Member Gannon noted Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 23 that the background material provided to the City Commission will not bel hyperlinked to this document. Chief Planner McGue and Planner Lui agreed. Chief Planner McGue stated that these documents are available on the City's web site. PB Member Gannon said, "Good luck finding them;" added that this is an interesting, viable list of prior documents that goi into this process, and to basically keep them hidden away under the "seek and find" process of the website is disconcerted; and he asked if they can provide the hyperlinks to the Planning Board for all those documents. Chief Planner McGue stated that they will be happy to do that; and noted that they will also develop a site for this project where they can also add the links to these documents, SO that everything is in one place that everyone can find. PB Member Gannon asked what has been done with the previous transportation studies and the previous sites the City has put up; noted that he was trying to find a study done about five or six years ago, by Tindale Oliver; and asked for clarification, saying if this is the first Transportation Master Plan, what was the one that was done five years ago. Chief Planner McGue said that was the update to the Multimodal Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and noted that was not ultimately adopted. Planner Lui agreed with PB Member Gannon that there was another site; added that the site should no longer be available, because that information is no longer current or up to date; and pointed out that the new site for this project, Sarasota in Motion, would transfer that information over. PB Member Gannon asked if any goals from the previous plan were used or is it all thrown away. Chief Planner McGue stated that all is not thrown away, and that they are borrowing heavily from the work that was previously done, they are: not starting this plan from scratch. PBI Member Gannon asked if those plans were just Transportation Plans and not Transportation Master Plans. Planner Lui explained that they were smaller in focus, the area they addressed was not citywide, and this is a citywide plan. PB. Member Gannon pointed out that the previous Tindale Oliver plan was a citywide plan and addressed all the future transportation things that could be thought of four or five years ago. PB Member Morriss asked what PB Member Gannon was thinking. PB Member Gannon responded "continuity," and added that the City has new staff, iti is greattohave: fresh new ideas, but if we are asking taxpayers to spend money for a consultant redoing stuff, that obviously needs to be relooked at; and stated that he was just wondering if the continuity from a planning standpoint was lost. Planning Director Cover stated that staff will take under consideration all previous plans as part of this work effort, but staff's goal for this plan is to come up with something that is implementable and will actually happen; and pointed out that this is the key focus point at this time. PB Member Gannon stated that he hears people saying that the City's planning in other areas is discrete and not continuous, and that things get lost in the process; suggested that staff communicate that this is the new plan, it is built on the previous plans, and if citizens are: interested, this is where they can find the previous plans; added that this is one way to keep people informed that we are continuing to build on that previous work, and that we are not hiring someone to start Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 23 from scratch and do brand new work here. Planner Lui stated that this point is well taken, and thanked PB Member Gannon. PB Member Gannon asked if the scope is focused on micro-transit and everything else but walking; and added that he was looking to see if, from a scoping standpoint, the focus was on wheels instead of feet. Planner Lui explained that walking will be a component of the plan, noting the focus is multi-modal, and includes all means of transportation including walking. Chief Planner McGue referred to the list in the "Needs Analysis, Opportumities and Best Practices" section of the document, and noted that this is not a comprehensive list; pointed out that the document refers to "complete streets," meaning that they serve the needs of all the users, and walking is a component of"complete streets. PB Member Gannon noted that street trees are components of "complete streets," and asked how street trees are addressed, what plan should be expected to come out of this effort, and if another department will address street trees. Planning Director Cover stated that it is part of staff's "complete street" analysis; and added that "complete streets" means every component of the street is addressed, including pedestrians, landscaping, buffer, and parking. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that there was a three-way tie between three engineering firms and asked what set this firm apart, was it their creativity, their ability to make this an implementable plan. Planner McGue stated that this firm ADEAS-Qhas worked in the City in the past; added that Dr. Jason Collins' presentation was particularly creative, in thathe treated it as if they were presenting to the City Commission the draft plan; noted that she was not on the committee but Planning Director Cover and Planner Lui were; added that the presentation coupled with his experience on developing an implementable plan (he worked on the Bayfront Connectivity Plan which is currently being implemented), that is what set them apart. Planning Director Cover stated that each of the finalists had their project manager presenting, and the committee was looking at the project managers and tried to determine who would best communicate with the community, the Planning Board, and the City Commission, and the committee felt he was the strongest of the three. PB Member Ohlrich agreed with PB Member Gannon that greater ease of access to the documents listed on pages 4 and 5 would be very helpful; and asked about the best way to contact the transportation planners, should they have questions after this meeting, when they read through this document. Chief Planner McGue stated that her contact information was up on the screen at the end of her presentation; and added that the best way to communicate with her would be electronically. PB Chair Normile asked if the transportation planners were working with the information that is raised by the Barrier Island Transportation Study. Chief Planner McGue said that the timing is perfect, they are gearing up for Phase III, she is one of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page! 7 of 23 the participants on the Technical Committee, and a lot of the data that they are gathering right now is used by the transportation planners. PB Chair Normile asked when they expect to be done. Chief Planner McGue said that the Barrier Island Transportation Study is a little behind, because they had some issues with redrafting the scope for the consultant; noted that there are three phases, they are in Phase III, and their goal is to be done by the spring. PB Chair Normile asked if the transportation planners will use the numbers from the Barrier Island Transportation Study, pointed out that their method of collecting data is not as reliable as other methods, and suggested this be taken into consideration when using their numbers; and asked if the team will be working with the MPO, and asked how the MPO will assist in this project. Chief Planner McGue said that the timing is good for working with the MPO as well, since they are ready to start their long-range planning process; noted that they are also collecting a lot of data as part of their process, and the transportation planners will be able to use some of the MPO data as well; added that a lot of the traffic that comes through the City is regional traffic, it is not traffic within the City, that creates impacts on the City, therefore the team has to take into consideration what is happening in the surrounding communities, and they are working closely with the MPO; pointed out that the MPO knows what the City is doing; and stated that she is sitting on some of MPOs technical committees. PB Chair Normile asked Planning Director Cover when the next Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Transportation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan is due. Planning Director Cover stated that he did not know when it is due, however, when this project is completed, staff will amend the Comprehensive Plan, it will have to be approved by the City, and it will be sent to the State as well; added that in terms of good timing, SCATi is also re-evaluating their system, the timing with them is also very good, and the team will be working closely with SCAT, as well. PB Chair Normile commented that SCAT seems to be cutting down on their buses. Chief Planner McGue agreed; pointed out that buses have to be part of this transportation plan in order to serve the needs of the City, and staff is coordinating with SCAT and meeting with their staff regularly. PB Chair Normile referred to the pedestrian portion of the plan and asked the transportation planners if they are looking at pedestrian overpasses. Chief Planner McGue said that they will be looking at everything pedestrian. PB Chair Normile said that it would be really good if the Planning Board can get documents with the background information ahead of time; added that this document is nicely done; and concluded that the Planning Board has a lot of questions, soi it would be helpful to have the documents ahead of time. PB Member Gannon, following up on the earlier question about the Comprehensive plan, noted that significant work was done on the Transportation Chapter, there were three meetings on it and one or two of the other chapters, but it was not approved when it was presented to the City Commission, even though it was approved by the Planning Board, it was shut down, and subsequently a revised Transportation Chapter, that had only the required sections was prepared; noted that everything about multimodal Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 23 transportation was taken out and it is not in the Comprehensive Plan; and asked if the Planning Department plans to bring it back this year. Chief Planner McGue stated that it will be part of the Transportation Chapter this team will be doing; pointed out that the work was not lost, this team has all that information, and this team will make sure to incorporate in the Transportation Chapter what is still relevant and what the community desires. PB Member Gannon asked when the process will be concluded. Chief Planner McGue said in approximately eighteen months. PB Member Gannon noted it will be in 2020; and stated that none of the previous things that were proposed for the Comprehensive Plan are put forward. PB Member Morriss asked the transportation planners what was weak in the previous documents that they are trying to fix in this one. Planner Lui stated that they have reviewed a lot of documents, have identified what has been implemented and what has not yet beeni implemented, and what needs to beincorporated in the Transportation Master Plan. PB Member Morriss said that if the transportation planners had identified weak spots, it would inform the Planning Board about where to direct their focus and attention on the new plan; and added that based on what was said, he thinks implementation is an issue. Chief Planner McGue stated that in order to have an implementable plan, the financing has to be in line, and coming from the MPO, where all the plans were implementable is a requirement; there was a certain amount of money to work with, projects were selected and prioritized, they were put in the years where funding is available, and that is the plan; hopefully that is the direction this team will be taking this as well. PBI Member Morriss stated that ADEAS-Qis the strongest in creating an implementable plan at the end of the day. Chief Planner McGue agreed, and stated that the Bayfront Connectivity Plan is what stands out in her mind, that is all the roundabouts that the City is building now on US 41, they were planned as part of that process; stated the consulting firm helped the City convince the State that this was a good idea, when the State was not thinking about roundabouts, or multi-modal improvements to a State highway, and she thinks they are a good firm to bring the City where it needs to go. PB Vice Chair Blumetti noted that something that has come up before the Planning Board several times is the lack of a comprehensive sidewalk plan, and he knows thatit will be included in this study; and asked if there is something that can be done before eighteen months. Planner Lui noted that the City has a citywide connectivity plan, which is available on line, and identifies the location of existing and proposed sidewalks; added that it will be reviewed as part of this project, and the team will look where there are gaps that they may need to fill; and added that she just completed a walk through Phase I, the City is out there now installing these sidewalks, SO the implementation will not have to wait for eighteen months. Planning Director Cover added that he wanted everybody to realize that staff is not going to sit back and do nothing until mid-2020; added that with a consultant, they will be working on a water taxi this year, and they are interviewing bike sharing vendors Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 23 this coming Friday (1/11/2019), and hopefully a vendor will be selected to move forward with bike sharing; pointed out that these are only a couple of the things that staff knows are needed in the City, SO they are moving forward with them, they will not wait for a year-an-a-half; and stated that there will be things going on as staff is doing this project. PB Member Morriss stated that there is a lot of backup information, but it is hard to find, and asked if there is one source where one can hit one link to get to the backup information. Chief Planner McGue stated that they can provide that to the Planning Board; and noted that the team has collected all the sources as part of their work. PB Member Morriss asked if it will be available on the website for this project, and when the web site will be completed. Chief Planner McGue said that there is a Planning page on the City's website now, and maybe thatis where these document links can live, until the Sarasota in Motion website is up and running, since clearly there is a desire to access these documents in one place. PB Member Gannon suggested that the document transportation planners gave to the Planning Board this evening be available on line, under the Planning Department with URLs for all those other documents, noting that would be an ideal way to find them; and said that there is no reference to a sidewalk plan on the list on pages 4 and 5. Planner Lui said that the sidewalk plan is actually on the City's GIS site, but they can add the link to the sidewalk plan; and stated it is a map of the existing and planned sidewalks. PB Member Gannon stated that it is fantastic to get this moving, the Sarasota in Motion, and sO forth; added that one of the key questions that comes up, and has to be handled separately from the contract for the plan, is how the City keeps people informed, at least on an annual basis, about what is happening that impacts residents, especially the residents in the downtown area, where a lot of the building is occurring, and a lot of this walkability transportation thing is happening; asked if there is a way to provide an update indicating the things that are in the works that are going to happen in 2019, and when they are going to happen, for example in May they will start on this road, and it is going to impact these neighborhoods; and asked if something like that could be available, SO that neighborhoods can let the people know what is happening and when. Planning Director Cover stated that they will have to coordinate with other Departments to do that; added that there is the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), which is not Planning is in Public Works; explained that the CIPi is approved each year, and maybe Planning can coordinate with them; added that the Economic Development Office prepares a quarterly report with all the projects in process, it is an excellent document, it is a complete inventory of everything that is happening; and concluded that they can try to combine the two pieces and make it available to the community. PB Member Gannon stated that the biggest question is when they are tearing up the road for this roundabout or that roundabout, but there is a whole series of other things, like Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 23 if they are going to be redoing a section of a sidewalk, it would be helpful for the residents to know what is happening. Discussion ensued about weekly reports published by other departments. PB Member Gannon stated that weekly reports tell you what is happening next week, and plans tell you what is happening in years, but something that tells you what is happening in the next few months would be useful; and added that it would be interesting if there were a report from the residents who are impacted by what the City does. 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 Gannon stated that when reading the Minutes of the November 14, 2018 meeting he came across statements that appeared to him as commitments of things to happen, and he asked how these are tracked; referred to p. 5, the presentation by Mr. Litchet, Mr. Murphy, and Ms. DavisShaw, the discussion was about construction and midway down on page 5, Mr. Murphy stated that "staff can look into increased protections," - something he would personally explore; asked if anything is being done by the Building Officials' office to look into increased protections; referred to p. 8 of the minutes, where there is a statement about staff looking into sidewalk closures; and asked if staff is doing that. PB Member Morriss stated that this [the Transportation Master Plan] is comprehensively going to address all of these questions, and they need to focus on this, because it has a comprehensive approach instead of piecemealing" it, which has been the problem all along. 1. Study of Current Code Enforcement Practices PB Chair Normile discussed again what she brought up at the last meeting, which was the potential for the Planning Board to assist the City in code enforcement difficulties and/or procedures; stated that all PB Members have been approached by the audience at the Planning Board meetings, and she was approached by the Police Department, about difficulties regarding code enforcement; explained that the idea is that the Planning Board members actually assist the City, do some research, talk to people and create one document dealing with all the issues, putting all of them in one place, and then let the City Commission decide what to do with the document; asked if the Planning Board members can discuss this idea by themselves; referred to the code enforcement study outline, a draft that was sent out this morning, to stimulate conversation; asked the Planning Board members to share their thoughts, first about whether or not they wish to deal with an issue like this, and secondly, if they wish to go that way, their thoughts on what could be covered. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she, too, wondered if the Planning Board could make a study happen, either PB members can do it themselves or can make it happen; noted that she went to the City's website and looked at the summary of the Planning Board, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 23 under the City Auditor and Clerk, where the listing of Advisory Boards is, and she read one of the sentences in that summary that comforted her, and led her to believe that the Planning Board can do a study or make a study happen; and noted it said: They [meaning the Planning Board] conduct public hearings in order to gather information necessary to conduct business and make informed decisions relative to development; and are authorized to cause to be made any special studies necessary for determining compliance. PB Member Ohlrich asked why the police were interested in code compliance, and the reason became clear to her when she read an article in the Wall Street Journal, on December 29, 2018, entitled "The Idea that Made American Cities Safer, H and it is about a philosophy of policing called the "broken windows" policing philosophy; explained that basically what it says is, if a window is left broken in a building, soon the other windows in that building will be broken, and the windows in the building next-door, and the same happens with crime; stated that if the Planning Board were to focus on compliance with the Zoning Code, she sees why the police would be interested in that; pointed out that they have much easier access, and frequency of access to view potential violations of the Zoning Code; and added that she sent that article electronically to Ms. Grassett, and she has it available for the Planning Board. PB Chair Normile asked if she could direct the conversationhersel: and said she would like to know if the Planning Board members want to move forward with a study. PB Member Morriss moved that such a study needs to be done; stated that first the Planning Board needs to get that established, and after that, establish who does the study. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. PB Chair Normile asked the Attorney to comment. Attorney Connolly stated that, with all due respect, what was on the website does not give the Planning Board any authority, and he expressed concerns about the legal authority the Planning Board would have; added that the Planning Board's authority comes from the Zoning Code, in Section III-201, Powers and Duties, and read the following: The Planning Board shall have the following powers and duties: A. To initiate, review and recommend amendments to the Sarasota City Plan to the City Commission. B. To perform the functions, duties, powers and responsibilities ofa local planning agency as set forth in Florida Statutes Chapter 163, and to determine whether specific proposed developments conform to the principles and requirements of the Sarasota City Plan. C. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for major conditional uses, development agreements, Development of Regional Impact (DRI) development orders, street and right-of-way vacations, subdivision plats, "G" zone waivers, site plans in G zone districts, site plans for properties wuithin the Downtown Residential Overlay District filed pursuant to Section VI-906(D) and rezonings. D. To approve, with or without conditions, or deny applications for minor conditional uses. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 23 E. To approve, with or wuithout conditions, or deny applications for site plan approval, except as provided in Article IV-Division 19 of this Zoning Code and except for property, wohich is in the G District. F. To hear and decide appeals pertaining to denials ofa applications for temporary commercial activity permits. G. To initiate, review, and recommend proposed amendments to the text of these Land Development Regulations and the Zoning District Map (rezonings). H. To take testimony under oath. I. To review and determine wuhether the design and layout of specific proposed developments depicted on site plans processed separately, site plans proffered or processed simultaneously with rezonings, and site plans processed with major or minor conditional uses meet the purpose and intent of Article VI, Division 3.1 of the Zoning Code pertaining to tree protection and article IV, section 506 oft the zoning code pertaining to standards ofreview ofsite plans. J. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on proposed tree protection agreements in accordance with Sec. VII-314, B, oft the Zoning Code. K. To hear and decide appeals ofany written order, decision, determination, or interpretation of the Director ofl Neighborhood and Development Services pertaining to the Downtown Zone Districts. L. To hear and decide appeals from a decision of the Director oNeighborhood and Development Services pertaining to adjustments of certain development standards applicable within the Downtown Zone Districts. M. Such additional powers and duties as may be set forth in this Chapter or prescribed by State law. Attorney Connolly concluded that he finds nothing that gives the Planning Board authority to undertake a study regarding code compliance. PB Member Morriss asked if the Planning Board can request authority to do this; asked why the Planning Board is not fighting to do this, when it is something that PB Members hear in the meetings all the time, why not try to find a way to answer the question. Attorney Connolly responded that the Planning Board can ask the City Commission. PB Chair Normile referred to the Sarasota Municipal Code, and read the following, starting at Section 25.2: "It is the intent oft the City Commission in adopting the current Sarasota City Plan to preserve, promote and protect the public safety and welfare. PB Chair Normile referred to Section 25.4, and read the following: The Planning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency shall monitor and oversee the effectiveness and status ofthe current Sarasota City Plan and shall recommend such amendments to the Sarasota City Plan, as may be required. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 23 Attorney Connolly stated that code compliance is not regulated by the Sarasota City Plan; and explained that the Planning Board is looking into regulating conduct, that is what Code Enforcement does, it regulates conduct, but the Zoning Code regulates land uses. PB Chair Normile stated that the Planning Board is not looking into regulating conduct, they are looking to do a study about the effective way to have coordinated code compliance, to be more effective; added that they are not recommending to have anything to do with people's conduct, they are talking about doing a background study; continued by referring to the next section of the Sarasota Municipal Code, which talks about the Comprehensive Plan; she stated that she still argues that the Planning Board shall monitor and oversee the efectiveness of the Sarasota City Plan; noted that under the actual comprehensive plan itself, in the Neighborhood Plan Section, code compliance alternatives is part of that, and read: ..the city will explore the feasibility and interest in initiating a neighborhood maintenance program, etc... : said that code compliance alternatives is part of that; stated that the Municipal Code says that the Planning Board can oversee and assess the effectiveness of the City Plan, and argued that would be part of the City Plan; added that the back up document for the neighborhood document, on the very last page talks about actual code compliance itself, owners, deteriorated housing, and the second highlighted paragraph says that the City's code compliance program and Nuisance Abetment Board currently address this issue, and it tells you what the Code Compliance Department actually does, the program addresses properties on a complaint basis, etc.; added that these are all parts of the Sarasota Municipal Plan; and stated that if the Planning Board has the ability to monitor the effectiveness of the City Plan, then this would be within the purview of the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly said he would disagree; added that he went through the thirteen specifically authorized authorities for the Planning Board; and agreed with PB Chair Normile, that they agree to disagree. Discussion ensued, and the Planning Board returned to the motion on the floor. PB Vice Chair Blumetti commented on the article mentioned earlier by PB Member Ohlrich, and noted that the broken window theory is for poverty-stricken neighborhoods, it says that if a window is broken and you fix it, it most likely that other broken windows will be fixed; stated that he did not think it applies to this particular area, but he appreciated the parallel; added that he is concerned about the scope of the study; pointed out that there is a lot coming before the Planning Board this year, and asked how much additional time, and what exactly is this going to entail, is it one page, is it3 30 pages, what kind of study are they talking about. PB Member Morriss stated that he gets the sense that it is an immense task, however the first motion is to discuss whether the Planning Board wants to start it; added that how the Planning Board goes about it, and who does it is the next part of the process; noted that his focus is the North Trail; said that when you have a rat's nest you attract Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 23 rats even in a nice neighborhood; stated that they have a lot of problems up there, and Code enforcement has been.. ; noted that he was at his neighborhood meeting, and people were complaining about things that have not happened up there; pointed out that obviously this is an important thing, somebody needs to do something, and if PB Chair Normile wants this group to at least recommend that, then the Planning Board should; stated that this is his position; said this is important stuff, and the Planning Board hears it; pointed out that in almost every other meeting somebody says that they do not trust that the Code will be enforced if the Planning Board allows this to happen; pointed out that this is a big deal; added that the Planning Board, to be able to comfortably approve something, relies on code enforcement; that is the fundamental question, and that is where this [the idea for the studyl came from, can the Planning Board comfortably rely that something is going to happen, and things will be enforced if the Planning Board mandates it; and said that is the reason he made his motion. PB Member Gannon asked about the scope of the study; asked if they are talking about the outline PB Chair Normile distributed to the Planning Board members, and if they should go over it. PB Chair Normile said that those are just her thoughts, and the scope of the study will be decided by the Planning Board members once they decide ift they want to do the study, the motion does not specify what the scope: is. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon spoke on the issue of authority; stated that the Planning Board has oversight on land development, and as part of that is the staging plan process for that development; added that going back to the November 14, 2018 meeting, the statement from Mr. Litchet had to do with the fact that the staging plan had to be approved prior to the issuance of the building permit, but if the contractor is not following the staging plan, staff can use code compliance; added to the extent that code compliance forces the developers to follow staging plans and to follow what else is in the Zoning Code, het thinks, itis clear enough to the Planning Board, tol have input on whether code enforcement is effective, and if not, have input on what changes should be made to make code enforcement more effective. PB Chair Normile referred to #2 in the outline, and stated that these are things on the top of her head that she remembers from Planning Board meetings, where code enforcement has an effect or intersects with City Planning Board decisions, Major and Minor Conditional Uses, set back requirements; explained that when the Planning Board approves setback requirements and does not know what the safety issues are, they have learned, that there are tremendous difficulties, and that there are things the Planning Board can actually talk about safety considerations, in her estimation; continued reading the list, referred to construction issues, and mentioned the DeMarcay, where they were talking about different types of construction, and the Planning Board made the decision as to whether on not it was post tension construction or poured in place, that is something that involves code enforcement; continued reading the list, referred to roadway and sidewalk closures, and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 23 construction issues that come before the Planning Board; asked what safety procedures should be put in effect for lifting pre-fab pieces of concrete up, and closing roads, etc., that the Planning Board can take into consideration, when the Planning Board is looking at a project in a specific place, in a very tight location, where they will be lifting up slabs of concrete; stated that it is fair to ask what are the safety considerations; and said that those are a few examples of things that have come up before the Planning Board. PB Member Morriss stated that it always terrifies him when attorneys disagree on something, but in this case, we have a document that gives the authority, but then you have another document that says the Planning Board has another level of authority; asked should the Planning Board disregard that entirely, would that be appropriate to disregard that entirely; stated that what he is looking for is a path to get this resolved; added that he does not care if the Planning Board did it, he prefers that they did not, because it is an awful lot of work, but he would like to see that somebody takes a universal look, whether it is this outline or a modified one, to make sure that when someone comes up to the Planning Board and says "I do not believe this is going to get enforced," the Planning Board can say "Yes, it will be, we. have a group that said SO, and we believe them;" asked how the Planning Board could navigate this; and noted that these are two different types of documents with different ranges of authority that, theoretically, are in conflict. Attorney Connolly referred to the question: "Who can fix this?" and said that, in his opinion, itis the City Commission; stated that this discussion is appropriate at the City Commission level, not the Planning Board level; referred to the other question about the conflicts, and said that there is the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; said that he always presents the following analogy to people who are not used to the Comprehensive Plan: the Comprehensive Plan is akin to the Constitution and the Zoning Code is akin to the statutes; added that the Constitution sets forth the framework, the limitation of powers, but the actual authority is granted through the statutes, and here the statutes are in Section III-201, which is the reason he read it earlier; and concluded that, in his opinion, the Planning Board does not have that authority. PB Member Morriss stated that in this case the City Commission would be the Supreme Court. Attorney Connolly agreed. PB Chair Normile stated that she thinks it is rather nice to have authority over the Constitution. Attorney Connolly pointed out that the Constitution is limitations of authority, it does not grant authority, the Constitution limits authority, with the exception of Eminent Domain. PB Chair Normile stated the it limits authority, but it specifically states this authority which is "to monitor and oversee the efectiveness and status of the current Sarasota City Plan, SO it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Attorney Connolly stated that the way it: is implemented is through Section III-201; added that, in his opinion, what PB Chair Normile is reading is not sell-implementing. and that is the distinction. PB Chair Normile asked if they are contradictory, which one controls. Attorney Connolly stated Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 23 that he is not sure they are contradictory, but if they are, the Constitution controls. PB Chair Normile said that no matter what is decided this evening, it has to go the City Commission. Attorney Connolly agreed. PB Member Ohlrich requested that PB Member Morriss repeat his motion. PB Member Morriss stated that the concept is that the Planning Board recognizes that there is an issue with code enforcement and they want some action to be taken, and the action will be the second motion after this one; said it is a simple motion, that the Planning Board recognizes that action needs to be taken. PB Member Ohlrich seconded it. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to the first motion. PB Chair Normile said that now they will talk about scope; added that there are people who do not have time to do a lot of work, and they do not have to. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that it would do this Board a misjustice if he were to say that he had ample amount of time to prepare a long document; added that the commitment to this Board and reading all the projects that come before them is already a time-consuming endeavor, sO any extracurricular projects need to be reasonable in scope. PB Chair Normile agreed and added that if different circumstances make it difficult for people to participate outside of the Planning Board meetings, they can certainly participate by reading it, and approving it, and adding questions, that would certainly be sufficient. PB Member Morriss asked Attorney Connolly about the phrasing the Planning Board can use, to basically bring this to City Commission's attention and make sure that something is done, regardless if the Planning Board does it, or someone else does it; noted the third motion would be the scope, and asked about the way to phrase it and make it happen. Attorney Connolly said that this is a question only the City Commissioners can answer; added that he does not know how the Planning Board is going to report it to the City Commission; noted that the Planning Board serves as an advisory board to the City Commission, and, as he pointed out, his opinion is based on Section III-201, but if the City Commission wants to specifically authorize the Planning Board to do that, then the Planning Board clearly has that authority to do what ever the City Commission will authorize them to do. PB Member Morriss said that this is probably a ponderous thing for the Planning Board to be taking on, and if the City Commission authorizes the Planning Board to do it, they can authorize the Planning Board tapping into City staff or other resources to do it. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 23 Attorney Connolly stated that the Planning Board clearly needs City Commission authority for that, and: iti is a good point to bring up, because what each Planning Board member does individually, doing their own research, or their thesis, that is fine, but anytime that they get together as a Planning Board, there is staff implication, because, there has to be notice of that in advance, it has to be done in a place open to the public, and there have to be minutes; added that if the Planning Board were to act in any propositions, they must have input from the public, or at least offer to have input to the public before they act on that proposition; explained that it is one thing if individual citizens want to take on a project like this, but if it boarders the City undertakes it, it has to comply with the Sunshine Law and Public Records laws issues. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that this means that if the Planning Board had a Special Meeting, they would need all this infrastructure. Attorney Connolly agreed and suggested that PB: members keep in mind that if they undertake this project as a Board, they cannot have any communication between themselves on this project, other than at the PB meetings. PB Chair Normile said that she knows that; added that the Police panel produced a seventy page report; said that this is not that ponderous or hard; noted that the questions on the list can be answered in a page, perhaps not the procedures, because for that one, they would need to talk with City staff to understand how it works; said that it is really a matter of a couple of days of interviews with people to put all the information in one place; and said she is willing to do ninety percent ofit. Attorney Connolly noted that this brings another question, he presumes these are interviews with staff, and questioned if the City Commission would authorize staff's time. PB Chair Normile stated that it was: never her intention to move forward without talking to the City Commission, put it on their agenda sO they can discuss it, because that is just how things work. Planning Director Cover stated that he supports what Attorney Connolly says; asked if the Planning Board really wants to go down this path; pointed out that they tie their request to the City's Plan, and within the City's Plan, you have highlighted various pieces; asked if they want to open the door to people coming to the Planning Board saying that they want to run rental inspection programs by the Planning Board, or landlord contact registration programs, or nuisance abatement issues with prostitution and drugs; noted that in the Comprehensive Plan they deal with Public Works, Utilities, the Police Department, the School Board, and asked if the Planning Board wants all those issues coming before them; pointed out that when Attorney Connolly read through those thirteen items, they very clearly define what the Planning Board should do, however, if the Planning Board goes down the path that was suggested, they open themselves up to all sorts of other issues that he does not think the Planning Board wants to be dealing with. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 23 PB Chair Normile stated that one of the primary purposes of the Planning Board is to initiate review and recommend proposed amendments to the land development regulations and help write the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Connolly stated that Code Compliance is in Chapter II of the City Code, not the Zoning Code. PB Member Morriss stated that it was not the intent that this thing brings all these other types of authority to the Planning Board. Planning Director Cover stated that he recognizes that, however, by going down that path... Attorney Connolly stated that Planning Director Cover's point is that this might be an unintended consequence. PB Member Ohlrich stated that the Planning Board does not know the outcome of the study yet, sO the outcome might direct those departments to someone else, not to the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated that this is the reason he said earlier that this is a City Commission discussion, because if the outcome is relevant to Public Works, that is not the Planning Boards bailiwick, but it is in the City Commission's bailiwick. PB Member Ohlrich suggested that the next motion could be to request the City Commission support a survey or a study of code enforcement, based on the outline the Planning Board will provide. PB Member Morriss asked Attorney Connolly: if that is appropriate. Attorney Connolly repeated that in his opinion this is beyond their authority, based on Section III-201. PB Member Gannon stated that in order for the Planning Board to proceed using any substantive resources, it would take City Commission approval; said the Planning Board would have to present it to the City Commission; suggested the Planning Board needed to take the outline and this information, and come back to have another discussion at the next month's meeting, and, from that, come up with a one page rationale of why the Planning Board is making this request to the City Commission; suggested that the rationale mention that in the Planning Board's experience in assessing the effectiveness of the City Plan, as is their job, issues have arisen that are part of code compliance, here is a summary of the things that are not effective and need to be studied, and these things impact our decision making; pointed out that the Planning Board can only really comment on those aspects of code compliance that relate to various aspects, such as staging plans, is their enforcement done appropriately or is it effective; and said that the Planning Board can start by giving the City Commission the rationale of why the Planning Board is bringing it up, maybe an one or two-pager with the background for the request. PB Member Ohlrich stated that it would be a good idea to begin with the rationale. PB Vice Chair Blumetti stated that for him right now the scope is too broad; noting staging plans are good example, but the phrase "code compliance" is too broad; suggested that they be more specific and focus on what exactly the issues are, for Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 23 example, is it some of the proffers that have been in some of the approvals that the Planning Board had given... PB Member Gannon referred to #2 in the outline which lists issues relating to Major Conditional Uses, setbacks, and construction issues, and pointed out that these are issues that have come up in Planning Board meetings. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that other issues have come up, such as someone leaving their garage door open past midnight. PB Member Gannon noted that that was part of a Conditional Use; added that part of what the Planning Board discussed is that one thing that makes things more effective is if citizens know how to file complaints, which web page to go to, and how they would know to do that; and said that all the Planning Board wants to do is to lay out the rationale because it has affected things in the Planning Board's decision process. PB Chair Normile stated that it should be clear this is not for electrical code: inspections or plumbing code inspections, but rather quality of life or safety issues. PB Member Morriss said that his concern is that one of the things he has seen happen is piecemealing things creates gaps and things fall through; said the Planning Board's connection to this is the rationale that will be provided probably at the next meeting, but he thinks there needs to be a comprehensive process looking at code enforcement as a whole; said that this is something that needs your attention City Commission, and let's do it completely, and not just a little bit; and added that his ears were burning after his neighborhood meeting about compliance issues on the North Trail. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked if the issues are related to the Planning Board, and requested PB Member Morriss to elaborate on that. PB Member Morriss stated that some of the hotels have been there for over twenty years, they are derelict, roofs are falling in, people still living in them, there are ratr nests, they are still standing, and the neighbors are asking why this is allowed. PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked what Code is being violated. PB Member Morriss said these are violations of many codes, they have nothing to do with the Planning Board, but as a process, code enforcement has to be addressed comprehensively. Planning Director Cover stated that those issues have nothing to do with Zoning. PB Chair Normile stated that one of the reasons it came up, is that it has to do with the Police Department, and the Police Department is interested in assisting, sO if the Planning Board can do something to coordinate between City departments or other outside areas; she added that the Planning Board is talking about free labor, they are willing to talk to the police, talk to. Mr. Litchet's S department, talk to anyone who would talk to them, see how it is done, and sit back and see if there is some coordination recommendations they could make, and then: it is up to the City Commission to decide what to do with it. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 23 Planning Director Cover stated that it is only fair to conduct interviews and interact with all the people who are involved in code enforcement before you go forward. PB Chair Normile agreed; and said that they would bei the: most crucial part ofe everything. PB Member Morriss asked what the next step is, and what the Planning Board should ask from the City Commission. PB Member Gannon suggested to continue this topic to the next Planning Board meeting, giving the Planning Board members a chance to review and comment on this list, then they can provide edits to the staff, who will compile them and redistribute them as background material for the next meeting; added that the focus would be the scope and the rationale of why the Planning Board is making a recommendation to the City Commission; pointed out that Section #2 on the list is the Planning Board issues; stated that if the City Commission decides that it needs to study code enforcement in a broader sense, that is their decision; added that one of his concerns is that they just heard about the two year transportation planning effort and any code changes from that effort are two years out; said that he is not sure that the Planning Board would want changes to issues that they see now to happen after two years or more; explained that you want to do a study, but if you want to do a comprehensive study figure out how we can do these things first, and see. if staff can implement some of these things that do not require Comprehensive Plan changes. PB Member Morriss asked if this should be a Planning Board agenda item, to bring some people from these other departments to talk about what they are up to, maybe it is as straight forward as they do not have enough staff; added that the motion was that the Planning Board has identified it as an issue, and the next step is what does the Planning Board do about it. PB Member Gannon suggested to continue it to next month; and asked if this should be an agenda item VS. another layer of Planning Board member discussion. PB Chair Normile said that the next step before asking people questions is to go to the City Commission, noting she thinks the Planning Board needs approval from the City Commission first before staff can actually participate. PB Member Ohlrich said she agreed. PB Member Gannon said that the Planning Board needs to have what they will present to the City Commission and they do not have that this evening. PB Member Ohlrich said that PB Member Morriss' suggestion should be part of the study. PB Member Gannon agreed and added that there will be workshops and community outreach to receive comments. PB Member Ohlrich also agreed with bringing this back to the next meeting, allowing the Planning Board members to think about this a little more, and write up some of the components of the rationale, or PB Chair Normile can write it and distribute it to the Planning Board members before the next PB: meeting. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 23 PB Member Gannon suggested that PB Chair Normile prepare the rationale that should be presented to the City Commission, and then at the next meeting, Planning Board members can review it to make sure it is complete and presents what triggered this, what drove this, and what iti is the Planning Board wants the City Commission to do. Attorney Connolly stated that at the beginning of the agenda for the City Commission meetings there is a part for Board Reports; suggested that, once the Planning Board has a very specific motion, they should consider asking the Clerk's office to schedule on an upcoming City Commission meeting for a Board Report from the Planning Board, where PB Chair Normile would appear before the City Commission on behalf of the Planning Board, bringing the specific action of the Planning Board to the City Commission, and have that give-and-take" with the City Commissioners; and said the Planning Board members will have to first come to consensus of what PB Chair Normile would represent. PB Chair Normile said that was a good plan. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said that he feels the Planning Board needs to polish the list, not that there is anything wrong with this particular outline, but he does not know for example about code enforcement case. history for the Vue and Westin; and asked what exactly, if anything, they are violating in the codes right now. PB Chair Normile said that would be part of the research. Planning Director Cover said that if the Planning Board does this and takes it to the City Commission, and a Commissioner asks PB Chair Normile if she has talked with staff, or the Police Department, and she says, "No, not really but these are our recommendations" in his opinion, that would not go over well. PB Chair Normile said that she does not think she can take staff's time without City Commission authorization, she thinks she will be basically asking the City Commission for permission to do that. PB Member Morriss stated that at the moment the Planning Board is dealing with a big question mark, because they get comments from the public, but they do not know if the complaints are valid or the public is just whining; added that if the Planning Board knows there is something there, then they can do something about it, but if the Planning Board does not even look into it, they cannot answer those questions. PBI Member Ohlrich said that she is beginning to see a big motion, the kind that begins with "Where as.. 1 "Where as.. 1 "Now therefore be it resolved.. ;" added that this is the "Now therefore be it resolved... with the City Commission authorizing a study with these components. PB Member Gannon said that they have to develop the "Where as.. put those ideas on the table, edit them, have that discussion next month, hopefully at the end of next month's s meeting there will be a final package that the Planning Board agrees to send; and then it is a matter of getting on the City Commission's schedule to do that. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 23 PB Vice Chair Blumetti asked what the PB Members need to do for next month. PB Chair Normile said to review the outline, cross things out, add things, and perhaps they can come up with something comprehensive. PB Member Gannon asked if this was sent to the Planning Board in an editable form. PB Vice Chair Blumetti said "Yes, it is in Word." PB Vice Chair Blumetti clarified that they have to refine the outline, they are not doing any research. PB Chair Normile agreed, and pointed out that the beginning is what are the codes and where they are, the study has to start with that, sO people know what codes they are talking about; added that it starts with very generalized background stuff which can be researched on line, or through the Attorney's office, and then add the questions each Planning Board member has been thinking about, or people have complained about things not being handled properly; and invited the members who have been on the Planning Board longer and have more experience, to bring their comments. PB Member Gannon said that the main thing that the Planning Board needs to decide next month is rationale and the recommendation, and then gol back; referred to Section #5 of the outline, it says code history and offers some examples that can help PB members remember things from the last few years; then they can look it up and identify what the issue was, and what date it came before the Planning Board; and stated that the Planning Board must have some of these things to build the case and the rationale for doing this study. PB Member Morriss said that the Planning Board has a motion that says that this is a nice thing; and asked if they need a motion to put it on the agenda. Attorney Connolly stated that it appears that there is consensus, each of the Planning Board members has two assignments for next month, and those are "Rationale" and "Scope." 1 PB Member Gannon said that this will be on next month's S Planning Board agenda, as Item VII. Presentation ofTopics Planning Board, and after that they can see what it takes to get on the City Commission's schedule. PB Chair Normile said that she thinks this is something useful for the City; said that you have a lot of people who have a lot of time, it is free time, they have a lot of experience and can produce something useful, sO take advantage of us. PB Member Ohlrich said that the Planning Board will end up doing a service to the City and its citizens by finding some ways to make improvements in the enforcement of the code. PB Member Morriss added that at least this will give the Planning Board authoritative answers for people when they raise these questions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 9, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 23 PB Member Ohlrich asked if the Planning Board members would like a copy of the article she mentioned at the beginning of this discussion on broken windows policing, and she will resend it to staff. PB Chair Normile said that the broken-window theory goes a long way in cities, in this city as well, it casts light to everything, it reduces crime. Attorney Connolly mentioned that on next month's Planning Board meeting agenda, on February 13, 2019, he expects the STOP request for a Zoning Text Amendment that deals with the distinction between site plans in the Downtown that are before the issuance of a building permit, and site plans that are simultaneous, to be brought forth by City Attorney Fournier. PB Member Gannon noted that this has been put into effect. Attorney Connolly agreed, and added that now they are changing the Zoning Code to be consistent with the action. PB Chair Normile noted that it was in the Zoning Code before, but it was not enforced. Attorney Connolly stated that there were differences of opinion on how to interpret it, sO now they are fixing the differences of opinion. PB Chair Normile asked the previous chairpersons and everyone else to help her out this year, sO as to not forget anything. PB Member Gannon said that she did well on her first meeting as Chairperson. Planning Director Cover stated that the Rosemary Residential Overlay District Ordinance will be presented to the Planning Board in March 2019, but because it is such a significant item, and the Planning Board willl have a heavy agenda at the regular meeting in March, staff is looking into setting up a Special Meeting just to cover this item; noted that staff was looking at scheduling the Special Meeting on Wednesday, March 6, 2019, at 6:00 PM; and added that the Regular Planning Commission Meeting will be on March 13, 2019. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:35 P.M. hhnl Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Eileen W. Normile, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]