CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Vice Chair Members Present: Members Patrick Gannon, Michael Halflants, and David Morriss Planning Board Robert Lindsay, Chair Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager/Itegration, Neighborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Stevie Freeman-Montes, Sustainability Manager John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLI MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were. no changes to the order of the day. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all who intended to speak in the public hearings, and recommended time limits for the presentations. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading oft the Pledge ofConduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct. B. Non Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. CHERRY LANE STREET VACATION: Application 16-SV-06 is a request for approval of the vacation of the unimproved 14 ft. wide segment of Cherry Lane, between Lafayette Court (also referred to as Lafayette Place) and Columbia Court. The right of way has never been improved and there are no future plans for improvement. If vacated, the owners of the abutting parcels would assume ownership subject to easements for utilities in the right of way. (COURTNEY MENDEZ, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER) Staff Presentation Courtney Mendez, Senior Planner, introduced herself for the record; stated that this application relates to a small segment of Cherry Lane located between Lafayette Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 14 Court and Columbia Court; noted that it is unimproved, with the exception of the utilities located in it; pointed out it is a substandard right-of-way that does not meet the requirements for fire access; stated that the request came from the surrounding property owners who are prepared to put the utility easements back in place for the City and private utilities that are now located there; noted that the segment of Cherry Lane located east of Lafayette Court was previously vacated; pointed out that the subject road segment does not contribute to connectivity because it is an one block unimproved right-of-way; added that the vacation does not require the rearrangement of other streets or right-of-way; and stated the right-of-way is of interest only to the adjacent property owners, who will add to their property the portion of the subject street segment that is adjacent to their property, and maintain it. PB Member Morriss asked what prompted the property owners to request the vacation. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the applicant would be better prepared to respond to that question. PB Member Gannon asked if there were discussions with the City Parks and Recreation staff for the potential use of this area as a pocket park, or a pedestrian walkway for the benefit of the public. Senior Planner Mendez stated that potential was not discussed noting the area is only 14 ft. wide. PB Member Gannon asked for clarification on the types of improvements the owners could do on the portion that connects to their property, SO as to not interfere with the utility easements. Senior Planner Mendez offered examples; stated future property owners would know about the utility easements because they run with the title of the property; and noted the City cannot request anything in exchange for vacating the right-of-way. Applicant Presentation Mr. Joel Freedman, representing the six property owners whose properties abut the subject segment of Cherry Lane, appeared and stated he does not have much to add to the staff presentation. Responding to PB Member Morriss' earlier question, Mr. Freedman stated that the vacation ofthe east segment ofCherry Lane prompted these six property owners to consider this application; added that they had concerns about who controls the area from aesthetic and safety points of view, because it is a small area and it is not well lit; and noted that ifthe abutting property owners own the subject property they will be able to maintain it while maintaining the utility providers access for maintenance. Responding to PB Member Gannon's question, Mr. Freedman stated representatives from the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association attended the Community Workshop and agreed with the proposed vacation. There was no public input. PB Vice Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss moved to find Street Vacation 16-SV-06 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to the following conditions: Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 14 1. Prior to second reading of the vacation request, the applicant shall submit verification that the required 14-foot wide easements for the City of Sarasota for purposes of maintain the existing 8" wastewater gravity main have been recorded in the Official Records of Sarasota County. Performance of this condition shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of all applicable codes and ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida and with the requirements of any department of the City which would process the permit for utility relocation. 2. Prior to second reading of the vacation request, the applicant shall submit verification that the required cumulative minimum 10-foot wide easements for Teco/Peoples Gas have been recorded in the Official Records of Sarasota County. Performance of this condition shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of all applicable codes and ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida and with the requirements of any department of the City which would process the permit for utility relocation. 3. Prior to second reading of the vacation request, the applicant shall submit verification that the required easements for Frontier Florida LLC have been recorded in the Official Records of Sarasota County. Performance of this condition shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of all applicable codes and ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida and with the requirements of any department of the City which would process the permit for utility relocation. 4. Prior to second reading of the vacation request, the applicant shall submit verification that the required easements for FPL have been recorded in the Official Records of Sarasota County. Performance of this condition shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of all applicable codes and ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida and with the requirements of any department of the City which would process the permit for utility relocation. 5. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that the subject area is too narrow for a pocket park, and he supports the adjacent property owners in their effort to better control the area. Speaking to his second, PB Member Halflants stated that he appreciates PB Member Gannon's S thoughts about the creation of a pocket park however the area is narrow, and removed from the street. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that he supports the application because it meets all review requirements. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 14 PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked for a vote. The motion for approval passes with a vote of 4 to 0. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. RINGLING SHOPPING CENTER: Rezone application 16-REN-01, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 16-PA-01 and Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 16-ZTA-03 are a request to amend the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan by amending the Future Land Use classification of the property located at 2260 Ringling Boulevard, known as the Ringling Shopping Center, from the Neighborhood Commercial and Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use classifications to Urban Edge (thus making the entire property Urban Edge), as well as rezone the property from Commercial Shopping Center - Neighborhood (CSC-N) and Residential Single Family-3 (RSF-3) to Downtown Edge (DTE) and Downtown Neighborhood Edge (DTNE) and to designate two segments of Ringling Blvd adjacent to the property as primary streets, with a 100 ft. wide break to allow for a central access drive. (COURTNEY MENDEZ, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER) Attorney Connolly briefly described the process for quasi-judicial public hearings. PB Members did not disclose any ex-parte communications. Attorney Connolly called the individuals who had applied for affected person's status. Mr. Thomas B. Peter, Old Oak Productions, having submitted written communication, received affected person's status through his representatives in the audience, Carolyn and Robert Johnson. Mr. Robert Davis did not receive affected person's status because he was not in the audience. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for presentations. PB Member Gannon requested that Attorney Connolly explain how the three applications under review relate to each other, and the impact of the City Commission approved mediation agreement upon the actions of the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated that the mediated settlement is the foundation of what is happening this evening; stated that the property had been a shopping center since 1954; noted that in 2013, the City Commission denied the site plan application for the development of a stand-alone Walmart; added that the denial was followed by litigation, where the City prevailed; a declaratory judgment action followed; eventually the property owners filed a claim under the Bert Harris Property Rights Act; noted that a mediation was conducted out of the declaratory judgement and the Bert Harris Act case; stated that the Bert Harris Act requires that the City provide a description of what land uses are permitted at the site; stated that the mediated settlement gave the property owner three options on how to develop the property; noted that the property owner's choices include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning; stated the City considered processing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the property several years ago, SO the City offered to be the applicant for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would designate the property as if it were in the downtown area, and then pursue a concurrent rezoning to the two implementing zone districts; explained the DTNE district would be requested for both the portion of the site currently zoned Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page5 of 14 RSF-3 and a 100-foot depth section along the southern property line that would also function as a buffer adjacent to the developed part; noted historically that had been open vacant property; and added that the City proposed to designate two segments of Ringling Boulevard adjacent to the subject property as Primary Streets, which requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, because both documents include the maps that show where the primary streets are located. PB Member Gannon noted that the mitigation agreement calls for the City to start the process, but the Planning Board still faces the task of making a recommendation for approval, or not, to the City Commission, regardless of what was decided at the mitigation. Attorney Connolly explained that the City cannot contract out Legislative or Quasi-judicial functions; and added that the City has agreed to pursue the applications and review them based on the review standards. PB Member Morriss asked what happens if the applications are not approved. Attorney Connolly explained that if the City fails to make these changes, the litigation is pending where the City will be the defendant, and could face liabilities. Responding to PB Vice Chair Gallagher's S question, Attorney Connolly explained that the City asked for the Primary Street designation in order to allow for smaller setbacks, maintaining consistency with the new urbanism concepts. Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated that the property is located at 2260 Ringling Boulevard, known as the Ringling Shopping Center; noted that the existing 98,000 sq. ft. shopping center is mostly vacant; pointed out that the residential area on the east side of the shopping center has always been part of the development; added that in 2012 an application for development on this property was filed, it was approved by the Planning Board, but was denied by the City Commission; pointed out that earlier Attorney Connolly provided the history of that application, which resulted in the mediated settlement agreement; and stated the mediated settlement agreement offered the property owner the following three development options: Remodeling Existing Structures or Limited Redevelopment under Existing CSC-N Zoning Redevelopment Pursuant to Existing CSC-N Zoning Continued Use or Redevelopment after Amending Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code pursuant to City's Settlement Offer Senior Planner Mendez stated that in June 2016, the property owners notified the City that they had selected the third option; noted since then staff has conducted all required pre- application meetings and public workshops in preparation for the applications presented this evening, which include a small-scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to bring the entire property into the Urban Edge Future Land Use Classification and to designate two segments of Ringling Boulevard adjacent to the subject property as primary streets; an amendment to the Zoning Code revising the Primary / Secondary Street Grid Map to reflect the designation of the two segments of Ringling Boulevard as primary streets; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 14 and rezoning of the property to the Downtown Edge (DTE) and Downtown Neighborhood Edge (DTNE) zone districts. Senior Planner Mendez explained that there is no site plan or timeline tied to the project; stated that the mitigation agreement limits the project to a combination of 175,000 sq. ft. of retail and non-residential uses, and up to 222 residential units; noted that the residential unit development is capped based on the calculation of trip generation to a density of 18-20 units per acre; added that the transportation analysis found the change deminimus based on the current transportation program, however staff is recommending a condition of approval that the property owner must conduct an additional traffic analysis at the time of the site plan review if the combination of uses changes; noted that other questions, such as pedestrian circulation, will be evaluated at due time in the process; and explained that there are three recommendations which reflect the contents of the mitigation agreement. Senior Planner Mendez stated that the zoning analysis looks at the existing CSC district, which was adopted in 1974, it represents a different thinking than today's; noted that this parcel is the last remaining enclave in the City with this zoning classification; once this is changed the CSC district could be removed from the code; explained that CSCi is a strictly commercial district and does not allow for transition of intensity of land uses between the existing residential and the non-residential uses; added that the height is three stories, which is compatible with the maximum height in residential uses; pointed out that this is the first application to the Downtown Neighborhood Edge District; stated it meets concurrency requirements; pointed out that drainage, utilities, etc. will be reviewed at the time of site plan review; and concluded that this is a unique site and unique opportunity. PB Member Halflants asked if Shopping Lane will be vacated. Senior Planner Mendez explained that Shopping Lane meets the unimproved right-of-way of Lime Avenue at the southeast corner of the intersection with Ringling Boulevard; stated that there is a cul-de-sac at that location, and there are no proposals for changes at this time; and noted that if in the future there is a proposal for change, it would require a street vacation. Discussion ensued regarding plans for the bordering streets and the process that follows. Responding to PB Member Halflants' questions, Senior Planner Mendez stated that there is desire from the surrounding neighbors to have access to the park located west of the site; noted the Lime Avenue right-of-way is not improved; stated since Shopping Lane is not a public right of way access must be granted by the railroad, because the railroad track is outside of the subject parcel; and pointed out that there is another parcel of land between the railroad track and School Avenue, which would also need to give access. Discussion ensued about when would be an appropriate time to negotiate a pedestrian connection between the residential neighborhoods and the park. PB Member Morriss asked how many square feet of commercial had been proposed for Walmart. Senior Planner Mendez stated it would be the same as the existing, 98,000 sq. ft. PB Member Gannon asked what was being amended in the Comprehensive Plan and requested information regarding the review process that follows. PB Member Morriss asked if a Walmart could be built there with the conditions of the mitigated settlement agreement. Senior Planner Mendez stated that a Walmart could be built there. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 14 PB Member Gannon asked what happens if the property owner proposes a development that generates more trips that currently vested. Senior Planner Mendez stated the property owner will be required to conduct a new traffic study. Discussion ensued relating to who participated in the negotiations for the mitigation agreement, and how the three options of the agreement evolved. PB Member Halflants noted that a Walmart could be built there SO long as there were other buildings along Ringling Boulevard, and that the mitigation agreement allows twice as much square footage of non-residential development that what is currently there. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked for clarification about the roads surrounding the property, shared density, and heights. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly suggested that Mr. Robert Lincoln, Attorney for the property owners, speak next because he may be able to respond to the specific questions of the PB Members. Mr. Robert Lincoln, Land Use Attorney and Planner representing the property owners, introduced himself for the record; stated that he was invited to assist the property owners during the settlement agreement; responded to the concerns PB Members expressed SO far; pointed out that the area abutting the parcel is zoned residential and access cannot go through it because it was never part of the site plan, or any other formal document to create access through that property; added that there is a 20 ft. wide crossing, 16 ft. paved, from this parcel to School Avenue, and it is owned by the railroad; noted there was a cross-access agreement between Publix and the railroad; added that the railroad terminated the agreement when they received notice for tonight's public hearing, stating that they do not want to make such agreements with a private party; added that the determination of access to the property would be best addressed during the site plan review process; and stated improvements to the right-of-way on Ringling Boulevard will be difficult unless the Engineering Department changes the road's current configuration which includes two left turning lanes towards Fruitville Road. Discussion ensued regarding the configuration of streets and secondary access to the property, cross sections, and road improvements. Mr. Lincoln explained the reasons for the three options of the mitigation agreement; noted that the mixed use development makes the property more marketable for development; and stated the number of vested trips will limit development on the site. PB Member Gannon asked why the site plan would be subject to the administrative approval process. Mr. Lincoln pointed out that the Zoning Code allows for that in the Downtown District. PB Member Halflants asked why not address access now. Mr. Lincoln stated that interconnectivity and access are addressed at site plan review; and to address pedestrian access at the time of a comprehensive plan amendment, or at the rezoning without a site plan, is premature and could create other legal problems. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly spoke about Exactions and Takings, stating that the City cannot require any type of access across a property unless the City can prove that there is a quasi- connection and a rational nexus between the specific development and the need for that pedestrian access; and added that since we don't know what the actual development will be, we cannot establish a rational nexus for the need of pedestrian access across this property. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 14 Attorney Connolly added that the City does not own the railroad right-of-way, it is owned in fee simple by CSX, the railroad company, subject to a long-term lease to the Seminole Gulf Railroad; noted that the railroad will have to put Publix on notice that they will remove the crossing, and no one can stop them; pointed out that the only access available to the park at this time is via Ringling Boulevard; and concluded that it is premature to discuss these topics prior to the site plan review stage. Affected Persons Carolyn Johnson, representing Mr. Thomas Peter, Old Oak Productions, read a letter and spoke in opposition to the rezoning because of the intensification of land uses and the traffic flowing through their quiet neighborhood, should South Lime Avenue (Shopping Lane) become a through street. She also asked where the entrance/exits for the development on thes subject parcel will be located. Attorney Connolly administered the oath for those in the audience who wish to speak but had not been sworn yet. Public Input Larry Silvermintz, President of Alta Vista Neighborhood Association, representing himself, requested that this development retain or increase the commercial uses, preferably using locally owned and family friendly commercial uses, sO that people can walk or have a short drive to shopping or to employment; requested as much green space as possible be maintained to make the development pedestrian friendly with wide sidewalks and pedestrian access; recommended that the City purchase Shopping Lane and consider constructing a foot bridge over the railroad tracks; and requested the downtown circulator bus extend its route to serve the property. Linda Kitch, an area resident, stated she wanted to see development go forward, but is concerned about the fact that the new zoning allows for administrative review of the site plan. Jerry Sparkman, area resident and business owner, supports development on this property but is concerned about the fact that the new zoning allows for administrative review of the site plan. Myron Nickel, resident of Terrace Garden Subdivision which abuts the property, supports the development stating he does not want a derelict property negatively affecting their subdivision. Mick Lasche, bike and pedestrian advocate, requested the Planning Board require the development to provide a 12-ft. asphalt lane on the south side of the property, as shown on the map he submitted for the record, for pedestrian and bicycle access. Kelly Kirschner stated that this is one of two large parcels due for redevelopment in the downtown area, and it is important that it is developed right; suggested that private development comes with proffers that ensure the community of what the development will Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 14 contribute to the community; and recommended that the Planning Board work with the City Attorney to ensure that certain proffers are provided by the developer of this property. Christine Sullivan, area resident abutting the subject property, stated that pedestrian and bicycle circulation as well as traffic calming are very important to the residents in the vicinity because there is heavy traffic in the area. Rebuttal by City/Applicant Senior Planner Mendez commented on earlier statements about the width of the sidewalks; clarified that 8ft. - 10ft. sidewalks represent an improvement of what is in the downtown area now; and noted the City was moving towards meeting the desirable standard of 8 ft. to 12 ft. sidewalks. Rebuttal by Affected. Persons Ms. Johnson asked Senior Planner Mendez if the traffic will go through the south end of the property through their subdivision. Senior Planner Mendez stated that details will be provided at the site-plan review, however, staff is looking at other locations for primary access so as to avoid coming through their subdivision. PB Member Gannon asked for clarification about a statement that was made earlier regarding the possibility of a process other than administrative approval being invoked in the Downtown Neighborhood/ Downtown Edge zone. Senior Planner Mendez and Attorney Connolly explained the process. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked what would happen if either the City or the Developer wanted to vacate or close the end of Lime Avenue. Senior Planner Mendez explained that they would need to go through the street vacation process, noting if they choose to leave it as is, it remains platted right of way. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB Member Halflants asked Attorney Connolly to explain the concept of proffers, mentioned earlier by Mr. Kirschner. Attorney Connolly stated that a proffer is an offer made by the applicant and the City accepts; explained the City can ask for exactions, however the City must pay for them or establish a rational nexus, which we cannot do now, because there is no site plan. PB Member Morriss stated that the community wants this to be viable and alive; however he feels that both the community and the Planning Board members are concerned about the administrative review (lack of public review process) which is inherent in the Downtown Edge/Downtown Neighborhood zone. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that he does not feel this anxiety, because he knows that the administrative review process can be a very long process during which staff is thoroughly reviewing proposals based on the review standards; added that the administrative review process is what the Code requires; and noted there are many other avenues for the public to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 14 provide input, including working with the developer, and providing input to the City Commission. Discussion ensued. PB Member Gannon stated that he has observed that developers will only meet the minimum requirements when it comes to providing trees or mitigating for removed trees, which is not helpful to pedestrian or bicycle circulation. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that the right-of-way is not owned by the developer; adding that plantings and improvements on the right-of-way are to be done by the City using mobility impact fees. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated that there is very little before the Planning Board based on which to approve the applications. PB Vice Chair Gallagher asked Attorney Connolly for clarification. Attorney Connolly stated that this conversation leads him to believe that the Planning Board members are treating this application as a site plan; added that this evening the Planning Board members are not reviewing a site plan, rather they are asked to review and make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, revisions to the two maps that show the location of the primary streets; and the rezoning of the property; and stated that access will be addressed at site plan review, it cannot be addressed now. PB Member Halflants stated that before they asked for something, the applicants should have done some more planning. Attorney Connolly explained that the propèrty owner tried to develop his property and the City stopped it; added that now the applicant is trying to sell his property, but because of the prior history, it is not easy, SO they are trying to make the property more marketable; noted that the change of the zone district will make this marketable; stated that PB members must trust that staff will do their job; and added that any aggrieved person can challenge an administrative decision or a City Commission decision, noting that had recently happened with the Women's Exchange application, which resulted in extensive public hearings before the Planning Board and the City Commission. PB Member Morriss asked if the Planning Board could add a condition to require a public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated there is no vehicle by which the Planning Board can mandate that. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that the Planning Board at this point can recommend approving or denying. PB Member Gannon asked why there are conditions listed in the recommended motions. Attorney Connolly explained that these conditions were proffers offered by the property owner as part of the mitigation settlement agreement; stating that the City can accept proffers but cannot mandate exactions. Motion regarding CPA 16-PA-01 PB Member Morriss moved to find Comprehensive Plan Amendment 16-PA-01 consistent with Section IV-1406 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Future Land Use Map Amendment and Update to the Primary Street Grid Map of the Future Land Use Chapter. PB Member Gannon seconded the motion. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 14 Speaking to his motion, PB Member Morriss stated that it has already been discussed extensively, and he has no more comments. PB Member Gannon had no more comments. PB Member Halflants asked for clarification as to what this motion would accomplish. Attorney Connolly explained that the recommended motion changes the parcel's S future land use designation on the Future Land Use Map; revises the map of the Primary Streets; and noted that the maps are in both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. The motion for approval of CPA 16-PA-01 passes with a vote of 4 to 0. Motion regarding Rezone 16-REN-01 PB Member Morriss moved to find Rezone 16-REN-01 consistent with Section IV-1106 of the Zoning Code, and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the following conditions: 1. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and for purposes of Transportation Concurrency Analysis, the subject property is vested for 580 p.m. peak hour trips. For purposes of the analysis, a concurrency determination was based on 222 dwelling units of Mid-Rise Apartments 175,000 square feet of Specialty Retail Center. An updated Concurrency Analysis shall be required at time of Administrative Site Plan or Building Permit submittal based upon final proposed uses, with recognition of the 580 vested p.m. peak hour trips. Circulation review will also be required at time of Administrative Site Plan or Building Permit submittal, consistent with the applicable policies of the Zoning Code and Engineering Design Criteria Manual. 2. Development of the property shall be limited to a combination of 175,000 square feet of retai/non-residential use and 222 residential units, or the equivalent to total trip generation to that mix of development. 3. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Vice Chair Gallagher seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion PB Member Morriss stated that he trusts staff to enforce the Code; added that if issues arise there is a process to deal with them, and there is a possibility that the applicant may need to come to public hearings for other related issues, such as variances, giving opportunities to citizens to provide input. Speaking to his second, PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that the applicant has satisfied the criteria for a rezone. PB Member Halflants stated that he does not support this intensive development next to Payne Park, noting he would support development that would take advantage of the park. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 14 Attorney Connolly explained that the intensity of development has not been decided yet. PB Vice Chair Gallagher reminded everyone that City Staff are most capable of working within the law and implementing the Code; added that this may send a message to the City Commission that the community wants certain things to happen on this property on balance, and that there are issues that cannot be resolved unilaterally, but need to be resolved. The motion for the approval of Rezone 16-REN-01 passes with a vote of 3 to 1 with PB Member Halflants voting no. Motion Zoning Text Amendment 16-ZTA-03 PB Member Morriss moved to recommend approval to the City Commission of Zoning Text Amendment 16-ZTA-03 updating Map VI-1001 Primary / Secondary Street Grid to designate two segments of Ringling Boulevard adjacent to the subject property as Primary Streets. PB Member Halflants seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss and PB Member Halflants had no comments. The motion for approval of Zoning Text Amendment 16-ZTA-03 passes with a vote of 4 to 0. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TOTHE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was none. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 17, 2016 The August 17, 2016 Minutes were adopted as presented PB Member Gannon asked about the status of the September Minutes. Secretary Smith stated they will be included in the packet for the next PB meeting. 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. PAPER REDUCTION PILOT PROJECT (CONTINUED FROM 9/14/16): All City Departments have been asked to identify paper reduction opportunities. The goal of this presentation is to receive feedback from Board members regarding a pilot project idea for the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency. This pilot idea is a collaboration between the NDS and IT Departments and Sustainability program. (Stevie Freeman-Montes, Sustainability Manager) Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 14 Stevie Freeman-Montes, Sustainability Manager, stated that this is a follow up on the September 14, 2016 presentation regarding the City's Paper Reduction Pilot Project; for illustration purposes she presented a copy of the May 16, 2016 packet each Planning Board member received prior to that Planning Board meeting, explained that PB Members will still have access to a complete packet in a PDF format on their computer; also showed how the May 16, 2016 packet would look according to the proposed paper reduction pilot program; stated the packets will include the agenda, staff report, recommended motion sheets, site plans, and possibly some other discretionary items like aerial photographs; added that the rest of the material will be available to the PB: members in a PDF format; and noted that at the Planning Board meetings each PB member will have a laptop populated with the entire PDF packet. General Manager Smith described how the PDF files will be accessed by PB members using the City's server; stated laptops will be checked out to each PB member and a laptop will be available for staff presentations; and added that PB members could use their own electronic devices. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated he preferred to continue to receive paper copies. PB members Morriss, Gannon and Halflants agreed to participate in the pilot program. General Manager Smith stated staff would contact PB Chair Lindsay to determine his preference. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD 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. PB Member Morriss stated that when presenters make comments about the competence of staff they need to be reminded of the Pledge of Conduct; and suggested PB members needed to understand the public domain in which they operate, which includes the codes and the processes. Discussion ensued. PB Member Halflants stated that he believes the Planning Board should not review every proposed development, rather the Zoning Code should be improved; and stated PB: members should be able to make suggestions to improve the Zoning Code. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Gallagher stated that the media should present all the issues, and possibly use llustrations and plans, to better inform the public. General Manager Smith stated that during the public hearing the terminology used was inaccurate; noted the process is actually called Administrative Review, not Administrative Approval; and stated proposals are not automatically approved, they are reviewed against the Code, and if they do not meet the code, they are denied. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 14 VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting adjourned at 9:04 PM 5m - * aol David Smith, General Manager - Integration Robert Lindsay, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]