CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Patrick Gannon, Chair Members Present: Eileen Normile, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, David Morriss, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLMEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Gannon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and Planning Director Steven R. Cover, [as secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There was none. 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 ofConduct Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly recommended time limits for this evening's presentations, stated that there are no applications for affected parties, administered the oath to all present who intended to speak this evening, explained the procedures for Quasi-judicial Public Hearings, and pointed out that Planning Board members need to disclose any ex-parte communications beyond those that they had disclosed at the initial public hearing for this application, on April 11, 2018. PB Member Ohlrich disclosed a site visit with City staff; PB Member Blumetti disclosed discussions with City staff and a site visit on his own; Vice Chair Normile disclosed a second site visit with City Staff; and PB Chair Gannon disclosed a meeting with City staff. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 17 B. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. COURTYARD AT CITRUS SQUARE PHASE II (555 N. Orange Avenue) [CONTINUED FROM 4/11/18]: Adjustment Application No. 17-ADP-04 is a request for approval of an adjustment pursuant to Section IV-1903, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) for property located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District known as the Courtyard at Citrus Square Phase II. Applicant is requesting three adjustments for property located on a primary grid street. Adjustments requested are to construct a façade at a length less than 70 percent of the length of the front lot line, to provide surface parking in the first layer, and to build a street wall that is not located in the coplanar to the building façade. (Dan Greenberg, Planner) Presentation by Applicant: Mr. George Scarfe, Hoyt Architects, Mr. Mark Pierce, Developer for Citrus Square, and Mr. Steven Weeks, Hoyt Architects, introduced themselves for the record; Mr. Scarfe noted that at the last public hearing for this application, the Planning Board requested additional information; added that, since then, the applicants have met with staff, they addressed some of the comments, discussed with staff the proposed adjustments the applicant is requesting, and included additional information on the plans; referred to EX-2, 555 Orange Ave, 2ud-4"h Floor Plan, May 17, 2018, and pointed to the location of the property line, and the width of the sidewalks; referred to EX-3,5 555 Orange Ave, Enlarged Ground Floor Plan and Street Elevation, May 17, 2018, which provides information about the façade; and stated that the applicant has addressed the items that were in question during the last public hearing, and hopes for Planning Board's approval for the three adjustments they are requesting. Mr. Pierce stated that City staff disagrees that the gate is part of the side of the measurement [of the side of the building); noted that the applicant can reach the 58 ft. [facade] without that, even though the building above it looks like one building, sO it would be a 64 ft. [façade] instead of 58 ft; and pointed out that they widened the sidewalk to6 612ft. to meet the EDCM requirements for the sidewalk for that street type. Mr. Scarfe referred to EX-3, 555 Orange Ave, Enlarged Ground Floor Plan and Street Elevation, May 17, 2018 and pointed out that the Logia is open on two sides on the ground-floor, but the building extends over that area on the floors above; and stated that they removed it to respond to staff's comments. Mr. Pierce added that they will also allow green vines to grow on the wall to add interest to the walkway along the Boulevard of the Arts; and added that this covers the utilities equipment and other unsightly conditions from view from the public realm, consistent with what was done in the first phase of this development. Mr. Pierce stated that City staff provided suggestions of how this area could be redesigned, including creating a 15 ft. wide sidewalk, and the elimination of parking spaces, howeveri it cannot be done because the area is part of an improved SWFWMD bubbler water retention system servicing this project and the project down the road, and it is not something this developer can change; and stated that such a change would not agree with the condominium documents and with the current agreements for easements. Mr. Scarfe noted that there is a cross access agreement in place as part of the condo documents and a further utility easement where the stormwater pipe connects from within the parcel to the City's storm drainage system Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 17 and the highlighted yellow portion, where it comes out to the alley, is the cross-access easement granted to the: neighboring parcel no longer within this ownership. Mr. Pierce stated that they have had an unusual situation here, where they have had the luxury of deciding tenants, and maximizing their parking, and they have just maximized it, SO putting a restaurant to the one end would not work because they are using every parking space available. Mr. Scarfe repeated that the applicant's team have made the adjustments that were requested and asked for the Planning Board's consideration. PB Member Ohlrich asked for clarification about staff's disagreement regarding the length of the wall where the gate is located. PB. Member Blumetti asked if one can drive over the bubbler box of the stormwater management system; and asked if what is presented this evening is a mirror image of what is now happening on 4th Street. Mr. Scarfe stated that iti is a close mirror image, because the existence of easements calls for different configuration of the setbacks, but the building and the wall are mirror image. PB Member. Morriss stated that, at the last public hearing, his concern on this application was to have internal consistency with the earlier part of this development, and it seems that it] has been done. PBI Vice Chair Normile asked for clarification on what is al bubbler box. Mr. Scarfe explained that it is part of the stormwater retention system; added that a site's stormwater needs to be contained and treated on site for a minimum of 24 hrs., per SWFWMD regulations, and then it is alllowed to go towards the City's system; pointed out that the bubbler box daylights" the water; stated that studies have determined that "daylighting" the water is more beneficial than taxing the City's stormwater system through underground piping, because daylighting" allows water to evaporate, allows it to go through landscape beds, or through curbs, and therefore it is not taxing the stormwater system as heavily as it would if it were to be piped. Mr. Pierce added that it is also a safety valve, should a 100-year storm come, and the system is overloaded, this allows the water to escape. Mr. Scarfe noted that it is a grated opening, it looks very similar to the area where the water comes in, but in this case, during heavy rain storms it allows the water to come out, after it has been treated for everything that washes into the stormwater; noted that there is nothing mechanical at that box itself, there is a structure buried in the ground that allows the water to come out; and stated the bubbler box does not protrude above the surface of the land, but he could not recall the dimensions of the grate. Mr. Pierce stated that the grate also has stainless-steel equipment that allows it to catch impurities before the water gets out into the system and added that the bubbler box has existed on the property for the last ten years. PB Chair Gannon asked how far the wall would need to be moved northward to keep the bubbler box inside of the wall. Mr. Scarfe said he did not have this information at this time. Mr. Pierce stated that creates problems with the parking; added that there are some conversations that if you have a 10,000 sq. ft. building commercial parking is not required; added that, if you listen closely, you will find that as soon as the applicant gets their permit for the next building, that exception goes away, and the previous arrangement, requiring commercial parking is in effect again, sO the proposed parking is designed to meet this commercial parking requirement. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 17 PB Member Morriss added that there is a trap in the bubbler box which needs to be maintained, and to be inspected by SWFWMD; and asked about the access requirements. Mr. Scarfe said that he does not have this information at this time. PB Member Morriss also noted that there is concern about the foundations of the wall. PB Chair Gannon pointed out that the location of the bubbler box does not appear on any of the documents submitted to the Planning Board for this meeting, yet it has been stated that there will be parking over it. Mr. Scarfe stated that bubbler boxes are traffic rated and are also located in many of the City's streets; and added that SO long as the structure is designed to be driven over, it is a common occurrence. PB Member Morriss noted that this was: not an issue before staff S recommendations for a new location for the wall. Mr. Pierce added that the bubbler box is not something that they will build now, it has been in this location for ten years. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich stated that when she visited the site she noticed several trash receptacles outside of the wall, in the alley, and asked where the trash will be for this project. Mr. Scarfe stated that pursuant to the City Ordinance, trash is collected in the alley, and pointed to the location of the trash receptacles on EX-2, 555 Orange Ave, 2nd- 4th Floor Plan, May 17, 2018. PB Chair Gannon stated that the diagram that City staff provided to the applicants had reduced the parking spaces by one. Discussion ensued. Mr. Scarfe agreed that only one parking space would be eliminated; and pointed out again that such a change would also require the cross-access easement to be moved, which in turn would require changes to the Condominium documents. PM Member Morriss stated that it is a matter of having enough parking on site. Mr. Pierce stated that every single parking space is important to accommodate residents, visitors, and employees. Mr. Scarfe stated that the applicant does not want to take the exception to required parking offered in the cases of less than 10,000 sq. ft. of liner buildings. PB Member Morriss noted that the exception is fragile and could go away under certain circumstances. Discussion ensued regarding parking, the splitting of the lot, and combining the lots again. Responding to PB Member Morriss' question, Attorney Connolly stated that there is no evidence on the record that the applicant has to consolidate the lots. Mr. Pierce stated that they have been told by staff that they need to join the lots and remove the lot line. PB Member Blumetti stated that he thought one can have footings for a wall in the easements. Mr. Scarfe stated that this is not a public utility and the footings have to be a certain distance away. PB Member Ohlrich noted that in the April 2018 Planning Board Meeting, when this application was first discussed, the applicants had testified that they believed this project was already permitted; and asked if the applicant continues to feel the same way, and if sO, why. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 17 Mr. Scarfe stated that he has the documents that show the parcels that have been permitted and the parcels as they existed in 2015, when that permit was applied for; showed on the record correspondence from the City of Sarasota Permitting site, and then compared that to the Sarasota County Property Appraisers Parcel ID Numbers; and noted that these parcels are included. Mr. Pierce stated that they had two choices, either to start the building in time and not have to build the wall, or they were required to build the wall, and that is the reason they put it on the plan and made it part of the permit process; and added that the wall must be built with this building, if they do not start another building. Mr. Scarfe also pointed out the dates of the permits, noting that the approval date for the permits of the stage that is under construction now is nineteen days after the application for the foundation for the wall. Mr. Pierce added that the City's Building Department believes that the applicants have a permit. Mr. Scarfe read the dates into the record, as follows: the date for the site plan of Phase II, the one currently under construction, is 5/31/2016, and the date of the foundation permit application was 5/8/2016. PB Member Ohlrich asked about the date of the lot split. Mr. Scarfe did not have the exact date before him. Mr. Pierce stated that all the lots are included in the description of the permit, both the split lot and the other side, and the description of the building lot could be those two things. PB Member Ohlrich asked Attorney Connolly if there is a lot split after it has been approved, does that affect the approval. Attorney Connolly responded that it would depend on the approval and the particular reasons for a lot split; added that often there are specific reasons for a lot splits or lot consolidations, and stated he cannot respond to this question in a vacuum. PBMember Morriss asked if the wall was inspected when it was constructed. Mr. Pierce said the wall was inspected. PB Member Morriss concluded that the Building Department believes it is part of the permit. Mr. Pierce noted that the Building Department has expressed the same thought. Mr. Scarfe stated that an additional reason they believe they are permitted is the definition of the zoning lot which states that it can be a single lot of record, a portion of a single lot of record, or a combination of complete lots of record and portions of lots of record, or portions of lots of record; added that whether the lots are split or not, all of these are zoning lots; and concluded that in this case, because it is a combination of lots of record, it does not matter, because the four lots of record that existed in 2015 or the two lots of record that are existing today are a zoning lot. Mr. Pierce repeated that if he does not start another phase of this property he is required to put a screen wall around the property and it is drawn on these plans; and stated that his choice is not to build that. Presentation by Staff: Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services and Dan Greenberg, Planner, Development Services, introduced themselves for the record. Planner Greenberg pointed out that, at the last public hearing on this application, staff's two Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 17 primary concerns were as. follows: first, that there was no final plan and therefore it was not clear to staff what the applicant was proposing, and the second that the justifications presented by the applicant did not satisfy the review requirements; noted that prior to this meeting, staff presented alternative solutions to the applicants; stated that, after that, the applicants submitted their application with a plan and corresponding elevations, at which time it was determined that they needed a 34 percent adjustment based on a 58 ft. proposed façade; said that, in addition, what the applicants are proposing is a street wall, the parking spaces, and the refuse/recycling behind the wall; pointed out that staff reviewed the proposal against the criteria for review to determine if it is as good or better than what is required by the Zoning Code; stated that staff's determination was that it is not; added that they are asking for a 29 ft. adjustment, which would have allowed for additional habitable space for two tenants; and stated that there are also issues with the street façade. General Manager Schneider stated that staff continues to be unsupportive of the proposed adjustments, and recommends denial, because the application does not meet the review criteria of the Zoning Code; noted that they are looking for an exemplary frontage on a primary street, especially on Rosemary District's main pedestrian core, Boulevard of the Arts, and staff does not find that what is proposed is the same or better than what the code requirements are; stated that Planner Greenberg will show on the plans what was approved by the Building Permit for the center parcel, and added that there is no requirement that the applicant reunites the parcels; noted that the recommendation to split the parcels was a recommendation by staff as a way for the applicant to be able to build the building without having to consider the frontage of the corner parcel in their frontage calculation for 70% façade coverage; explained that one way to avoid a trip to the Planning Board was to: split the parcel, and calculate the façade coverage for the new lot; noted that it created the issue of how do you drive in-and-out over property that now is on a separate parcel; added that a way to do that is to have a cross-access easement agreement to facilitate access; stated that staff knew that the applicant will soon return with another permit, because the permit that was approved was only for the driveway;noted that in order for the middle parcel to have access, they entered into a Declaration of Easement Agreement that provided for a vehicular egress and ingress easement; said that there was nothing in there for parking spaces being used; pointed out that staff would have not been able to approve a building permit on an adjacent parcel of property for a parking lot; added that the wall is there because they had a driveway and they are supposed to be screened; said that if they did not come in with their future building, then the requirement to screen the driveway would have kicked in, which is the reason the wall was shown, in case that something happened and they did not build the building, the driveway would be screened; added that the expectation was that they would not be building a wall, rather they would be constructing a building; stated that in email communications between staff and Hoyt Architects, staff explained that the expectation was to deal with the new building at the time the applicant filed documents for the new building; said that staff has only recently seen the elevations, they have not seen everything yet; noted that it has been several years since the initial foundation plan was submitted, and now staff are getting into those details; added that staff did not know what the building would look like, or the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 17 location of the façade; noted that the wall along Boulevard of the Arts could be at the right spot if the building was pulled up all the way forward to the property line. Planner Greenberg added that the building permit for the last building shows different designs for the building, which is part of what is being worked out now. Attorney Connolly stated that now he can respond to PB Member Ohlrich's earlier question; stated that it seems the reason the 2016 building permit has all the Parcel ID Numbers is that, in addition to the building of Phase II, it was also authorizing the ingress/egress to the northern property, and ifi in fact nothing was constructed on that property, it was authorizing the wall that would screen the ingress/egress from view; and said that is referenced in the Easement Agreement mentioned by General Manager Schneider. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the northern building were not built, would the City approve a wall all along there, despite the fact that it is a primary street. General Manager Schneider explained where the wall would be allowed to screen the parking and the driveway itself. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if that was parking, then there would be a wall all along Orange and all along the Boulevard of the Arts. General Manager Schneider stated that staff would have not approved the northern lot for a parking lot; added that the only thing approved was the driveway, and it required a screen wall. PB Vice Chair Normile asked if the easement that has been referenced allowing access to this driveway is in favor of the building directly south and only that building. General Manager Schneider noted that the easement utilizes ownerships instead of addresses, the easement goes through lots 14, 16, 18, and 20, therefore the easement is in favor of all those lots; added that it is not a new easement, it was established on April 26, 2016, at the time the middle parcel building was approved, SO that it has access through this corner northern parcel; and noted that this easement does not relate to the earlier southern parcel, because it has its own ingress/egress. PB Chair Gannon clarified that this driveway would be used for exit, and the entrance to the middle parcel would be through the alley;added that the wall that currently exists along the alley behind the proposed new building was done because of the driveway, not in advance of a building permit. General Manager Schneider agreed, stating that this wall appears to be 6-ft. and 6-inches, it was included in the building permit for the middle parcel; and pointed out that it is not a requirement to screen the driveway from the alley, you only are required to screen a driveway from the primary street. PB Chair Gannon asked about the rationale for building a wall along the alleyway. General Manager Schneider stated it was the applicant's choice to do sO, and it was permitted, but it is taller than 6ft. and she suspects it was not inspected yet; and stated that the idea was that the applicant would come in with a building permit for the corner parcel and modify this permit to eliminate the wall along Sixth Street and Orange Avenue. PB Member Morriss noted that some of these issues are about sequence, for example you had to build the wall if the building was not going to be built; and asked about the timeframe for this thing to happen, is it three months, twelve months, five years before staff would require the wall to be placed. General Manager Schneider said it would be Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 17 prior to the CO for the building, noting it is currently under construction. PB Member Morriss stated before they had hard core plans for the adjacent site they had to build the wall. PB Member Ohlrich stated that no Adjustments were required for Phase I, yet it was very similar to what is being proposed here; and asked if the Zoning Code now is the same as it was at that time. General Manager Schneider said the Zoning Code at the time was the same as it relates to the items discussed this evening. PB Member Ohlrich noted that it seems Adjustments should have been requested; and asked if there has been a mistake somewhere. General Manager Schneider stated that staff found documentation and staff notes that indicate that Adjustments were necessary, but the permit was issued, SO one can assume that either a mistake was made, or a different decision was made. PB Member Ohlrich asked Attorney Connolly if mistakes like this are precedent-setting: Attorney Connolly said "No." PB Member Blumetti asked how many more square feet the applicant would have should they extend the building to the lot line, and if the additional footage would trigger parking requirements; and if the applicant chose to join the parcels again would they be required to have additional parking. General Manager Schneider responded that moving the building to the lot line would add approximately 3,000 sq. ft., which would not trigger parking requirements; noted that at this point the applicants cannot join the parcels again; and pointed out that staff had the alternative design that Director Cover suggested, which was extensively discussed at the last meeting with the applicant, and it should not have come as a surprise to the applicant. Planning Director Cover introduced himself for the record; stated that when he looked at the proposed plan, he saw an opportunity that would eliminate two of their adjustments, specifically pulling the parking out of the first] layer, and eliminate the wall that would be co-planer with the façade; pointed out that the result would be a wider, more attractive and more pedestrian friendly sidewalk along the entire stretch on Boulevard of the Arts, with a net loss of one parking space; stated that should the applicant agree to follow this suggestion, it would eliminate two Adjustments, and create a better design and better streetscape; noted the only negative being there would be a loss of one parking space; and stated the dimensions are the same as what the applicant has and meets the requirements. PB Chair Gannon asked Planning Director Cover to discuss how this suggestion works with the location of the bubbler box. Planning Director Cover said that he believes the wall they are proposing is on the other side of the easement, but he would have to look at it; and added that he does not think there would be a problem with that, plus this proposal would move the recycling out of the easement. PB Member Morriss stated that he is challenged with the idea of changing the developer's program to that extend. Discussion ensued about the width of the sidewalk along Boulevard of the Arts, which is 13 ft. narrowing down to 9 ft. 9 in. PB Member Morriss asked if there is going to be a restaurant there. General Manager Schneider stated that when staff asked about uses, there were no proffers, and there are no proffers in what is being proposed now. PB Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 17 Chair Gannon stated that the wider sidewalk may allow for some. landscaping. General Manager Schneider pointed out that this is a private easement and the City'sr regulations do not allow landscaping, but they can mimic the landscape options of other developments in the area, or they can use planters or artwork. Rebuttal by Applicant: Mr. Pierce talked about easements on the corner parcel, noting that there: is the easement for access, and, for the last ten years, there has been an easement for the water retention and the bubbler to serve the first building; added that they have common sense experience about spaces that do not have a wall, you start with trees and shade and that turns into an experience for the unemployed; stated that in the past they have had to ask the City to trim the trees, SO that it not SO shady and convenient for people to come, block the sidewalk and sit in the shade while the customers of the restaurant are dining; added that they block the sidewalk every day; said that is what will happen if there is a fifteen foot sidewalk there, which, as far as he knows, has not been required by any place; and pointed out that the 6ft.s sidewalk they have on their plan is the required size for a sidewalk for that particular right of way. Mr. Scarfe stated that the discussion has addressed planning and zoning issues, however there are engineering issues to be considered as well; pointed out that within the EDCM, in Sarasota, 6th Street is an ST-60-34 street typology, and what is required for that street typology is a 60 ft. right-of-way, a drainage curb, a 7 ft. landscaped area and a 61 ft. sidewalk; pointed out that the proposal had a 6 ft. sidewalk down the entire length and it gets wider: in the end, creating a better solution at the corners where people are gathering. Mr. Pierce noted that downtown where there are walls, and there are no interactions with the homeless, they congregate there, because nobody is telling them what to do, and it will be a problem. Mr. Scarfe showed pictures of sidewalks in the vicinity; pointed out that other developments have not screened parking, they do not have commercial near the sidewalk, and they have placed utility equipment in the landscaped area; and argued that their proposal has all the utility equipment internalized, therefore they believe that this is one of the ways their proposed solution is better than what the code allows. Mr. Pierce added that they also have the experience that is replicated on the other end, the neighbors seem very happy, and noted nobody comes out to argue about the job they are doing. Responding to PB Member Blumetti's question, Mr. Pierce stated that the sidewalk on the other side is also 6 ft. Mr. Scarfe added that they could bring the building out to the sidewalk, however they are trying to create variation and interest along the sidewalk and when it reaches 6th Street it creates a place of interest; added that they would lose two spaces, not just one, because, according to Engineering, every sO many parking spaces there must be an island; and noted that on the staff suggested design, they have taken the island to make a parking space, which may not be compliant with engineering practices. Mr. Pierce stated that he is not as concerned about losing one parking space as he is concerned about have 15 ft. of space in front of the wall, the homeless congregating and arguing Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 17 that they have the right to be there, and as a result ruining the experience for the rest of the building; and added that they have experience, this happens on the other end. PB Vice Chair Normile pointed out that the proposed drawing has a blind angle there which allows people to sight you as you are heading east, from the alley to Orange Ave., right before the Logia. Mr. Pierce said that they have exactly the same thing on the other side and it works perfectly. PB Vice Chair Normile asked the applicants if they are concerned about the recycling being in the easement. Mr. Scarfe stated that should it become necessary, the reconstruction of the concrete slab over the easement would be de minimis, because it is an open area; added that this is a private easement, and they cannot do any plantings in the private easement; and repeated that there is not going to be a restaurant in the new building along this sidewalk, because of parking limitations. Mr. Pierce stated that on the other side they were able to leave enough ground between the sidewalk and the wall to be able to plant vines; and added that the wall has columns that stick out to break the wall every eight feet, SO we can plant vines to climb up, and they can be trimmed. Mr. Scarfe showed on the plan where there are opportunities to plant vines along the wall. Rebuttal by Staff: General Manager Schneider provided clarification about the parking lot landscaping; noted that an island is not required for landscaping, also they can plant over the easement area using root barriers, or plant species that have shallow root systems, or use planters. Planner Greenberg spoke about crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED); noted that the applicant, on the other side has a different situation, there is no entrance for people going in and out, and it is not a hard scape, it is a soft scape with landscape and anyone in this area would be flagged, and asked what he is doing there, unlike the hardscape entrance, where people go in an out or stand and loiter without looking out of place; pointed out that with respect to "undesirables" on the property, the best way to discourage undesirables on the property is to promote activities and engagement, and to get walkable streets, which will encourage desirable people to walk there; added that with respect to locating a café or a grease trap there, a building permit has not been proposed yet, they are still in the design phases, staff has not seen what is proposed, and the applicants have not discussed uses, or parking; added that the applicants can propose complimentary uses, such as café in the morning and a night time restaurant, which may cause people to walk a little more; and pointed out that it must be designed for pedestrians in order to get pedestrians there. Director Cover stated that the applicants showed slides of the 8 ft. sidewalk with landscaping on both sides located across the street, and noted that, with staff's suggested design, the applicants can do the same thing. PB Vice Chair Normile referred to EX-2, 555 Orange Ave, 2nd- 4th Floor Plan, May 17, 2018 and asked if one more parking space could be added to the angled parking spaces on Orange Avenue. General Manager Schneider stated that she needs to check with Engineering, however she doubts it, because of the distance necessary for backing up, Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 17 due to distance requirements for intersections; referred to the utility boxes in the pictures, and noted that the City does not allow utility boxes in the right-of-way, and she wonders if they belong to public utilities that have franchise agreements and they are allowed to put things in the City's right-of-way. There was no public testimony. PB Chair Gannon closed the public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated that when there is a lengthy public hearing like this, that takes place in two Planning Board meetings, and there is a lot of evidence, he likes to help the Planning Board focus on what the Zoning Code requires the deliberations to be about; and pointed out that the Planning Board is talking about three requested adjustments, as follows: 1. The Zoning Code requires the façade frontage on Boulevard of the Arts be 87.5 ft., and the request is for 58 ft.; 2. The Zoning Code prohibits parking in the first layer, and they are asking for parking in the first layer on Boulevard of the Arts; and 3. The Zoning Code requires the street wall that screens the parking to be co-planer with the building, and they are requesting it to be further from the building, not CO- planer with the building. Attorney Connolly pointed out that the Planning Board then looks at Zoning Code Section IV-1903 - Adjustments" Subsection (2), the criteria for the Planning Board to use in granting or denying the Adjustments, and review subsection (e)(2), which talks about non-governmental uses; noted that an Adjustment can be approved, approved with changes, or approved with conditions if the review body, in this case the Planning Board, finds that the review criteria (a) through (e) have been met; noted that subsection (2) also provides that in making findings of fact, the review body shall hold buildings fronting on the primary street to a higher standard in support of pedestrian activity than buildings fronting on the secondary grid; added that Adjustment requests will be denied if the applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the review body that the criteria have been met; and read the five review criteria for Adjustments, as follows: (a) granting the Adjustment would equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be adjusted; (b) the proposal would be consistent with the desired character of the Downtown Edge Zone District; (c) if more than one Adjustments are being requested, the cumulative effect of the Adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the Zone; (d) it is not applicable (this criterion deals with historic resources); and (e) any impacts resulting from the Adjustments are mitigated to the maximum extent practical. Attorney Connolly stated that these are the four criteria (a, b, C, and e) the Planning Board needs to be thinking about, while considering the evidence that has been presented; added that this evening the City also presented an alternative design; noted Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 17 that he has said many times, it is the applicant's application, SO you cannot impose on the applicant the City's alternative design, but it is relevant to the extent that (e) states impacts resulting from the Adjustments are mitigated to the maximum extent practical; stated that with this in mind, staff presented their design to show that there are other ways to mitigate, in the opinion of staff; and encouraged the Planning Board to focus on the four criteria as they are discussing the facts that have been presented during the last two meetings. PB Member Morriss moved to find Adjustment 17-ADP-04 consistent with Section IV- 1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustments with the following conditions: All related development and construction plans for the proposed development shall be in compliance with the applicant's three written requests for adjustment received by the Department of Development Services on May 21, 2018. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Development Services Director. 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 aj permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota fori issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or applicable 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 Blumetti seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PBMember Morriss stated that when an alternativei is proposed, it needs to include all the pieces of the puzzle, not just ideas, for example the potential problem with the homeless, and the fact that it is also changing the developers fundamental program, it does not appear to be an adequate alternative; pointed out that, as far as the character of the Downtown Edge is concerned, this completes the project which is the determinant of the character of that area, and set the flavor for the development in that area; added that he does not think there are any negative cumulative effects; and concluded that the Adjustments have being mitigated to the highest extend practical. Speaking to his second, PB Member Blumetti stated that the illustration shared by Planning Director Cover pointed out that the Planning Board is still talking about a wall, the building is not challenged, it is the wall; stated that it is not fair to the applicant to redesign their building or take away parking spaces; and said that he feels it meets the criteria, it is very successful on 4th Street, and he feels this would be equally successful. PB Member Morriss added that when the Engineering Criteria call for a 61 ft. sidewalk any arguments that a wider sidewalk is needed in that area do not hold water, because you have criteria that is already vetted; and concluded that the applicants have met the spirit of the Code and the spirit of the Engineering requirements. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 17 PB Member Ohlrich stated that this project does not hold the higher standards in support of the pedestrian experience. PB Vice Chair Normile agreed, and added that she does not think it is equal or better than the purpose of the regulations to be adjusted; added that the character of the area has changed since the other side (4th Street) was built, and we do not know how it got through, it is lovely, it is successful, the whole area is beautiful, but we cannot carve out special exceptions all along the Rosemary District; pointed out that the Rosemary District is developing, this would be a jewel, a particularly good part of the Rosemary District, but there are ways to mitigate the three requests; said she believes they are cumulative, it is not one but three different requests, and there are ways to mitigate this, that is what the Planning Department showed; stated that she does not think that the Planning Department is saying that they want to design the building, they are saying that there are ways to mitigate; stated that she has no doubt that these people who designed this beautiful building, in their creativity, they can find ways to mitigate even better that has been suggested by the Planning Department, and still be able to meet the Zoning Code requirements, perhaps with only one Adjustment request instead of three; and stated that she does not believe the application supports higher standards for pedestrian activity, but she has no doubt that the people who have designed such a nice building can do something to make it comply with the zoning code. PB Chair Gannon stated that if the Adjustment were granted, it would not meet the purpose of the regulations to be adjusted, especially being consistent with the desired character of the Downtown Edge, and the focus on the high quality pedestrian environment; noted that the character of the neighborhood has changed dramatically since the first phase was done, and referred to the Elan Rosemary Apartments, a couple hundred units down the street; pointed out that the Rosemary District Association is reorganizing itself, forming committees, one of which is a walkability committee, and they have taken a stronger interest in that; added that he has seen examples and has been in meetings where the City Managerl has said, especially for the Rosemary District, they have been negotiating for 8 ft. sidewalks, until the time the EDCM is changed; stated that the desire is at least 8 ft. walking width and then have added shrubbery; noted that the suggestion from staff would be creating the 13 ft. 10 in., would allow for a 10f ft. sidewalk and added shrubbery, either planted orin planters of some sort, would create a more desirable pedestrian experience, and through that activation it would address the issue of the undesirables in the area; and concluded that evidence on the record shows that there are other practical options. PB Member Morriss stated that the there always going to be alternatives, but the issue is that the Planning Board does not own this property; he does not think the Planning Board has that option to tell them to change their vision and their program for their project; and concluded that these are not viable secondary solutions. P.B. Member Blumetti added that the only thing that is going to change the pedestrian experience here is creating a bigger building with more façade, and that is not what we Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 17 are talking about, we are talking about a wall; stated that the experience is the same whether the wall is pushed out a little bit, which means that now we are talking about the width of the sidewalk; noted that he does not think that it will be a heavily used street as far as pedestrian activity is concerned; added that a 6 ft. 6 in. sidewalk is sufficient in this area, a wall is an architectural feature, not to mention that on the other side of the sidewalk they have a very generous landscape buffer; pointed out that the only thing that would enhance the pedestrian experience is more frontage for the building, which is not what is being discussed here, we are discussing the setback for a wall; and concluded that setting that wall further back enhances the pedestrian experience, it will be the same either way. The motion fails with a vote 2 to 3 (PB Chair Gannon, PB Vice Chair Normile, and PB Member Ohlrich all voted "No.") PB Chair Gannon asked what are the developer's options if the Adjustment is found inconsistent. Attorney Connolly stated that the developer has the option to file an appeal, within 10 days, to the City Commission, and have a Quasi-judicial Public Hearing before the City Commission. They could also submit alternate plans. PB Member Ohlrich moved to adopt a motion to find Adjustment 17-ADP-04 inconsistent with applicable sections of the Zoning Code and deny the requests for Adjustment. PB Vice Chair Normile seconded the motion. PB Member Morriss asked if this is denied, would the applicant have to go through the same process and spend money again, or is there a more humane approach to continue the petition. Attorney Connolly stated that they would need to. hear from the applicant, it has already been continued once, it is the applicant's S application, it is their choice to stick to their guns and go to the City Commission, but he cannot speak for them. PBI Member Blumetti asked if the applicant can potentially. accept the diagram presented by Planning Director Cover. Attorney Connolly said "Yes." PB: Member Blumetti asked how he can find out if the applicants are interested in doing that. Attorney Connolly asked PB Chair Gannon if he wants to see if the applicants want to come up and have a discussion with the Planning Board on that. PB Chair Gannon noted that there is a motion on the table to find the Adjustment inconsistent. Attorney Connolly responded that at this point the Planning Board has a motion and a second, but if in fact they are willing to continue, we will see if the Planning Board wants to see a continuance. PB Chair Gannon asked the applicant if he wants to address the Planning Board before they vote. The applicants came forward. PB Chair Gannon asked if they are interested in an opportunity to come back to another Planning Board meeting, or continuing, or, if Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 17 it is found inconsistent by the Planning Board this evening, then they appeal and reapply. PB Chair Gannon clarified that continuation would enable resubmittal of plans with more specific information around the staff S recommended plan. Mr. Pierce stated that he will not have staff design the building, he will resubmit plans, and bring the building further out, making a straight wall, sO it conforms with the code. Mr. Scarfe pointed out that what is allowed on that property is zero-lot-line; if they took the building to zero-lot-line, the 20f ft. liner all the way across, and have the 6ft. sidewalk the entire perimeter, the developer would have to pay the expense of vacating that easement for the stormwater line; all that will be conforming, and they would not have to return to the Planning Board; added that there is no time to vet other options, but the one presented by staff, due to SO many considerations involved, with engineering with SWFWMD, other state agencies, and condo documents, the staff's S suggested option is not viable. The motion to find the Adjustments inconsistent passes with a vote 3 to 2 (PB Members Morriss and Blumetti voted "No.") IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which havel been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was none. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 11, 2018 Page 16 of 39, the beginning of the third paragraph should read as follows: Note: Additions are underlined; deletions are striekew-threwgh: PB Member Ohlrich stated that it has become clear that the Planning Board deesnet need needs additional information, and it needs consistent information. 2. May 9, 2018 PB Member Morriss moved to adopt the April 11, 2018 minutes are revised, and the May 9 minutes as submitted. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. The minutes are approved, motion passes by consensus. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 17 VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. Planning Director Cover stated that this is a discussion about the September Planning Board Meeting, which is currently scheduled on September 12th; pointed out that there is a time conflict with the Florida Planning Association Conference, and a number of staff will not be available that day; stated that staff is requesting to move the Planning Board meeting to September 10th, which is a Monday night and this meeting room is available. PBI Member Ohlrich noted that it is a Jewish holiday, and PB Vice Chair Normile noted that she has an MPO Citizen's Advisory Committee Meeting which she would forgo to attend the Planning Board Meeting. Attorney Connolly stated that he is concerned about the Jewish holiday, and suggested to change the date; discussion ensued about the date; the September 2018 Planning Board meeting will be on September 5, 2018. 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 Ohlrich stated that at the March 2018 PB meeting they discussed a sign for a Hair Salon, and the Planning Board requested they come in with more information about their request for a height Adjustment; added that after that meeting, she noticed the sign was installed; and she requested information as to what happened with the sign, and the reason it was allowed to go up. General Manager Schneider explained that it is not the same sign, it is a smaller sign, and it is one that did not require a Planning Board adjustment; noted that the applicants made it smaller to fit in the space available, they eliminated the sign on the 2nd Street frontage, which was the objection from the neighbors, and they also modified the background per PB Member Blumetti's S recommendation. PB Member Ohlrich stated that it is important for the Planning Board to have closure on an item, and she thinks it is a good thing that this will be reflected in the minutes. PB Vice Chair Normile recommended to have on the agenda the idea of allowing the City's Transportation Planners to sign off on major projects; stated that there are a lot of reasons for this; noted that the DRC has Police, and Fire, etc., she does not see why Transportation Planners should not also sign off; stated that it would be valuable input for the Planning Board to know they have looked at the big picture, instead of just Engineering, who look at the small picture; added that it would catch some traffic study errors; said that the Planning Board have had traffic studies with errors in them in the last couple meetings, that nobody could answer, such as Palsar, and the Quay; stated that, more important than that, Mr. Damian Miller, from Kimley Horn wrote a very good report to modify Appendix - A" of the Zoning Code, and the most interesting finding was that one can use traffic infrastructure considerations as a reason to deny a land use change, but not for a rezone he said; noted that if that is the case, when the Planning Board gets a land use request, we should have Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting June 13, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 17 some input from the City's Transportation Planners as to whether or not that land use request is good or not. Mr. Blumetti asked if this review would be done in house and would it result in an additional cost to developers. Planning Director Cover stated that the City's Transportation Planners would be in-house, at no additional cost. PB Chair Gannon said that they should put it on the Planning Board's agenda SO that PB Members can discuss it. PB Member Morriss suggested that the report should include an alternative view, the discussion should include opinions of persons who disagree with this idea. Attorney Connolly stated that Mr. Cover will include it on a future PB Agenda, under Presentations of Topics by Staff, sO we would not have any issues with discussing it. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:57 PM. Steven R. Cover, Planning Director Patrick/Gannon, Chair Planning Development Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]