CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY April 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Chair Members Present: Terrill Salem, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Daniel Clermont, David Morriss, City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, AICP, General Manager, Planning Department Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner, Development Services Amy Pintus, Development Review Planner John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services Department 1:33:55 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Ohlrich called the meeting to order, noted all PB members were present in the Chambers; and thanked all who had assisted in the facilitation of the hybrid Planning Board meetings. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY PB Chair Ohlrich thanked former PB Member Gannon for his service and welcomed new PB Member Clermont. 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.) 1:38:17 P.M. A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Cover read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly suggested time limits for the public hearings. The PB agreed by consensus. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Ordinance No. 21-5366: An Ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida amending the Zoning Code (2002 Edition) of the City of Sarasota by amending Article V, Vested Rights and Non-Conformities, Section V-102, Vested Rights for Lawful Existing Uses and Structures, sO as to remove therefrom the reference to Botanical Gardens in the RSF-1 and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 12 RMF-1 Zone Districts; providing for severability of the parts hereof; providing for reading by title only; and providing for an effective date. (Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney) 1:39:34 P.M. Staff Presentation: PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing. Attorney Connolly noted the proposed Zoning Text Amendment was a housekeeping issue; discussed the history of Section V-102 of the Zoning Code noting Botanical Gardens was being removed due to the recently approved Zoning Text Amendment that establishes a Botanical Garden zone district; and pointed out the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens has been rezoned to the Botanical Garden zone district. PB. Member Blumetti questioned if the removal of Botanical Gardens from the RSF-1 zone district would prevent someone that purchased a lot zoned RSF-1 for the purpose of putting a garden on the lot from doing sO. Attorney Connolly stated it would not noting the intent of Section V-102 was to protect uses in existence in January 2002; pointed out a parcel would have to be zoned Botanical Garden in order to put a botanical garden on the site; and discussed the requirements for botanical gardens. PB Vice Chair Salem questioned if structures within the RSF-1 zone district would be required to obtain minor conditional use approval in order to be expanded. Attorney Connolly stated thati requirement only applied to the expansion of a botanical garden; and noted botanical gardens are a permitted use in the Botanical Garden zone district. Citizen Imput: There was no citizen input. 1:43:40 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. PB Member Morriss made a motion to find the Zoning Text Amendment set forth in proposed Ordinance No. 21-5366 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan (2030) and that it satisfies the Standards for Review in Section IV-1206 Zoning Code (2002 edition) and recommend to the City Commission adoption of Ordinance No. 21-5366. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5/0). 1:44:53 P.M. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath to those wishing to testify at the public hearing. Attorney Connolly called the following citizens that had applied for Affected Person status: Georgia Papadopoulos, Gary Anderton, Scott Ashby, Heidi Brandt, Edward Eliasberg, Joan Maxwell, Chris Nicholson, Donna Nicosia, Mindy Skura, Beatrice Vornle, Stratis Voutasas, Jerry Wells, Mike Lupatin, Vikki Lupatin, Michael Polelle, Donna Polelle, Tom Hoppenjans, Mark Hogan, Cathy Hogan, and Hans Schindhelm. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page3 of 12 The following were present and therefore granted Affected Person status: Georgia Papadopoulos, Gary Anderton, Scott Ashby, Heidi Brandt, Beatrice Vornle, Stratis Voutsas, Jerry Wells, Michael Polelle, Donna Polelle, Mark Hogan. C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Lido Beach Residences (930 & 1008 Benjamin Franklin Drive): Rezone Application No. 21-REN-02 is a request for Rezone Without a Site Plan approval to rezone the subject 3.89- acre property with street addresses of 930 & 1008 Benjamin Franklin Drive from Residential Multiple Family 4 (RMF 4) to Waterfront Residential (WFR). The Future Land Use classification is Resort Residential. The rezone petition is subject to proffers which wouid limit future development of the subject property. The applicant is proposing to demolish the two existing motels. (Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner) 1:49:06 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich opened the public hearing and requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications. PB Member Blumetti state he had none; PB Member Clermont stated he had a meeting with staff, had visited the site on his own, and had a phone conversation with Mr. Carl Shoffstall; PB Member Morriss stated he visited the site on his own and had a phone conversation with Mr. Shoffstall; PB Vice Chair Salem stated he had none; and PB Chair Ohlrich stated she met with staff, did a site visit with staff, and had a phone conversation with Mr. Shoffstall. 1:50:39 P.M. Applicant Presentation: Attorney Brenda Patten appeared; stated she represented The Ronto Group, Inc., Coquina on the Beach, Inc., WSR-Lido Beach, LLC, and Gulf Beach Condominium Association, Inc.; stated she wished to address misinformation contained in recent communications from area citizens; reviewed the proposed project stating no variance for a height increase was being requested, the project will not be a hotel or resort, and there is no site plan submitted for approval, that will be submitted for Planning Board consideration if the rezoning to the WFR zone district is approved; provided a comparison of what could be developed by right under the existing RMF-4 zoning and what was being proposed under the WFR zoning; reviewed the difference in density, lot coverage, height and setbacks that are permitted under the RMF-4 zone district versus the WFR zone district; discussed compatibility with the surrounding uses;noted the applicants had met with the Lido Beach Residents Association in addition to holding the required Community Workshop; pointed out conditions of approval the applicants were proffering; stated the applicants were offering an additional proffer that if the property is rezoned to the WFR zone district the owner will record an easement along the site from Benjamin Franklin Drive to the beach for public pedestrian access to the beach; presented a preliminary concept plan; summarized the proposal noting it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, meets concurrency, and staff: recommended approval; pointed out all requests for rezoning to the WFR: zone district on Lido Key in the past twenty years have been approved; and reiterated the benefits of the proposed development under the WFR zoning. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of12 PB Member Morriss questioned if condominium documents would be recorded in the Official Records. Attorney Patten stated the condominium documents along with the public access easement to the beach would be recorded. PB Member Clermont questioned if the purchase of the Gulf Beach Condominium and Coquina on the Beach properties was contingent upon the rezoning to WFR; asked if the rezoning was denied would the applicants sell the property; requested data as to what the difference in impervious surface between the existing uses and proposed use would be; and questioned if the rezoning was denied would the new structure be constructed wider in order to compensate for the difference in height, which would create a larger area of impervious surface. Attorney Patten stated the purchase of the Gulf Beach Condominium and Coquina on the Beach properties was not contingent upon the rezoning being approved; said if the rezoning is not approved the developers would either develop the site under the existing RMF-4 zoning or sell the property; stated data as to the difference in the impervious surface coverage was not available; and pointed out if the property is developed under the existing RMF-4 zoning the structure would likely be wider than if constructed under the WFR zoning. PB Member Blumetti noted the Future Land Use classification for the property is Resort/Residential and asked if WFR is the only implementing zone district that would be applicable to this site. Discussion ensued. Attorney Patten stated WFR was the most appropriate implementing zone district for the site. PB Vice chair Salem had no questions. PB Chair Ohlrich asked how many parcels on Lido Key have been rezoned to WFR in the past twenty years; and questioned why the proffer of a maximum of 70 units would be included in the recorded condominium documents. Attorney Patten stated four properties had been rezoned to WFR in the past twenty years; stated the proffer of 70 units would be included because a unit count must be part of the condominium document; and noted including the unit count also solidifies the Applicant's commitment to the area citizens. 2:15:09 P.M. Staff Presentation: Briana Dobbs, AICP, Development Review Senior Planner, appeared and summarized the proposal; noted the zoning and Future Land Use classification of the site; pointed out the surrounding zoning; said WFR is an implementing zone district; noted other WFR zoned parcels in the vicinity, and the land uses to the east; reviewed the proposed proffers noting staff disagreed with proposed proffer number three due to the likeliness of significant changes to the preliminary concept plan; stated the Historic Preservation Board had approved the demolition of the Gulf Beach Condominium; said the required Community Workshop, as well as a voluntary workshop had been held; pointed out height, setbacks and the benefit of the rezone to the community were the primary concerns voiced at the workshops; stated the project meets transportation concurrency requirements; noted the DRC signed off on the project on 2/6/21; and said staff recommends approval with conditions. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 12 PB Member Blumetti questioned if the Standards for Review are the same for RMF-4 and WFR. Senior Planner Dobbs stated that was correct, noting the major difference between the two zone districts is height and density for a hotel/motel. Discussion ensued. PB Member Clermont questioned how required stormwater improvements would improve the existing conditions. Senior Planner Dobbs stated those issues are addressed during the Site Plan approval process. PB Member Morriss asked if the developers could construct seven stories above 25' under the existing zoning and if there are any restrictions to the number of days/weeks units can be rented under the existing zoning. Senior Planner Dobbs confirmed seven stories above 25' could be constructed under the existing zoning; stated a hotel/motel would require Minor Conditional Use approval from the Planning Board; and pointed out the City's overall short term rental restrictions. PB Vice Chair Salem commended the public beach access proffer and questioned why access to the accessory uses was not available to the public. Senior Planner Dobbs stated accessory uses could be made available to the public if a hotel/motel was constructed however not if the property is developed as condominiums. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Ohlrich questioned how binding proffers were. Senior Planner Dobbs stated once approved in order to change the proffers the project would have to go back through the development review process. Discussion ensued regarding proffer number three, what would be considered substantially the same as the preliminary concept plan, and the fact staff recommended that proffer not be approved. PB Chair Ohlrich discussed the Standards for Review and questioned how staff could address those with no site plan to review. Senior Planner Dobbs noted traffic, utilities, and a comparison of the number of existing units versus proposed are reviewed; pointed out the built-in standards for the WFR zone district; and stated staff' S review is on-balance. PB Member Blumetti questioned if the site plan would come before the Planning Board for approval. Senior Planner Dobbs confirmed that was correct. PB Member Clermont questioned how the proffers are enforced. Senior Planner Dobbs stated the process is primarily complaint driven; and pointed out the hotel/motel management monitors enforcement. Discussion ensued regarding policing of provisions in condominium documents and City ordinances. PB Member Morriss noted the property lines shown go out into the water and questioned how public beach access is determined. Attorney Connolly stated the area of sand that is within the mean highwater line (e.g., wet sand) is considered State property and is open to the public. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of12 2:33:21 P.M. Affected Persons: Ms. Georgia Papadopoulos stated she opposed the project due to the negative impact on the surrounding property values caused by the views being compromised and stated she should be compensated for that loss. Mr. Gary Anderton, representing Lido Sand and Surf, stated their opposition due to their views being blocked, incompatibility with the surrounding area, and the height. Mr. Scott Ashby stated his opposition noting incompatibility and the desire to preserve the historic Gulf Beach Resort Hotel. Ms. Heidi Brandt appeared in support stating her home is adjacent to the proposed development; noted she is a full-time resident; pointed out her view will also be compromised; stated her support for the demolition of the existing rundown structures and the promised beach access; and noted the majority of those opposing the development were not full-time residents. Mr. Stratis Voutsas appeared and stated he was a snowbird and he opposed the proposed development; said a prescriptive easement already exists; requested the demolition of the historic structures be scheduled SO that it coincided with the construction of the new structure; stated he supported the height in order to reduce the footprint; requested the provision of storage for public use be included in the proffers; and requested the historic Gulf Beach Resort Hotel signage be placed where the public beach access begins. Mr. Jerry Wells appeared and stated he has been a full-time resident for thirty years; he supports the proposed development even though his view will be compromised; stated his opposition to transient accommodations; pointed out condominiums will produce less traffic that transient accommodations; and said most of those opposing the development were not full-time residents; noted the additional tax revenue from the condominiums; said the property values of the surrounding area would increase; and commended the provision of the public beach access. Mr. Michael Polelle stated his opposition due to increased flooding; negative impacts on emergency evacuations; opposed the height; said the setback along Benjamin Franklin Drive was too large; stated views would be blocked; pointed out the applicants have not applied for a permit to construct seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line; noted the increase in impervious surface; and said approval would set a precedent. Ms. Donna Polelle stated she has been a full-time resident for many years and opposes the project; stated the proposal was incompatible with the surrounding area; said breezes from the beach would be blocked; noted the view from Benjamin Franklin Drive to the water would be blocked; pointed out rental periods can be controlled under the RMF-4 condominium documents; and said the view of the sky would also be blocked. Mr. Mark Hogan stated his opposition noting the views of the existing area residents would be destroyed; said the setback along Benjamin Franklin Drive was too large; said Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 12 the proposed development was incompatible with the surrounding area; and stated his concerns regarding increased traffic. Ms. Beatrice Vornle was called upon three times however appeared to be unable to unmute her ZOOM connection. 3:23:06 P.M. Citizen Input: The following citizens registered to speak via ZOOM however when called upon stated they had no comments: Peggy Thompson; Zan Thompson; Frances Siciliano; Dr. David Martin; Jerry Janofsky; Lawrence Goss; Lakhbir Hayre. Mildred Fellin did not respond when called upon. Mr. Elliot Rose stated he is a City resident; said he was a CO-lister for the sale of the property; pointed out a RFP was issued and there were not proposals received for the purchase and upgrade of the Gulf Beach Resort Hotel; stated those interested in developing the site as a hotel said they needed a minimum of 150 rooms and pointed out the traffic that would be associated with a hotel of that size; said the vast majority of inquiries was for development of condominiums; and said he was in favor of condominiums noting the traffic, noise and transients the alternative would generate. Ms. Leslie Webster stated her family has owned a unit at the Presidential condominium for forty-three years; stated she prefers a small hotel; said the proposed condominium is too tall and blocks the breeze, sun, and views; and said it is out of proportion with the surroundings. Mr. Carl Shoffstall appeared and stated he has been an area resident for twenty years; said he felt the proposed development was a good project for Lido Key; noted the developers had reached out to the area residents; pointed out the provision of a public beach access; stated those who are in support of a hotel over condominiums oppose "hotel houses" on other areas of Lido Key; said existing flooding issues will be improved; pointed out there will be less impervious surface than what currently exists; and disputed that the project is out of character for the neighborhood. 3:35:01 P.M. Affected Person Rebuttal: Attorney Connolly stated those wishing to provide rebuttal testimony were required to only address comments made by the three citizens that just spoke. Georgia Papadopoulos stated she is not against development; reiterated she should be compensated for her loss; and stated no benefit to the community has been demonstrated. PB Chair Ohlrich requested Attorney Connolly once again review the rebuttal criteria. Attorney Connolly noted it was inappropriate for Ms. Papadopoulos to reiterate her testimony rather than provide a rebuttal; and pointed out that rebuttal would be if the speaker disagreed with any of the statements the three citizens had made. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 12 Gary Anderton stated Lido Surf and Sand was not against the development of the property; and said the development needed to be compatible with the surrounding area. PB Chair Ohlrich requested Mr. Anderton stick to the criteria. Mr. Anderton requested the Planning Board reject the requested rezoning without a site plan until details are made available. Mr. Wells appeared and pointed out stormwater runoff that goes into the sea will be improved; stated area condominium residents should embrace the positive change; said the proposal fits with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and noted this project will keep the area residential versus transient. Michael Polelle stated the public beach access easement was not in writing; said that easement only benefits those to the east that do not have direct beach access; said a hotel is preferred SO people will interact with each other while using the amenities; and said the large setback along Benjamin Franklin Drive is meant to hide a ramp. 3:47:01 P.M. The Planning Board Took a Fifteen Minute Break 4:01:52 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich reconvened the meeting. Staff Rebuttal: Briana Dobbs, AICP. Development Review Senior Planner, appeared and clarified that a hotel or motel is permitted in the WFR zone district as a Minor Conditional Use; noted Minor Conditional Uses require Planning Board approval; and pointed out accessory uses to a hotel or motel such as restaurants, indoor or outdoor bars, etc. require Major Conditional Use approval from the Planning Board and City Commission; and verified accessory uses for condominiums are only permitted to be used by residents and their guests. PB Vice Chair Salem requested clarification as to the Applicant's ability to request Major Conditional Use approval to provide public access to accessory uses. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Salem pointed out it was a City requirement that those services cannot be provided to the public versus a decision the Applicant's had made. PB Member Morriss questioned what the requirements are for clearing land after demolition of a structure. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated a demolition permit and approved staging plan are required. PB Chair Ohlrich questioned if staff or the Applicant should address the request by one of the citizens to include the provision of public storage in Proffer #3. Development Review Senior Planner Dobbs stated the Applicant should provide the language for the proffer, with Attorney Connolly providing his input. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 12 PB Member Morriss questioned Attorney Connolly as to the definition of prescriptive easement". Attorney Connolly stated that was when a property owner uses another property owner's property against their will for a period of twenty years. PB Member Morriss questioned how that was applicable to this discussion. Attorney Connolly advised it is not. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Patten distributed a listing of the condominium buildings in the vicinity; responding to the question as to how far the public access easement will go stated the easement would extend from Benjamin Franklin Drive to the sandy beach; noted adjacent property owners do not have a legal right to a view across another property owner's property; said she agreed with staff S analysis of accessory use requirements; and stated she had no opposition to eliminating Proffer #3, pointing out staff did not support the proffer. Carl Barraco, P.E., appeared and discussed the stormwater issues noting flooding is caused by rainfall or storm surge; stated water quality is addressed by both City Code and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD); and pointed out there is no existing water management system on the site. Attorney Patten continued her rebuttal stating the listing of the condominium buildings she distributed demonstrates the location the various Affected Persons reside in on the west side of Benjamin Franklin Drive; presented a graphic depicting their proximity to the subject parcel; pointed out the views of the Gulf of Mexico would not be impacted, only the north/south views down the beach are; noted the difference between the Future Land Use designations on the west versus east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive; and stated the Applicants were willing to add the proffer to provide storage for beach equipment, noting that was a Site Plan issue. Discussion ensued. PB Member Blumetti questioned how rainfall would be retained on-site. Mr. Barraco stated there is specific criteria in the City Code and SWFWMD requirements that must be met; and pointed out there will be significant improvements to the water management. PB Member Morriss questioned if the Applicants would be obligated to provide a public beach access or limit the rental periods under the existing RMF-4 zoning. Attorney Patten said there was no obligation. PB Chair Ohlrich stated she wished to clarify that the Applicant is agreeable to removing Proffer #3 and adding a proffer that states "The Applicant will provide pedestrian access from Benjamin Franklin Drive to the beach with storage for beach equipment and additional specifications identified on the Site Plan". Attorney Patten agreed to that verbiage. 4:28:18 P.M. PB Chair Ohlrich closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 12 PB Vice Chair Salem made a motion to find Rezone 21-REN-02 consistent with Section IV- 1106 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the following proffers (1-4) submitted by the applicant and conditions from City Staff (5) with Proffer #3 being replaced with the verbiage regarding beach access and storage. PB Member Blumetti seconded the motion. PB Member Blumetti stated the proposed storage could be problematic as to who has use of that; and noted that could be mitigated as part of the Site Plan review process. PB Vice Chair Salem pointed out the project is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan; stated he takes the comments from the citizens seriously; noted views are not a right; said his decision is based on established guidelines and the Future Land Use designation; discussed his concerns regarding City Code provisions that restrict resorts from offering amenities to the general public. PB: Member Morriss questioned Attorney Connolly regarding how the City Code could be revised to make that change. Attorney Connolly noted amenities can be provided to the general public if it is a hotel/motel but not as private condominiums. Discussion ensued regarding commercial operations versus residential development. PB Member Blumetti stated redevelopment of the property is not a plausible solution noting FEMA requirements; pointed out views are not a protected right; said flooding will be reduced; stated the architectural significance of the new structure would be addressed as part of the Site Plan review; pointed out the Development Standards for RMF-4 and WFR are basically the same; noted the benefit to rezoning the parcel to WFR is the public beach access that will be provided; and said the project meets the Standards for Review. PB Member Clermont noted a citizen had questioned if any of the PB members lived on Lido Key; pointed out the Historic Preservation Board has approved the demolition of the two historic structure sO that will not change; said he supports the motion noting if the parcel is sold with the existing RMF-4 zoning the offer to limit rental periods and to provide a public beach access would likely not be included; pointed out those opposing this project also oppose transients (hotel houses); and noted the difference between the Future Land Use designations on the east and west sides of Benjamin Franklin Drive. PB Member Morriss questioned if any redevelopment of the site would be acceptable to the opponents; noted the difference in height between RMF-4 and SFR is not significant; and pointed out the public beach access is not a right without the proffer. PB Chair Ohlrich stated her satisfaction with the elimination of Proffer #3; noted a Site Plan is not being approved at this time; pointed out "substantial" can mean different things to different people; and said the storage issue could be dealt with as part of the Site Plan review. The motion passed 5/0. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 12 4:39:09 P.M. IV. CITIZEN'S INPUT NOTICETOTHE PUBLIC: Att 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 no Citizen Input. 4:39:25 P.M. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. March 10, 2021 PB Chair Ohlrich stated she had submitted some non-substantial revisions prior to the meeting and questioned if there were any other requested corrections. Being none, the minutes were approved by consensus with the inclusion of PB Chair Ohlrich's S revisions. 4:39:54 P.M. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no presentations by staff. Attorney Connolly welcomed new PB Member Clermont; pointed out PB Member Clermont and PB Member Blumetti were neighbors; and said he wanted to make a statement for the record that PB Members Clermont and Blumetti were not to discuss anything that is reasonably foreseeable to come before the Planning Board outside of the meetings. PBI Member Blumetti stated he prides himself on his ethics; said hel believehis clients and former employers would agree with that statement; and stated he respected the Sunshine Laws. Discussion ensued. 4:41:55 P.M. 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. There were no topics by Planning Board members. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:42:01 P.M. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 12 Kithg - Gal - Bh Stevenr. Cover, Planning Director Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, Chair Planniag-Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]