CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Robert Lindsay and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: Jennifer Ahearn-Koch City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Negnborhoa & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner Miles Larsen, Manager, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 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. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. Attorney Connolly reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures and the recommended time limits for the petitions. Board Members agreed to the time limits. Attorney Connolly stated there were two applications for affected person status for 14-ADP-06, Mr. Marvin Baker and Ms. Wendy Osmar, and stated when the Planning Board gets to the beginning of that hearing the Planning Board can defer to him, he will see if they are present, and the Planning Board can decide at that time if they qualify for affected person status. PB Chair Gallagher requested any ex-parte communications be disclosed. There were no ex-parte communications. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9,2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 16 1. AFFINITY KITCHEN AND BATH WAREHOUSE: Site Plan application 14-SP-07 is a proposal to demolish an existing covered work area, which is approximately 600 sq. ft., demolish an approximately 2,000 sq. ft. existing cabinet shop building and construct a new approximately 4,000 sq. ft. cabinet shop building addition as well as a new approximately 4,000 sq.ft. shade structure over the existing parking lot. The applicant also proposes to relocate two existing water tanks on the site. (Lucia Panica, Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bradley Smith, Architect for the project, and Mr. Robert Dynan, General Contractor for the project appeared. Mr. Smith stated the existing use is a warehouse, the current owners have been in that location for twenty plus years, the applicants are planning to demolish a single-story concrete building that is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. and was built in the 1960's that houses materials and a covered work area, stated the proposal is to replace those structures with OSHA compliant buildings, the applicants had received the DRC comments and were in agreement with those, and requested the Planning Board's approval of the project. PB member Svekis noted one of the conditions states "The 4,000 square foot covered loading area as shown on the Site Plan shall remain open along at least 50% of the perimeter or enclosed by walls that are no more than 42 inches in height. This is not intended to prevent non-structural screening such as fabric screens or open fencing, as may be permitted. Enclosing this area will require another Site Plan approval." / and questioned if that was the applicant's wish. Mr. Smith stated it was their wish, stated the replacement buildings will be fully enclosed, the covered area to the south will be 50% open, and screening will be provided to secure the area. PB member Siegel questioned if the provisional use permit would carry over. Mr. Smith stated the zoning has changed since the building became operational SO the applicants requested a conditional use to keep the zoning. PB: member Siegel questioned if the use was manufacturing. Mr. Smith confirmed that was correct. Staff Presentation: Planner Panica stated the additional square footage is located to the rear of the property away from the residential zoning east of Lime Avenue, the refuse and recycling enclosure is also located away from the residential area, the two water tanks will be removed and a wall installed, the showroom in the front of the building within the existing footprint will be expanded approximately 1,400 sq. ft., the façade will be revised by replacing the rollup door at the current loading area with an ADA compliant door, additional windows will be installed, that area will be pedestrian friendly to allow access to the showroom, the height will not be increased, traffic ingress and egress as well as pedestrian circulation will not be impacted, an additional nine parking spaces will be provided, and staff feels the proposal meets the applicable standards and codes. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB member Svekis made a motion to find Site Plan 14-SP-07 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to conditions one, two, three, and four as outlined. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. PB member Svekis stated the change was benign, the proposal does not negatively impact anything, and the company as well as Sarasota will be improved. The motion carried 4/0. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 16 2. FIT2RUN SIGN ADJUSTMENT: Adjustment Application No. 14-ADP-06 is a request for an adjustment related to allowable wall signage within the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone District as specified in Section VII-110(5)(C) of the Zoning Code (2002 Edition) for property with a street address of 1400 Main Street. The following adjustments are requested: 1) Adjustment from the location requirements for wall signage from the specified top of the first floor façade. The applicant is proposing signage to be located on the mansard located at the top of the second floor façade; 2) Adjustment from the allowable maximum height of two feet (24 inches) to allow a proposed sign of four and one-half feet (54 inches) in height. Both adjustments apply to the same proposed sign. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) PB Chair Gallagher stated he needed to recuse himself from the public hearing regarding Fit2Run, handed the gavel to Vice Chair Svekis, and exited the Chambers. Attorney Connelly stated applications for affected person status had been received from Mr. Marvin Baker and Ms. Wendy Osmar. Mr. Baker nor Ms. Osmar were present and therefore their requests were denied. Applicant Presentation: Attorney Morgan Bentley, representing Fit2Run and the underlying property owner Chris Brown, and Mr. John Aller, VP of Store Design & Construction for Fit2Run, appeared. Attorney Bentley stated the issue is the world of retail has become more of a destination, it is all about lifestyle, branding is a part of that, the Fit2Run logo is unique, the downside to the site is the desired look and feel cannot be achieved given Code constraints, the request is not driven by a desire for a large sign but the whole business model, the downtown is competing with Lakewood Ranch, University Town Center Mall, Southgate, etc., and to keep something like Fit2Run downtown requires thinking outside of the box. Attorney Bentley displayed a graphic of the proposed sign noting it is not out of scale with the rest of the building and frontage, stated Fit2Run stores usually need a sign on the roof that is larger than 24 inches, artwork will be located on the alley side of the building, and presented a graphic of other Fit2Run stores in Florida to emphasize how important the signage is to the brand. Attorney Bentley discussed the uniqueness of the location stating it is one of three curved buildings on a corner in downtown, no special precedent is being set since the other two buildings, Brooks Bros and Regions Bank, have signage on the second floor, noted Brooks Bros has signs above the door and on top of the second floor and the Regions Bank building has a sign band on the second floor, stated the applicants were not asking for anything out of the ordinary given the other curved buildings downtown, noted the location is at the top of lower Main Street with a vista that looks down Main Street, Five Points Park, the Library, and the Opera House and stated theirs is the only location is Sarasota that has that. Attorney Bentley stated the problem is restricting the signage within the strict construction of the Code makes it an enormously small sign relative to the building, the City has an opportunity to have ai marquee building as you enter downtown, this is the future of retail signage, and requested the Planning Board approve the request. PB member Sigel questioned if there were any other retail facilities in the country, what the profile of the consumer following is, what the estimated hours of operation are, how many employees will be at the downtown Sarasota location, and what would Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 16 be in the inventory aside from shoes. Mr. Aller stated Fit2Run has stores in Gainesville, Tampa, St. Pete, Naples, Orlando, and Dadeland Mall and noted stores will be opening in downtown Miami and Wellington on the east coast, stated their consumer following includes local running clubs, vacationers, and local patrons, noted the company sponsors a lot of running events, makes charitable contributions, gets involved in community causes, will be sponsoring runs from the Sarasota location, stated their operating hours are typically 10:00 am to 9:00 or 10:00 pm, five to eight employees will work at the downtown Sarasota location, and their inventory includes high end running apparel, workout apparel, accessories such as water bottles, GPS watches, regular watches, heart monitors, high end sunglasses, and hats in addition to shoes. PB: member Siegel questioned if the applicants had discussions with staff regarding working through the sign issues, stated he does not see a public safety issue, in many of the sign cases it appears it is about aesthetics and how people in the regulatory community interpret what is being done, it is a subjective type of analysis, and questioned if the applicant had approached that issue with staff and if SO what the response was. Attorney Bentley stated he was pleased with how staff deals with the public, staff is courteous even when saying no, they take the time to hear you out, the issue had been discussed with staff, Ms. Mendez has been very astute about what PB member Siegel just said, staff feels it is a preference versus a need, the applicants disagree, they feel it is the business owner not staff that can determine what is a need, and the applicants and staff had a frank and open discussion however could not come to an agreement. PB member Siegel questioned if the applicants had any discussions regarding the transition Main Street is going through and the obvious need for more non-alcohol related businesses. Attorney Bentley stated those discussions had occurred, the site has always been a restaurant and bar, the applicants know that specific area has become a hot bed for alcohol related concerns, everybody including the public likes the idea of retail in that location, and it is a win-win for everybody. PB member Lindsay questioned how many of the other signs the applicants pointed out were constructed under this Code and how many were grandfathered. Attorney Bentley stated the Matthews Eastmore sign has only been up for four months, the sign band on that building has always been there, and noted the Sperry Van Ness sign used to be higher on the building. PB member Lindsay stated that non-conformity was reduced and noted that is something the Code seeks to achieve and is willing to make allowances for. Attorney Bentley stated he wanted it to be clear that the applicants were not requesting a band noting the staff report suggested the request could lead to that. PB member Svekis questioned Mr. Aller as to how many of their stores in Florida are freestanding versus in a mall shopping center, how many places the applicants have been able to live with a 24 inch sign or lesser, and at what locations do they have a 4 12 foot sign. Mr. Aller stated there are two freestanding stores, one in St Pete and the other the one proposed for Sarasota, stated at the present time none of their signs are 4 12 feet high, and the dimensions for the Sarasota store are larger due to the need to put the corporate tag line on the vertical portion of the roof spreads the lettering further apart rather than putting those closer together. PB member Svekis questioned how high the sign on the St. Pete store was. Mr. Aller stated he was not certain but believed it to be approximately 30 inches. PB member Svekis questioned if there were photos available. Mr. Aller presented a photograph and noted the sign is located on a flat surface while the area they want to put the sign on the Sarasota store pulls the lettering apart creating larger dimensions. PB member Svekis stated looking at the window panes in the photograph the signage Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 16 on the St. Pete store does not appear to be larger than 24 inches high. OB member Svekis questioned who prepared the memorandum to the Board of Adjustment for the sign variance. Attorney Bentley confirmed the applicants had prepared that memorandum. PB member Svekis stated he had concerns regarding the 125% increase over the limit, noted that does not appear to be slight and read the definition of slight stating that is not the case here. PB member Svekis stated he had reviewed the three reasons provided by the applicant for needing the variance and questioned what difference it makes if the signage is right above the awning versus on the roof noting people cannot see it either way when walking under the awning. Attorney Bentley stated the sidewalk goes all the way to the traffic circle, people do not walk directly under the awning at that location, if you are standing in front of the awning where most people do stand the awning blocks the lower part but not the top where they are trying to put the signage, noted it would not be an issue if it was on another part of Main Street where people walk under the awnings, and stated if the purpose of the Code is to give pedestrians direction it fails if the sign is put where it is supposed to go and is served if the sign is put higher. PB member Svekis stated if someone is standing in front of the store and can't tell it is Fit2Run without looking up at a sign something is wrong. Attorney Bentley stated there are other ways to tell it is Fit2Run. PB member Svekis stated it is wonderful to get the store, it is great for Sarasota, however there are issues that bother him, noted the Planning Board does not deal with precedents sO that is not an issue, and stated reason number three says it will be a beacon for those coming downtown however if you are coming downtown you do not need a beacon. Attorney Bentley stated what he meant by that was if you are coming downtown from outside of the City one of the complaints you hear is not being able to identify where retail is, noted it is not like a mall where you have a directory, the idea is people will not need to look for Fit2Run because it will be the anchor tenant that will draw traffic and people downtown, and to do that they have to hit Fit2Run right away. PB: member Svekis stated the success of downtown was what brought Fit2Run there, noted they want to change it and questioned why try to fix something that is working quite well. Attorney Bentley noted there has not been retail there for 25 years. PB: member Svekis stated something of this size will be known to everyone within a few days and noted people are already talking about it. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez reviewed the basics of the request stating two adjustments are requested, one for the location of the signage and the second for a substantial increase to the size of the signage. Senior Planner Mendez stated staff met with the applicants and encouraged them to move forward with the location, staff acknowledges the value of added retail there, staff had raised concerns at that time regarding the proposed signage and indicated as staff they could not support the substantial departures, and suggested the applicants bring the request to the Planning Board. Senior Planner Mendez presented a graphic depicting the view of the building from the center of the roundabout and indicating where the permitted sign band is, noted there is adequate area above the awning framing and below the existing windows to locate the sign band, stated the Code allows for a continuous sign band that provides the opportunity for additional wall signage on a side entrance and along the Main Street frontage, and noted the approximate proposed location of the signage on top of the second floor. Senior Planner Mendez presented a graphic from the applicants showing the awning recovered with Fit2Run's runner graphic, stated that is considered an artistic rendering versus copy signage, noted that helps to draw Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 16 attention to the building, stated there are several levels to signage downtown including projecting and window signage intended for pedestrians, awning and wall signage for motorists and viewing from a distance, and noted the Code provides for signage from a greater distance on buildings that are six stories or greater that have building identification signage visible from several blocks away. Senior Planner Mendez stated one reason the sign band location is SO specific is to provide predictability, presented a graphic indicating what could be achieved with the recovered awning and signage in the permitted location, stated staff looked very closely at what is permitted today to ensure that meets the intent of the Code to provide adequate signage for businesses and commerce while balancing it with the overall intent of the Code and pattern of signage downtown, and stated staff had looked at the justifications the applicants provided and concluded there was not substantial, compelling evidence to make the case for an adjustment from what is allowed by the Code, which resulted in a recommended for denial. PB member Siegel questioned if staff's S determination was based upon a strict application of the signage standards. Senior Planner Mendez stated there is a strict application as well as administrative adjustment authority that includes the location of signage sO if a 2' high sign was proposed at the top of the second floor that could be considered administratively, noted staff told the applicants going into this they could not support it, and stated staff could also consider 25% adjustments to dimensional standards allowing a minor increase rather than the substantial increase requested. PB: member Sigel questioned if Senior Planner Mendez would agree the adjustment regulation provides "that the regulations of the downtown zone districts are designed to implement the Downtown Master Plan and the Downtown Urban General/ Downtown Urban Mixed Use land use classifications, that these regulations apply over a wide area but because of the downtown diversity some sites may be difficult to develop in compliance with these regulations" with "these regulations" being the sign ordinance being relied upon. Senior Planner Mendez stated yes, as well as any other provisions of the Code. PB member Siegel stated 'you will agree that the five points location is a very unique location in Sarasota, is it not" to which Senior Planner Mendez state yes. PB member Siegel stated "and you will also agree that the adjustment regulation provides relief for unique situations that come up: in the development of our commercial districts, will you not agree, isn't that the standard" to which Senior Planner Mendez stated what PB member Siegel read was the purpose noting the standards are A-E that follows. PB member Siegel stated staff had not made their case of applying their reasoning to the unique nature of the location. Senior Planner Mendez stated the application of the Code as it exists today is the standard, the applicants are the ones requesting the adjustment and it is their responsibility to demonstrate those unique circumstances that exist. PB: member Siegel stated he thought the applicants had, the applicants had clearly pointed out that this is the only location, he thought they said there were two other locations, you have five intersects with this location, he does not see that throughout Main Street SO he does think they made the case that this is a unique location and they do fall into the flexibility category that the adjustment statute is attempting to establish. Senior Planner Mendez stated she respectfully agreed the location was unique however she did not see any unique characters to the building or the view of the building that prevents them from having effective signage that meets the Code. PB member Siegel stated taking it from another standpoint we are talking about Main Street, the most Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 16 important commercial area in the City, the applicants have elected to make a major investment in one of the most troublesome blocks on Main Street, stated Senior Planner Mendez knew what he was referring to, the alcohol related businesses, stated the applicants have stepped into the area with the hope and expectation that a non- alcohol related business could bring a different environment to the street, people like himself could walk down the street at 8:00 at night and want to go into that store, his observation is, and he is sure staff has evidence of this, is that under current conditions he would hesitate to do that, but with an anchor, wouldn't staff agree that the anchor has potential to bring more people who are not necessarily interested in sitting at a bar downtown on Main Street, and wouldn'tstaff concede that if that works we may get more non-alcohol businesses along Main Street which we are not getting now. Senior Planner Mendez stated she agreed retail at this corner is a fantastic addition, however the decision is not made based on the use, the use is permitted, noted all of the building permits for the conversion have been approved, and stated the issue is signage that is consistent regardless of the use. PB member Siegel stated the smart people that created the adjustment provision recognized that it can't always be fast and certain, that there will be exceptions, stated Senior Planner Mendez had not addressed why this does not fall, she had addressed what the signage statute says, but she did not address the purpose of the adjustment regulation which is to be flexible, recognize unique situations and situations that are different, and stated she had not made her case. Senior Planner Mendez stated that is why there are two levels of adjustments and applicants have the opportunity to bring their requests to the Planning Board for deliberation. PB: member Svekis questioned how high the sign band is above the awning, if the awning was a permanent part of the building, and questioned if the awning could be taken down totally. Senior Planner Mendez stated she believed the awning to be a little more than three feet and stated the awning could not be totally removed because it is a required retail frontage that is required to have an awning, noting if the existing awning were taken down a significantly deeper awning with an eight foot overlap would have to be installed. PB member Svekis questioned if the documents provided could include information as to who provided the document, staff or the applicant. Senior Planner Mendez stated the document is question was labeled in the appendix as the beginning of the application excerpts however she would be willing to provide a header in the future. Applicant Rebuttal: Attorney Bentley appeared and stated the applicants, when asked about the signs at other locations, going to the uniqueness of the signs, stated Mr. Aller was correct in stating the height of the Bayside sign was approximately 36", stated what the applicants couldn't show was that the signs are all 36" if you squish them together, noted the 54" height is because due to the curvature of the Sarasota structure the tag line has to be lowered to fit on the curve, and stated the signs are all the same size, 36", but because of the inclusion of the tag line in measuring it appears to be 54". PB member Siegel made a motion to find 14-ADP-06 consistent with Section IV-1903, the adjustment regulations of the Zoning Code, and approve the request of the applicant. The motion died for lack of a second. PB member Lindsay questioned if a motion was needed or could the Planning Board just let it die. Attorney Connolly stated the need for a motion that gets three affirmative votes. PB member Lindsay stated that would imply the only way that could happen would be if there was a Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 16 continuance and another vote. Attorney Connolly stated the Planning Board's Rules of Procedure and the Zoning Code both provide that any motion requires an affirmative vote of at least three members of the Planning Board, if there was a 2/1 vote tonight, because obviously there is no time Mr. Gallagher can vote on it because of his conflict of interest, then based on the criteria in both the Zoning Code and Rules of Procedure the item will automatically be continued to the August 13th Planning Board meeting, Ms. Ahearn-Koch would be required to watch this public hearing, will have an opportunity to ask questions and get up to speed, then there would be motions again, and if at that point the vote is 2/2 then based on the criteria in the Zoning Code that is deemed a denial and the applicant has an opportunity to appeal to the City Commission. PB member Svekis questioned if he could second a motion. Attorney Connolly stated PB member Svekis could second a motion. PB: member Siegel stated he felt it was important for the Planning Board to have a discussion. PB member Lindsay stated seconding for point of discussion does not obligate one to vote for the item it simply provides a way under Robert's Rules to put the thing on the floor for discussion. PB member Lindsay made a motion to find Adjustment 14-ADP-06 inconsistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and deny the Adjustment. PB: member Svekis seconded the motion. PB member Lindsay stated the sign on the roof looks like an architectural afterthought, part of the purpose of the Code is to get signs that are more integrated with the buildings, there was some discussion that McDonalds still has their logos, their golden arches, however he has seen McDonalds where the golden arches were one foot high and one foot wide, they adapt their graphics dramatically when required to do sO in special districts all over the world, he has seen those in historic districts in Europe, places like that where they fit them in, noted retailers would always like to have more splash and zing to their signage, but they also have a responsibility to adapt where required and most big chains do. PB member Lindsay stated the proposed sign is out of scale with other signs in that immediate area, the applicants are using the normal sign area of the building, the area between the first and second floor that is occupied by the awning, for their logo in lieu of the sign, they are going to completely cover the awning with their logo which is in effect signage, and then ask for more to put words also. PB member Lindsay further stated he did not see where there was much creativity in designing a logo/sign that would fit within the space required, noted creative graphics people can do that sort of thing, stated this is in essence double-dipping by turning the awning into a major identification and display of the logo and then asking for more signage on top of that, stated theapplicants have options where they could adapt their signage to the requirements of the Code, the awning, which is a superficial addition to the building, could be reconfigured to have more vertical surface and less slope surface, there are all kinds of ways to do that, that is what architects, engineers, and people like that do, and stated he does not see any real evidence here that reasonable signage in keeping with the adjacent retail outlets can'th be configured to fit within the space available, and noted that would require reconfiguring the awning which he does not believe is of major cost or architectural significance. PB member Svekis stated he knew the area very well, he goes to the Library, Americana, etc., and while driving around the area he could not see the distance needed for that large of a sign, stated he agrees the awning is really an iconic logo sign Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 16 on its own and anybody that knows Fit2Run knows that is them, stated he does not believe it is needed, downtown does not need it, and stated it is a great store to have but let's S stick to the Code. PB member Siegel stated in all due respect to his colleagues the issue is the applicants request for an adjustment and therefore the governing section that should determine how the Planning Board votes depends upon a reading of the adjustment statute, stated the adjustment statute provides for the fact there is diversity downtown, the whole purpose of the adjustment statute is to provide for that diversity, not to get stuck on whether or not it meets the plain language of the signage statutes under normal conditions, stated this is an unusual situation, the staff has acknowledged it is a unique location, the whole purpose of the adjustment statute is to give relief to an applicant where they have established there is a unique location, and a great deal of flexibility should be applied in determining whether or not this adjustment should be granted. PB member Siegel further stated the starting point for him is the fact that this company has elected to come on Main Street, to invest in one of the most difficult areas of Main Street where there are factually numerous complaints of things that are going on related to alcohol related businesses, yet this applicant has gone to one of the most unique pieces of commercial property in the City, Five Points, and are willing to make this investment, if we are going to deal with the transition of Main Street during these difficult times where we have the mall out at I-75 and if we are to attract more than just bars and entertainment types of businesses we have to recognize the risk these folks are taking and give them a chance to operate their business under the conditions that they feel are most suitable to their business, a sign statute that does not address this flexibility should not be considered here, it is for those reasons he feels the applicant has met their burden, it has been shown that it is a unique location, it has been shown that flexibility should be exercised here, if the Planning Board follows the direction that their counsel gave at the outset regarding quasi-judicial hearings he feels strongly that the applicant has met their burden, he has heard nothing from the City, and he asked those questions of Courtney to rebut the burden that has been established by this applicant, and it is for those reasons that he would not vote for the motion that is on the table. PB member Svekis stated he disagreed with PB member Siegel based upon the fact that if that argument were extended then every business could find reasons they could not comply with the Code. PB member Siegel noted PB member Svekis had pointed out at that each adjustment shall be considered unique and shall not set a precedent for others sO he did not believe there was a problem. PB member Svekis stated what PB member Siegel was basically saying was that if the applicant needs this sign because they are a large or wonderful tenant we should give it to them because they asked for it, noting he did not understand that logic. PB member Siegel responded not because they asked for it but because they met the standards that are required for an adjustment, and stated it is not a public safety issue, it is an aesthetic issue, sO the public interest, the governmental interest, is much more reduced than the issues we have with other types of businesses in our community. PB member Siegel further stated the applicant had met the standards rather than just asking for it, the applicants show where it is unique, and it falls within the standards established for an adjustment. PB member Lindsay stated he thought flexibility in granting an adjustment is necessary however excessive flexibility is not, stated it was really a judgment call of when and how much flexibility is required, and the Planning Board is not obligated to give people flexibility although they are encouraged to be Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 16 open to it. PB member Lindsay stated the other issue was the building already had high visibility because of its location, the location is one of the reasons presumably that it was attractive to the applicants, that being the case there is no evidence that oversized signs are necessary given the building's already extreme prominence and visibility, basically he saw no substantial and competent evidence presented that the adjustment is necessary, and stated it is desired by the tenant however he had not heard any substantial and competent evidence it is actually necessary. PB member Siegel stated hel had heard no evidence to the contrary, he understood what PB member Lindsay was saying, stated the burden is on the staff to rebut the prima facie case that was set forth by the applicant, and stated he did not feel staff had done sO if he understood Attorney Connolly's direction at the outset of the hearing. PB member Lindsay questioned Attorney Connolly if the fact the applicant presented a request made it a prima facie case. Attorney Connolly stated it did not, that what the Planning Board needed to look at was the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code, stated the applicant clearly has the burden of proof, they have to prove their case by preponderance of the evidence, and what they have to prove is the five criteria, read the five criteria noting "D" was not applicable, and stated it was an obvious case of difference of opinion. Attorney Connolly further stated clearly the applicants feel they have made that preponderance of the evidence, clearly PB member Siegel agrees they have made that, clearly staff believes not, clearly PB: members Lindsay and Svekis believe not, and stated reasonable men may disagree, that is why we live in the United States of America. The motion failed 2/1. Secretary Smith stated the issue would have to come back to the Planning Board at their next meeting for Ms. Ahearn-Koch to cast her vote. PB member Lindsay questioned if PB member Ahearn-Koch would be at the next meeting. Attorney Connolly noted this was not a regularly scheduled meeting SO Ms. Ahearn-Koch had planned her vacation already, and requested a moment to give some pragmatic advice. Attorney Connolly stated he can establish without question the recommendation of the Planning Board is going to be denial, noted currently there are two votes for denial and one for approval, stated there needs to be three votes for either approval or denial, and if PB: member Ahearn-Koch comes back and votes for denial we know it is denied, if she comes back and votes for approval it is denied because it is a 2/2 vote. Attorney Connolly, speaking to PB: member Siegel, stated obviously PB member Siegel had made his learned argument, if the Planning Board wanted to recall the vote and if PB member Siegel wanted to vote no he would be agreeing with PB members Lindsay and Svekis on pragmatic reasons, then the issue would not have to come back before the Planning Board next month, and asked Attorney Bentley if he had any objections. Attorney Bentley stated he had no objections noting he liked his one vote. Attorney Connolly stated the applicants had their one vote, would always have that vote, and reiterated he was just giving pragmatic advice and the applicants do not have to follow it. PB: member Siegel questioned what process PB member Ahearn-Koch would go through. Attorney Connolly stated PB member Ahearn-Koch would have to watch the video of the hearing, the Planning Board would reconvene during the August 13th meeting, PB member Ahearn-Koch would have an opportunity to ask both the City staff and the applicant any questions she may have because she has to formulate in her mind as if she was here and be ready to vote one way or the other, and stated his only point he Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 16 was making was whichever way PB: member Ahearn-Koch votes the vote is going to be for denial. PB member Siegel stated he believed his vote and the arguments he made, the overriding issue with him was what is in the best interest of Sarasota, stated if this business is denied the opportunity to go into that space because they will not buy the sign restrictions be put on them, which is a low governmental interest type of thing, it is an aesthetic argument, his argument is downtown needs the balance with the alcohol related businesses, he has brought clients of his down to Sarasota to get them interested in going into business on Main Street and they won't buy it under the present conditions, his vote is more than just accommodation it is based on principle, an understanding of what he believes these people are prepared to do in terms of an investment, and he believes it is a sad day in the City if people like this cannot be encouraged to go into business because of sign restrictions. PB member Siegel stated there should be a compromise and his vote would encourage people to continue to talk to staff and being on the high side of his vote will support them in negotiations. Attorney Connolly stated he was just making a pragmatic comment. Attorney Bentley stated picking up on PB member Siegel's comments that he understood his point however if you give lawyers a little time who knows, they might come up with something. Attorney Connolly made an announcement that the public hearing on application #14-ADP-06 will be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting which is Wednesday, August 13, 2014 at 6:00 pm in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1565 1st Street. PB Chair Gallagher reentered the Chambers. I. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE 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.) Mr. Jono Miller appeared and stated the Planning Board was the only outfit in town that had not approved a landscape plan for 1262 - 1274 N. Palm Avenue, stated he has worked in the area since 1975, had been informed by one of the merchants that the City plans to remove all of the existing trees and replace those with new landscaping, and after investigating he located the replacement plan. PB member Lindsay questioned if the issue would be coming before the Planning Board. Secretary Smith stated it would not. Mr. Miller presented a rendering of the proposed landscape plans stating the proposed new trees will not provide shade, stated he has a Master's degree from USF in Florida Studies and did his Master's thesis on the type of existing trees sO he knows a lot about them, stated whatever the City wanted to do, drainage improvements, add parkscape, etc., would be compatible with the existing trees, stated he had met with staff on-site on July 1st and they tried to persuade him that what he wanted was not sensical and what the City was doing was completely congruent with the City's codes and regulations, stated Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 16 Mr. Steve Stancel had provided him with information, he worked through that information and found the downtown greenspace policy states promote the retention of existing trees", - another greenspace policy states "all reasonable efforts should be made to maintain and protect existing trees in the public space or right-of-way", stated the Downtown Master Plan says to provide shade trees to create a pleasant pedestrian atmosphere", another greenspace policy says 'canopy trees are preferred in the public right-of-way", stated there were three separate calls for a single species of tree, a landscape architect called for three species of trees, Mr. Stancel said the City was trying to underground utilities but are actually adding five above-ground backflow preventers which are hideous and have to be hidden, the existing trees already have clear trunks and high canopies which is called for in the ECDM, stated there will be a new reduction in pedestrian space, currently anyone in the parking garage can access the businesses by walking across the lawn, noted because the new design has a continuous barrier of mulch and vegetation people will be forced to enter at the driveway at Bay Plaza which is unsafe, stated the purchase order that was issued for the work had deliverables but no specifications on what problem the City was trying to solve, the City said they would have a public meeting but decided to talk with store owners one-on-one instead, stated he felt there were a lot of inconsistencies with the established goals of the City, there are irregularities with how the press has proceeded, and he is looking for support to go back to square one to see if the City's goals can be accomplished while retaining the existing trees. Mr. Miller stated he was appealing to the Planning Board because they were not the Downtown Improvement District, CRA Advisory Board, Downtown Greenspace Committee, or the City Commission, all of which have approved the plan, apparently in contradiction to the principles he distributed. PB Chair Gallagher stated he was: not sure if anyone knew any more about the process and reiterated the issue will not be coming before the Planning Board. PB member Lindsay stated the issue was outside of the Planning Board's portfolio except to the extent of doing a Comprehensive Plan or Code revision, noted this could be one of those items considered under the normal process of things, stated once something becomes active at this level there is not much the Planning Board can do in the immediate sense, and stated the issue could be put on a worklist to consider during the next cycle of those events. PB Chair Gallagher stated when thinking about a modern code there is a connection between the right-of-way and private property and noted the codes we have been used to over the last several decades separate those things as if they have no connection. PB member Lindsay stated when Paul Segal was the Planning Director any kind of outdoor dining on the public right-of-way was forbidden because it was a public right-of-way that belonged to the public, forgetting that it was the public sitting in the chairs being waited on, stated the prevailing attitude in the 50's and 60's was the public right-of-way was for the public and the adjacent private properties had nothing to do with it, stated the City still makes property owners mow the right-of-ways in their neighborhoods, and stated the hotel proposal the Planning Board looked at recently on Palm Avenue had all kinds of major connections and those are encouraged. PB member Svekis stated he did not believe the Planning Board could do anything about this issue at the moment. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if General Manager Smith knew anything about the project. General Manager Smith stated Steve Stancel of his department managed the project, the project has been approved by the four bodies Jono listed, the project is a streetscaping program to widen the sidewalks and put the utilities underground, staff has offered to transplant the existing trees, and stated construction is anticipated to begin soon. PB Chair Gallagher Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 16 questioned where the funding was coming from. General Manager Smith stated TIF funds were being used and the DID may have contributed as well. PB Chair Gallagher stated the CRA would have had to approve the project and questioned if the City Commission had approved the project sitting as the CRA. General Manager Smith stated the City Commission had approved the project and they had the final say. PB Chair Gallagher stated General Manager Smith had said the project was coming up quickly and questioned if that meant 30 days or six months. General Manager Smith stated he did not recall exactly. PB member Svekis stated from his standpoint, individual input, noted PB member Siegel lives on Palm Avenue and he did not know what his position was on the palm trees, stated the palm trees seem to serve a better purpose than what is proposed, and stated on a personal basis he might go speak to the City Commission under Citizen's Input. General manager Smith stated the greenspace policies require shade trees, the previous City Commission wanted shade trees such as oak trees rather than palm trees SO that is what staff has been working toward. PB member Lindsay stated technically palms are not trees, they are grass from a biological standpoint, stated the shade is nice, the palms serve a purpose when you have a stretch of lawn that you don't want high traffic on due to having a more horizontal barrier than a tree trunk, noted palm trees do not tear up the road like oak trees do, stated there is a lot to consider, and stated he has thousands he could sell for $15 each as is, where is. PB member Siegel stated if the Planning Board members had a chance they should go by the Savoy where he lives to look at the condition of the palm trees, how well they have been maintained and how beautiful they are. PB member Lindsay stated if planted in mass palm trees do provide some mass, if the ordinance is going to be rewritten to allow palm trees or other trees to replace shade trees there has to be some specifications on the number and density, and stated we need to remember we are in Florida and we do not want Main Street to look like Cleveland. PB member Svekis stated it was a stretch but perhaps the Planning Board could pass a motion on the impact of palm trees on the future planning of the City and the Planning Board's perception is they should be kept and maybe that could be communicated through a motion. Secretary Smith stated the Planning Board could not pass a motion at this meeting because the issue was not on the agenda, and suggested the Planning Board listen to the Urban Design Studio's presentation at a special workshop as they may have some information. PB member Lindsay stated the Planning Board does not want to imply that the existing Code that requires trees at certain spacing along streets that they can replace a $250 oak tree with a $15 palm tree and SO if replacing in the Code consideration has to be made regarding the numbers and mass, suggesting five palm trees or some other number could possibly be a suitable replacement for one oak tree. PB Chair Gallagher stated the Planning Board had obviously not had an opportunity to go through the information that had been provided by Mr. Miller and recommended to Mr. Miller that since the Planning Board is not the governing body he should present the same information to the City Commission, stated the information should be submitted to the City Commission in advance sO they have time to review it, questioned if the other Planning Board members were interested enough in the topic to send a notice to the City Commission with a recommendation regarding this specific project, and noted in order to do sO the item would have to be put on the agenda for the next meeting of the Planning Board. Secretary Smith reiterated that the Planning Board may want to hear the Urban Design Studio's presentation on August 20th, stated he was not sure if this topic will be covered specifically but noted they are working on a Form Based Code, and suggested having interaction with the Urban Design Studio since they are drafting something for the Code regarding native plants. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if waiting until then would Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 16 push the discussion past the start of the construction of the project. Secretary Smith stated he did not know the date construction was to begin. PB member Svekis stated if the Planning Board was in any way concerned about the issue and delays the discussion until after the Urban Design Studio's presentation, then there is another month before the Planning Board makes their statement which pushes the issue way out there, SO why not schedule the issue for the next meeting and in the meantime see if it interferes with the Design Studio and if it does the Planning Board can alter or put off their recommendation. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the other Planning Board members were agreeable to putting the item on the next Planning Board agenda. PB member Lindsay stated the Planning Board should consult with the Urban Design Studio, noted it may not be feasible for them to take up one small topic but could see if they were interested in making a presentation to the Planning Board on that narrow topic, and noted the issue would not be couched as some mandated performance because they may not be able to do something that narrow effectively. PB member Svekis stated it seemed like the Planning Board was up against the clock since four governing bodies had already approved the project. PB Chair Gallagher stated he felt it was worth having the conversation, there may be other pockets where this kind of landscaping exists and if it is just being systematically eliminated it could be a conversation, stated ifi it is there and it is functioning it should not be destroyed just because of policy, and stated the need for flexibility. By consensus the Planning Board agreed to put the issue on the next agenda. PB Chair Gallagher stated the item should be placed under Presentation of Topics by Planning Board, the discussion could be specifically about this landscaping project, and stated it may be too late but a general discussion could be held about the idea of canopy trees versus pockets of existing trees. PB member Svekis stated he felt the Planning Board should focus on this specific issue. PB member Lindsay stated he did not want to get too far into a general discussion at this point. By consensus the Planning Board agreed the discussion would pertain to this one specific issue. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 11, 2014 PB: member Svekis stated on page eight of thirty-two, the seventh line from the bottom, the word "intent" should be "intend", / and on page twelve of thirty-two, fourteen lines up from the bottom the far right word "existing" should be "exiting". By consensus the Planning Board approved the minutes with those corrections. III. 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 topics by staff. IV. 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. Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 16 PB member Lindsay stated he had mentioned before about dating aerials where possible, stated one of the aerials presented at the meeting had at the bottom that it was prepared by the department on June 30, 2014 which would imply that was when it was taken and it is not, stated staff may not know when it was taken ifi it came from Google Earth, and if staff does not know the date it should be stamped "undated". Secretary Smith questioned if PB: member Lindsay was referring to page seven of the Affinity Kitchen & Bath report. PB member Lindsay confirmed that was the aerial he was referring to. Secretary Smith stated the top of the aerial says 2011 and noted the latest aerials the City has in their GIS are from 2011. PB member Lindsay stated he missed that because all the words ran together and reiterated that if the date is not available the aerial should be stamped "undated", / stating that could be an ambiguity in the record that would be a nuisance ifi it went to court. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if all aerials in staff reports are from the City's GIS rather than Google Earth. Secretary Smith stated that was correct, stated the entire City is in the GIS, the information is provided by either the County or the Property Appraisers Office, and 2011 is the latest the City has. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if even though the City received the information in 2011 did that mean the aerials were taken in 2011. Secretary Smith confirmed the aerials were taken in 2011. PB member Lindsay stated the need to make note that if a petitioner provides the aerial they have to provide the date it was taken or affirmatively mark them undated, noted he does not have a problem with them turning in undated aerials since the Planning Board is familiar with what they are looking at, and stated he was thinking about what might come up in a court case three or four years after the Planning Board meeting. PB member Svekis stated at the last City Commission meeting the Commission undertook the Rosemary Residential Overlay District, and in case everyone was not aware of what happened the City Commission rejected the extension west of Cocoanut on a 3/2 vote, stated the main concern seemed to be the timing in incorporating those properties causing delays, the overriding things he heard were speculation and they wanted the Urban Design Studio to come in with a Form Based Code before the Commission did anything else, questioned how difficult it would be for the Planning Board at each meeting to go over the City Commission's actions on issues that had come before the Planning Board, and stated he did not believe the Planning Board always followed up with the Commission meetings. Secretary Smith requested confirmation that what PB member Svekis was requesting was a summary of what the City Commission's decision was on something that came before the Planning Board. PB member Svekis confirmed that was correct and stated he also wanted the reasons the City Commissioners gave, stated what he missed in the City Commission's discussion regarding the Rosemary Residential Overlay District was the ending point of the number of housing units for the whole area not exceeding twenty-five units/acre, stated he never heard that discussed, noted part of the Planning Board's discussion was that this could not become high rise towers USA, stated the City Commission never considered that part of it, stating they may. have considered it but never discussed it. PB Chair Gallagher stated he had listened to the City Commission meeting as well and that did not seem to be a concern for them, their concerns seemed to be having a Code coming and not wanting to make any further changes before the new Code was in place. PB member Lindsay stated feedback as to what the City Commission does is useful because that guides the Planning Board in future decisions they make, particularly when getting to revisions to the Comprehensive Plan or Code, stated the Planning Board should, to the extent possible, adjust to the City Commission's thinking without violating their own concerns and principles, stated if the Minutes of the Special Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 16 Planning Board knows the City Commission is going in a certain direction that should be considered when the Planning Board is making recommendations, he does not want something that will take a lot of staff time, and suggested the Planning Board could be copied on certain summary documents that are already provided. Secretary Smith stated staff would create a table with the Planning Board and City Commission votes and the reasons, when available, and stated the City Commission meeting minutes could be incorporated if available. PB Chair Gallagher stated it would be extraordinary to have that and if the date of the meeting is included it would be on the Planning Board members to go back and listen to the City Commission meeting. PB member Lindsay stated there are some issues the Planning Board already knows the City Commission is going to think differently and why, sO the Planning Board does not spend the time to view the meeting, they vote based on what they think, but there are some issues it would be useful to know what the City Commission's: rationale was because the Planning Board might get it back in the form of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment or Code revision. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:43 pm. CG avich David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Char /ie/+ Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board] FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LASTI NAME-FIRSTN NAME--MIDDLEI NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Gallagher, Chris G City of Sarasota Planning Board MAILING. ADDRESS THEE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 445 North Orange Avenue #205 WHICHIS SERVE IS AL UNITO OF: CITY COUNTY JOTHERLOCAL/ AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL: SUBDIMISION: Sarasota Cityo of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MYF POSITION IS: July 9, 2014 ELECTIVE D APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes oft the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision). with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) Ad copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. Thei form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOUI MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: Your must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Your must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, Chris Gallagher hereby disclose that on July 9 20 14 (a). A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of which is the parent organization or: subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: A quasi-judicial hearing for a FIT2RUN sign adjustment Ajustment Application No. 14-ADP-06. FIT2RUN is a client of my firm, Hoyt Architects. CG. - 7-21 Zo14 Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2