CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF' THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board David Morriss, Chair Members Present: Patrick Gannon, Vice Chair Members Robert Lindsay, Chris Gallagher, Eileen Normile City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, AICP, General Manager, Neighborhood & Development Services Timothy Litchet, Director, Neighborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Planning & Development Lucia Panica, Chief Planner Larry Murphy, Building Official Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer Leonard Scherry, Engineering Tech III John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL] MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Morriss called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. Attorney Connolly noted that there are two public hearings this evening, one relating to a Conditional Use and Site Plan, and the second relating to amendments to a Conditional Use and Site Plan resolution; stated that these are quasi-judicial public hearings, according to the criteria of State Law and the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; briefly explained the process for quasi-judicial public hearings, suggested time limits for the presentations, and administered the oath to all present who intended to speak at the following public hearings. Attorney Connolly stated that there are no applications for affected person status for the first public hearing. PB Chair Morriss asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Vice Chair Gannon stated that as the president of the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Association he had conversations with two or three of the residents of 1350 Main Street who expressed their concerns regarding the DeMarcay property, the second item on the agenda. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 22 B. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. Sunset Chevrole/Buick/GMC Dealership (1800 Bay Road, 1850 Bay Road, 1705 Nebraska Street): Site Plan Application No. 16-SP-14 and Major Conditional Use Application 16-CU-05 are a request for Major Conditional Use and Site Plan Amendment approval for a proposed one story six bay Service Building on a portion of the Sunset Chevrolet/ Buick/GMC dealership property located in the Commercial Intensive (CI) and the Commercial General (CG) zone districts with street addresses of 1800 Bay Road, 1850 Bay Road and 1705 Nebraska Street. Access to the new building will be through existing drives within the site. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Applicant Presentation: Mr. Larry Weber, Weber Engineering Surveying, Inc., representing Sunset Chevrolet, introduced himself for the record; stated that the subject property consists of multiple buildings, located on Bay Street, Brown Avenue, Nebraska Street and Bay Road, all located approximately 300 ft. west of the intersection of Bee Ridge Road and US 41; said the proposed changes will be on the west side of the property, to provide for additional service bays on existing impervious area; stated that the doors will be oriented towards the existing facilities; noted thatiti is currently buffered with walls and with landscape; and pointed out that the application meets all zoning and land use: regulations and requirements. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked for clarification regarding the landscape on the north, west, and south side of the property. Mr. Weber stated that the existing asphalt on the north side of the property, and the existing shell on the west side of the property will be removed and the areas will have landscape, and stated no trees will be removed. PB Chair Morriss asked how noise attenuation in the building is dealt with. Mr. Weber responded that there are no doors or windows on the north or the west side of the building, and there is insulation in the walls and the roof. PB Member Normile asked if the gate on Sunshine Avenue will only be used for emergencies. Mr. Weber responded that the door is there to accommodate city staff who may need to access the sanitary sewer system at that location. Staff Presentation: Ms. Lucia Panica, Chief Planner, introduced herself for the record and stated that the application is about a 2,700 sq. ft. single story service bay structure with six service bays; the site has multiple zoning designations, but the proposed structure is in the Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone; noted that the majority of the buildings have existed on the site since the 1960s, and the property was purchased by the current owner in 1979; pointed out that the site was located within the jurisdiction of Sarasota County until 1996 when it was annexed to the City of Sarasota; the site was developed under three different Conditional Uses and accompanying Site Plans; explained that the proposal includes all the conditions of the previously approved Conditional Uses and Site Plans, SO that everything is clearly stated in one document instead of four; added Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 22 that the application meets all zoning requirements, including height, parking, and landscaping; noted that the applicant plans to provide extensive landscaping, and has proffered to keep the gate on Sunshine Avenue closed, all in an effort to mitigate impacts on the residential uses to the south of the site; and concluded that staff has found that the application meets all review standards and criteria, and recommends approval with the conditions in the staff report. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked for clarification regarding the 216 parking spaces mentioned in the staff report, including the two spaces for tree credits. Chief Planner Panica stated that in a previous plan for the site, the owner saved a tree that was in an area for a parking space, and by saving the tree the owner earned parking space credits. Public Input: There was no public input. PB Member Lindsay moved to Adopt a motion to find Conditional Use 16-CU-05 consistent with Section IV-906 of the Zoning Code, find Site Plan 16-SP-14 consistent with Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petitions, subject to the following conditions: 1. The gate located at the north terminus of Sunshine Avenue, north of Hansen Street, shall not be used for routine access to the dealership and will be restricted for emergency use and/or for the use of the City of Sarasota for maintenance and repair of the City's sanitary sewer line which crosses thru the site. 2. The Good Neighbor Policy received by the City Auditor & Clerk on February 6, 2015 shall remain in effect and enforced by the applicant's Human Resources Director or other designee as administrator. 3. The Site Plan and all related development and construction plans for the proposed building shall be in compliance with those labeled Service Bay Addition Sunset Chevrolet, Buick & GMC, received by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services on February 1, 2017. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. 4. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Vice Chair Gannon seconded the motion. PB Member Lindsay had no further comments. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 22 Speaking to his second, PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that the application was presented well, and meets all requirements and review criteria, therefore he supports it. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. DeMarcay (33 South Palm Avenue): Site Plan Application No. 17-SP-04 is a request for a Site Plan Amendment of a previously approved application 06-SP-06 for a project located at 33 S Palm Avenue, in the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone District and known as The DeMarcay. The project was originally approved by Resolution No. 06R-1912 and the applicant is requesting to eliminate one of the conditions on the original approval that "Pre-cast or comparable construction shall be utilized above the sixth floor of the Project". (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Attorney Connolly called the names of the following individuals who had submitted applications for affected person status: Isabelle Marie Starn Stanley Joseph Starn Jeffrey Lambrix Wolfgang Walcker Peter Daley Guy DiCicco Philip Johnson Kathy Romanella John F. Bellantoni William Kautter Dr. David Halsband Jay Leonard Barbara Banks Carol Dechant Isabelle Marie Starn, Stanley Joseph Starn, Wolfgang Walcker, and John F. Ballantoni were not present at the public hearing, therefore they were not granted affected person status. All others were present at the public hearing and were granted, by consensus, affected person status. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, representing XAC Developers LLC, the owner of the DeMarcay, introduced for the record himself and Greg Kveton, Managing Member of XAC, Brent Parker, Project Architect, Steve Whitley, Concrete Contractor, Michael McCarthy, Structural Engineer, and noted Dennis Jones, General Contractor and Brian Jones, developer, were in the audience. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 22 Mr. Freedman stated that on January 16, 2007 Resolution 06R-1912 was approved by the City, along with Site Plan 06-SP-06, to permit the development of an eighteen- story building including 39 residential units and 2,850 square feet of commercial space on the subject property; noted that the site is zoned Downtown Bayfront; pointed out that they have a building permit which expires on September 10, 2018; stated that they are requesting the elimination of one condition from the approving resolution, which calls for precast or comparable construction to be utilized above the sixth floor of the project. Mr. Greg Kveton, XAC Developers, stated that the applicants are going through the site planning process to request this revision sO as to have the opportunity to provide an alternative solution; provided background information about the project; noted that the current building consists of post tension and precast panels above the sixth floor; explained that during contractor bidding in 2015, they discovered that the process of pouring and forming the supporting beams for the plank panels was more complex than the post tension construction; pointed out that the planks increase construction time as compared to post tension construction; added that there were also concerns about hoisting large precast panels; stated that the precast design, for which they currently have permits, is a buildable but not ideal design, however knowing what they know today, no structural engineer or concrete contractor would consider precast construction for this project; demonstrated that all buildings over seven stories recently developed in Sarasota are built with post tension design; noted that eliminating this condition would reduce the construction time and all related impacts by four to five months, and would eliminate trucking approximately 700 concrete planks through downtown Sarasota and hoisting them to the top of the building; explained that the alternative choice reduces the potential of accidents, increases safety, and is the most efficient way to construct a concrete highrise; emphasized that nothing else is changing on the project, and concluded that the choice this evening is between the technology of ten years ago or today's technology which reduces construction time and costs. Mr. McCarthy,Structural Engineer, presented his credentials; noted that his agency: is not the original engineer for DeMarcay; stated that when their agency began working on this project they explored various alternatives of precast technology all of which proved inappropriate for this project due to the special challenges of the site; and concluded that post tension slab is the standard for buildings like the DeMarcay, and the right solution for everyone. Mr. Steve Whitley, Concrete Contractor, introduced himself and stated his credentials; stated that he will explain the differences between hollow core and post tension construction; compared the length of time required for precast VS. post tension technology, the number and types of trucks used for the delivery of materials for each construction type and delay potentials for precast technology due to wind. Mr. Brent Parker, Project Architect, stated that the architecture will not change, all the elevations and the finish remain the same; added that he has safety concerns about Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 22 elevating the 10,000-Ib concrete slabs; noted that the time requirements per floor when using the precast technology are longer; and he pointed out that construction time, and the related impacts to the surrounding area, will be reduced if they use the post tension alternative. PB Member Normile asked what the difference in costs to the builder was. Mr. Kveton stated that the cost differential has not been quantified yet, it is significant but not a deal breaker, the important thing for the developer is time, because agreements are signed that are effective for two years in Florida, and the developer cannot risk exceeding this time limit. PB Member Normile asked if there is a difference in the cost of insurance. Mr. Whitley stated that there is a difference, and pointed out that the insurance for concrete and steel are the highest rates. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked Mr. McCarthy why the steel garter beam system was eliminated. Mr. McCarthy stated that the garter slab system was ruled out due to several reasons; noted that he called Mr. Danny Fisher, the company's business partner, who stated that considering the spans of this project, the required 10 inch system slabs would not be economical for the building, although he later said he could make it work; added that the 10 inch slabs have no topping; pointed out that this building has balconies which require a slope for drainage, and there was no reasonable way to curve a step and a slope for water drainage on the inset balconies; noted that another concern was that the steel had to be fireproofed, and then wrapped with a decorative enclosure by the architect, and the resulting profile of the columns was larger than the concrete columns, which would trigger redesigning some of the interior units by the architect. Mr. Parker pointed out that the lower part of the building will have a parking structure, where the location of the columns and the span of the bays are determined according to the design of the cars; added that, unlike the precast technology, the post tension alternative allows flexibility in the location of the columns; added that the columns connect into the slabs in rigid connections SO that the residential and parking spaces can coexist in a homogeneous, stronger building, and pointed out that this type of construction requires four to five months less construction time. PB Member Gallagher asked Attorney Connolly to explain for the benefit of the PB Members and the audience what the substance of this public hearing was, and the reasons for which this application has come before the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated that this is a unique procedural situation; noted that it goes back to the fact that this Site Plan approval happened under the Downtown Residential Overlay District, which no longer exists, and was subject to the procedures for that district; pointed out that unlike all other site plans which are approved by the Planning Board, the Downtown Residential Overlay District site plans, because they involved quadruple densities, required approval by the City Commission; noted that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 22 this was the procedure ten years ago; stated that there is a condition in the resolution approving the site plan, and pointed out that today's application asks to change that condition; explained that the applicant S first step in the process of changing a site plan condition is to meet with the staff of the Neighborhood and Development Services, to determine whether the change is a major or minor change, because a minor change can be approved administratively, but a major change needs to follow the procedures of the original site plan adoption, meaning it has to go to public hearings before the Planning Board and then before the City Commission, if it was adopted by a City Commission resolution; added that the Zoning Code states that a change to a Site Plan condition is a major change and needs to be presented in a public hearing before the Planning Board and before the City Commission; and clarified that this evening, the Planning Board is not reviewing anything else but the one condition that the applicant wants to eliminate. PB Member Gallagher asked for clarification on the definition of the term comparable," because the condition includes the expression pre-cast or comparable construction," and stated that there is no such definition in the Zoning Code. Attorney Connolly confirmed that this term is not defined in the Zoning Code; and pointed out that the applicant is requesting to eliminate the condition in its entirety. PB Member Gallagher stated that it is possible that the term a pre-cast or comparable construction" was placed in the condition because of the speed in the process, and one could argue that post tension construction is a comparable construction, in which case there is nothing to be discussed at this point. Attorney Connolly stated that what was just described could have happened theoretically, however it is unlikely in this case; pointed out that the Planning Board is talking about a condition that was imposed by the City Commission, and staff would never feel that they have the authority to change a City Commission condition; added that he cannot speak for Mr. Litchet; suggested that the Planning Board can ask Mr. Litchet to testify; and repeated that he did not think staff would feel that they have the authority to change a City Commission resolution. PB Member Gallagher asked what would have happened if the applicant challenged the condition, saying that this is comparable construction. Attorney Connolly explained that this has been discussed with the applicant; noted that Mr. Litchet sent a letter to the applicant explaining that the applicant has two choices: (a) if the applicant feels that Mr. Litchet' S interpretation is inaccurate, then the applicant can request an interpretation from the City Commission, or (b) if the applicant feels that Mr. Litchet's interpretation is accurate, and the applicant wishes to change the Site Plan, then the applicant can follow that original process, including coming to the Planning Board, to change it. Discussion ensued. PB Member Normile stated that conditions work together, and asked how can one consider only one condition, if that could have been the overriding condition, based on which the City Commission approved the Site Plan ten years ago. Attorney Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 22 Connolly stated that this is a legitimate concern, but to determine if this was the overriding condition for the City Commission's approval ten years ago, one would need to review the minutes of that public hearing; and suggested that Planning Board members can weigh the situation and vote accordingly. PB Member Gallagher stated that this evening the Planning Board has two choices to either recommend or not recommend the elimination of the condition, and asked if the Planning Board had any other choices. Attorney Connolly stated "No." PB Member Gallagher asked if the Planning Board can remove this condition and replace it with a different condition, one that would ensure what the public wants, such as least disruption due to construction. Attorney Connolly stated that he viewed this application as a straight up or down case, but, if other factors surface during the public hearing, then the Planning Board can further discuss this possibility towards the end of the public hearing. PB Chair Morriss stated that the project will not go away. Attorney Connolly stated that there is an issued building permit, which means that it has been signed and sealed by an architect and an engineer, confirming that what has been permitted is buildable, therefore the question is, from the Planning Board's S perspective, do you think that the neighborhood, the City, and the public would be better off with or without this Condition. Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself; stated that the site included two structures built in the 1920s; added that the City approved development on the site with Site Plan 06-SP-06, which authorizes the development of an eighteen-story building including 39 residential units and 2,850 square feet of commercial space, and requires saving the facades of the existing structures; noted that at the time of approval the project was in the Downtown Residential Overlay District, which allowed additional densities; pointed out that the current owner was aware of all the conditions prior to the issuance of the building permit on October 15, 2015; added that the building permit met all the conditions of Resolution 06R-1912; stated the expiration date of the building permit is September 10, 2018 because the applicant notified staff that they will use three executive orders relating to extensions; noted that on December 14, 2016 the City responded to the applicant confirming the extensions and establishing the expiration date; added that the applicant is requesting the elimination of Condition C4 which states "Pre-cast or comparable construction shall be utilized above the sixth floor of the Project," and all other conditions will remain; and stated that pursuant to Section IV-508 (a) of the Zoning Code, this is considered to be a major change and has to follow the same process as the original application. Mr. Timothy Litchet, Director of Neighborhood Services for the City of Sarasota, introduced himself; stated that it is rare that he supplements a petition, however, this is a unique situation; added that this is not controlled by the City, there is State legislation that allows some of these projects to stay alive based upon certain natural Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 22 disaster declarations; noted that now we are in different time, a decade later, yet there is an approval that we are dealing with and that is why we are here; added that this project was originally presented to the City in 2005; pointed out that the review process was different then, things were much more conceptual, the review did not go to the detail that it does now; stated that since the regulations were changed in 2007-08 the City gets a lot more to work with thus preventing these types of situations; pointed out that this was approved under the Downtown Residential Overlay District, which offered higher densities, and it was one of the first large projects where the City was using zero lot line issues; noted that this Resolution, which was adopted in January 2007, had six lengthy public hearings, there was a lot of public input, and it was adopted with these conditions; added that public input is important to him; added that he does not think it is his job to override determinations that are based on competent expert testimony; stated that he was asked repeatedly, by the developer, to do that, and he refused because the subject condition is straight forward, and it means what it means; stated that the specific condition in question is Condition C4, which states "Pre-cast or comparable construction shall be utilized above the sixth floor of the Project" noted that this evening we are not interpreting the Zoning Code, rather we are interpreting a resolution passed by the City Commission; stated that he has authority to interpret the Zoning Code, however this condition was discussed at the Planning Board and later incorporated in the Resolution by the City Commission, and ifl he would try to interpret it, it would open up a lot of legal issues, because it is not interpreting the Zoning Code, it is a condition that evolved as a result of public input and expert testimony, and then was adopted by the City Commission; added that in his communication with the applicant, he offered two choices, and he explained that in order to appeal his interpretation he needs to go to the City Commission; noted that in the minutes, it is demonstrated that there was no input from professional staff in the development of this condition; and added that the condition was decided based on public input and expert testimony presented at the public hearings. Mr. Litchet continued by stating that on June 17, 2015 the applicant filed a petition to amend the original approvals; added that he explained to the applicant that he does not have the authority to change Condition C4, and that the current construction did not meet that condition; pointed out that he offered to set up a special review schedule with the Development Review Committee, the Planning Board and the City Commission, to help him meet his October 15th deadline; noted that the applicant did not take advantage of the special review schedule offer, rather they continued working on the approved building plans; noted that prior to the issuance of the building permit on August 31st, the developer met with Mr. Litchet and told him that the precast construction would be prohibitively expensive; added that he told the developer that costs issues will not have any bearing on his decision for issuing a building permit; noted that earlier this evening the developer testified that the precast system wil be problematic; added that his building staff have also told him that the precast construction will be challenging, at best, especially in the hurricane zones; pointed out that the developer contacted him again on September 27th requesting that he reconsider his decision about post tension construction, and accept it to be comparable construction; added that he responded to the developer on October 3rd pointing out to Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 22 the developer the two options mentioned earlier; the developer filed for a building permit, which was approved, and staff stands by the building permit, because it meets the conditions; stated that some members of the public have told him that they plan to challenge the building permit this evening, and pointed out that he does not plan to talk about the building permit this evening, because it is not the subject of this public hearing, this hearing is only about this condition; noted that to say that this situation is unique is an understatement; and questioned why this is surfacing this late in the process, if they purchased this property in 2014, and they were aware of this condition; and concluded by stating that he stands by his determination. Mr. Litchet noted that Mr. Larry Murphy, the City's Building Official, as well as representatives for the Engineering Department are in the audience and available to respond to technical questions about the two construction types, should the Planning Board need their input. PB Member Gallagher asked if the permitted plans right now include precast planks. Mr. Litchet said that he believes sO, however he deferred the question to Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy introduced himself, and stated that the permitted plans for construction right now include precast planks. PB Member Gallagher asked if the condition were to be eliminated, would the applicant have to go back and redesign the building. Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant would have to change certain design elements but he did not think the applicant would have to undergo the entire architectural review, the necessary changes would only affect the structural systems and connections. PB Member Normile asked if the permit has been issued with Condition C4 in it, what would happen if the type of construction changes, would the building permit stand under normal conditions, or would the building permit be revoked? Mr. Murphy responded that the building permit would not be revoked, rather the developer would have to file a letter of transmittal indicating the change in construction, unless if the new type of construction was not allowed by the Code; and added that if they madea materials change that would be a violation of the Florida Building Code, then the permit would be denied, but not revoked. Mr. Litchet added that often in the middle of construction things can change, the developer comes in with a transmittal letter, and the Building Official reviews it for compliance with the Florida Building Code and the conditions of the site plan; and noted that the applicants have testified that they can bring in new construction without interfering with the other conditions, which is the reason the City has requested new plans and documentation that states the only thing that will be changed is this condition. PB Member Normile asked if it is the Engineers who review what is being requested and determine if it is doable and safe. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if the elimination of Condition C4 were approved, would the applicant have to submit a new construction plan and staging plan. Mr. Murphy stated that they could, however just because they remove the condition it does not mean they could not built to the existing condition as it was submitted to the City; Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 22 added that if they in fact went to a post tension system, they would ultimately have to submit plans showing details for connections, cabling profiles, etc.; added that they have actually addressed the staging plan issues and the changes from precast to post tensioning, the trucks got smaller, SO the staging plan went from a WB-40 delivery trucks to a WB-30 delivery trucks, which are standard concrete trucks. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked for clarification as to the date the building permit expires. Mr. Litchet explained that it expires on September 10, 2018 due to additional executive orders from a couple of storms last year, which result in automatic extensions. PB Chair Morriss asked if the Planning Board is the appropriate venue for someone to challenge a building permit, and if not, then what is the appropriate venue? If someone wants to challenge the issuance of the original building permit from October 15, 2015, the Zoning Code provides a ten-day window when one can bring the challenge to the Board of Adjustments. Attorney Connolly stated that this particular building permit would have to come to the Planning Board because the site is in the downtown area. PB: member Gallagher stated that, ten years ago, expert witnesses testified that precast was the fastest way to build, this evening we hear from experts that it is no Ionger SO, and asked Mr. Murphy to offer his opinion on which system is faster. Mr. Murphy stated that one would have to evaluate the two systems based on the manner one intends to use them in construction, for example if you are building a four-story hotel where you can preplan in advance, and order the precast panels to be constructed off- site and delivered to the site, then you could have some time savings there; added that in this case, in the instance of a high rise building like the DeMarcay, this rule would not necessarily apply, only because you still have to bring the big trucks through the downtown area, and you still have concrete trucks; pointed out that if you want to determine what is faster, you still have more trucks in the precast system than you would in the post tension system; noted that he agrees with the applicant in his concerns about lifting those large panels in the downtown core environment with buildings in close proximity; he agrees with the applicant's S assessment of an eight to ten-day break per floor on a cast in place system, it would vary a few days on the precast system, based on the data that was submitted, but it would be between 18 to 20 days break per floor, resulting in 4 to 6 months added time to the schedule. PB Member Normile stated that it has been ten years since this was discussed, and asked have there have been any changes in technology since then, and if these systems were used then. Mr. Murphy stated that these systems were used then, the precast systems were used for lower impact development; added that in his twenty five years with the City, he has never done a building of this magnitude in the downtown area in precast, they have all been post tension. PB Member Normile asked Mr. Murphy to share his assessment of safety in using the precast system. Mr. Murphy explained that these are large and heavy precast panels, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 22 they are lifted into place by mechanical means that can fail, while in the post tension system you lift items that are smaller and less heavy, and should there be loss of a chain or overspill of concrete, it does not compare to the catastrophic loss of a lifting chain. Responding to PB Member Normile's question, Mr. Murphy stated that the staging plan indicates that the panels will be lifted to place from the alley. PB Member Gallagher stated that there was discussion about a steel structure being appropriate, and asked Mr. Murphy if there are tall steel structures in Sarasota. Mr. Murphy stated the norm for high rise structures in Florida is post tension and concrete construction. Affected Persons: 1. Jay Bradley Leonard - spoke against the application; opposes the elimination of the Condition; opposes the post tension construction because it creates cement dust and cement fragments which are health hazards; he supports the precast panels system; and opposes locating the cement mixing trucks in the alley because they would block the fire exit. 2. Philip Johnson- spoke against the application; supports the position of the previous speaker. 3. Peter Daley - spoke against the application, because of the health hazards associated with the post tension construction. PB Member Gallagher pointed out that the audience must realize that both types of construction systems (precast panels and post tension) will pour concrete on site; noted that there is going to be plenty of concrete around every time they pour a column; and clarified that cement dust is not generated by wet cement rather by dry cement. PB: Member Lindsay asked Attorney Connolly to define substantial and competent testimony" which is what the Planning Board is supposed to hear in a quasi-judicial public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated that it must be persuasive evidence and relevant to the inquiry. PB Member Lindsay added that it also has to bel based on knowledge and professional expertise and not be opinions. Attorney Connolly agreed that expert opinions are provided by individuals who have expert qualifications however testimony from the public can be factual testimony. 4. Carol De Chant - stated that she supports Mr. Leonard's position. 5. David Halsband - spoke in opposition to the application, agrees with Mr. Leonard's position 6. Guy DeCicco spoke in opposition to the application, and is concerned about falling debris from post tension construction. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 22 7. Jeffrey Lambrix - concerned about emergency vehicle access when the cement truck is there. 8. Kathy Romanella - was called, but she was not in the audience 9. John Bellantoni - was called, but he was not in the audience 10. Wiliam Kautter - spoke in opposition to the application expressed safety concerns due to the proximity of existing buildings; questioned if the developer is committed to develop this site in an expedited manner. 11. Barbara Banks - stated she is not interested to speak at this time. The Planning Board took a 10-minute recess Public Input: 1. Robert Lincoln = representing 1350 Main Street., spoke in opposition to the application; stated he has been involved with this project since 2007; added that the reason for this condition was the off-site impacts of dust and particles when pouring concrete up high in the air, sO a comparable system would be something that would have similar off-site impacts; and suggested that the applicants have not explored other alternatives that meet the intended purposed of the condition. 2. Dennis McCabe - retired 30 year Building Official from the State of New York and past president of the New York Builder's Association = spoke in opposition of the application; stated he is not against the project he just thinks it should be done right; and stated that an analysis of the environmental impacts and the safety impacts on the neighborhood of the alternative VS the approved method of construction needs to be done. 3. Paul H. Rubin - professor of Economics at Emery University, and from 1985-87 previous Chief Economist of the US Consumer Products Safety Commission; spoke in opposition of the application; expressed safety concerns with the number of concrete trucks because they are unsafe vehicles. 4. George Lemon - spoke in opposition to the application, agrees with the positions of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Leonard who spoke earlier; expressed safety concerns about lifting the concrete to the high rise, it has all been done before, but it is a logistics matter that is not trivial. 5. Corina Hammond - spoke in opposition to the application; commented on the definition of "comparable" added that pouring the concrete is not comparable to precast panels. 6. Martin Baer spoke in opposition to the application; opposes the use of poured concrete. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 22 7. Ruth Baer spoke in opposition to the application; opposes the use of poured concrete; expressed safety concerns about falling items and about the access of emergency vehicles through the alley. 8. Eileen Hampshire - spoke in support to the application; stated that something will be built on this site, sO why not this one. 9. Heather Weisenborn consider the change in the staging plan, particularly the frequency of the trucks and street closures, because it can be detrimental to the businesses in the immediate area. 10. Linda Goldstein - did not speak. 11. Shelley Singer - spoke in opposition to the application; several changes have happened over the years; suggested the City request a new site plan for review to avoid unintended consequences. 12. Kathy Romanella - did not speak. 13. Mel Sykes - called out from the audience - agrees with the previous speakers who spoke in opposition to the application. 14. Eleanor Williams - spoke in opposition to the application because it is a very tight situation. 15. Patrick DeFeo - spoke in opposition to the application; stated that he agrees with Jay Leonard 16. Howard Savel - supports the development however does not support the application; he wants them to do what they have promised to date; keep it as is or back out from the whole project. 17. Henry Terk - called from the audience that he agrees with Mr. Kautter. affected person who spoke in opposition to the application earlier. 18. John Ehlert - spoke in opposition to the application 19. Linda Miller - suggested that an unbiased opinion regarding the safety of these construction systems needs to be presented; opposes the City's process of reviewing/approving changes to site plans and their stipulations. 20. Stephen Berger - concerned about the access of emergency vehicles down the alley during construction Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 22 21. Jerry King president of Merchant S Association in the area - concerned about street closures and staging 22. Ellen Fusiero- spoke in opposition to the application due to the health hazards of poured concrete. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Kveton stated that most of what was heard was a factor of the differences between the two systems, and Mr. Whitley, Concrete Engineer, will address that; pointed out that they presented various alternatives to City staff, but all were found unsatistactory, the reason they want to eliminate the condition is because it is confusing; and added that they became aware of these problems when they had detailed drawings to review with their subcontractors in 2015. Mr. Whitley, Concrete Engineer, noted that, unlike what was said during public testimony, technology has improved, and now they can pump concrete up to 700 ft. in one continuous operation; said that there was a lot of discussion about silica dust; pointed out that it does not come out of wet concrete, rather it comes off the concrete when there is grinding of the walls; noted that the new OSHA regulations require that grinding machines are attached to an airtight vacuum system to collect the dust; stated that they keep the floors clean and put a fine mesh around the perimeter to catch debris, safety rigging is also placed around the buildings sO if something falls it gets caught; emphasized that they have experience in building on small lots and they know how to protect the neighbors; added that the flat trucks come from Miami or Jacksonville and it is difficult to plan their arrival, however, they have an off-site lot to accommodate staging; pointed out that concrete trucks come from ten blocks away, and they can precisely schedule their arrival to deliver their load and leave the site; concluded by saying that it is a cleaner operation with concrete trucks. Staff Rebuttal: There was no staff rebuttal. PB Vice Chair Gannon requested Mr. Murphy, City's Building Official, to provide clarification regarding the safety of post tension construction, which is the preferred method used in Sarasota, and asked if there have been incidents of failure of post tension caps under construction, where they have flown off and hit other buildings. Mr. Murphy answered yes. PB Vice Chair Gannon referred to One Watergate, where residents had caps flying through the windows from nearby new construction. Mr. Murphy confirmed that, added that it is a highly unusual event, and noted that staff addressed the issue; pointed out that that operation was tightened up severely, protocols were set in place, and netting was installed in the building to prevent that from happening, it is not common, there were more of these incidents on Watergate than anywhere else in the years he works in the City; and added that prior to that, there was one incident, a cable broke at the Ritz Carlton. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 22 PB Chair Morriss asked how the City deals with street closures, and if there is a difference in street closures between the precast and post tension construction systems. Mr. Murphy stated that Engineering staff handles street closures. Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the only closure that is being contemplated is closure of the alley; stated Palm Avenue will not be closed; noted it is the same for either construction system; and stated the City charges daily fees for closures of streets, sidewalks, parking spaces and these fees are incentives for construction to hurry up. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if there is a chance Mira Mar Court will be closed. Mr. Ohrenstein stated that there is a possibility the sidewalk on the side of the construction may be closed, but not the street. Mr. Murphy explained there probably will be a minor closure of the sidewalk in the area of the cigar factory, because the cigar factory façade will have to be incorporated in the building, per requirements, and they need to stabilize that. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if there is a sidewalk on the other side of Mira Mar Court. Mr. Ohrenstein stated that it would not be affected. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if the sidewalk on Palm Avenue next to DeMarcay would be affected. Mr. Leonard Scherry, Engineering Tech III, stated that the sidewalk on Palm Avenue will have a covered walkway installed, SO Palm Avenue will remain open at all times, unless if the contractor feels it is necessary to close it for safety reasons, at which time the City will reevaluate the situation; added that on the back side on Mira Mar Court they are proposing to have a back hoist, SO the Mira Mar Court sidewalk adjacent to this property will be closed as long as the back hoist is there. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if the sidewalk closures are different depending on the type of construction method described here. Mr. Scherry responded no, they are identical staging plans, the only difference is the pump truck or the pump trailer, which will be located within the footprint of their building. Mr. Murphy added that the turning radius is also reduced to the WB - 30 VS. the WB- 40 trucks. PB Member Gallagher asked Mr. Scherry to compare the two construction systems; asked if the amount of concrete flooring planks in one truck would be about the same amount of concrete in one concrete truck, it is about 10 yards, which would cover about 450 sq ft., sO in terms of the actual putting that plank down or pouring concrete it is about 1 to 1 in terms of the truck, ignoring the topping. Mr. Murphy said that is correct if you ignore the topping. PB Member Gallagher added that there is the plank you put down, if they go with post tension, then there is a 7 inch concrete thickness, if they go with hollow core then they are going to have 8-10 inches of that, and then 2: inches of concrete on top of that. In either case they are going to pour columns, and then they are going to pour 7 inches of concrete or 2 inches of concrete. Mr. Murphy stated that is correct, and added that they also need to pour beams. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 22 PB Member Gallagher noted that in the post tension system there are not many beams. Mr. Murphy agreed, stating that this is the elegance of the post tension system, it allows you to build larger open floor spans, because the weight is transferred and distributed to the cables. PB Member Gallagher pointed out that in the precast system both columns and beams have to be poured; stated there is a lot of concrete to be poured in either case; and asked Mr. Murphy to offer his opinion based on his experience from visiting construction sites if one construction method is more dusty than the other. Mr. Murphy stated that he has visited sites of both construction types, he has not conducted tests for the presence of silica, but construction, by its inherent nature, is dusty and dirty; added that he does not have data to support that one method produces more silica dust than the other, unless if the contractors violate OSHA regulations and they are not using the correct equipment; noted that silica is released only if there is grinding, and in both cases there will be some grinding at one point or another; and concluded that both types of construction will produce an environment that is inherently conducive to construction. PB Member Normile asked Mr. Murphy if the swimming pool at 1350 will be open when the slabs are lifted up, or will that happen in another location. Mr. Murphy stated the swimming pool is located on the 6th floor approximately 10 to 12ft. from the backwall, it is a significant distance from the actual face of the building to the pool, but it could get dust. PB Member Normile stated that she is more concerned about the lifted panels, and asked if one were to pull free, could it land in the pool area. Mr. Murphy stated that they are: not supposed to swing the panels in that direction; noted that the current staging plan indicates that they will lift the panels from the alleyway, and swinging from the alleyway would be to the south of the building; added that they are not supposed to be swinging anything towards 1350, that was a condition on the staging plan; and noted it would have to be error for that to happen. PB Member Normile stated that it is less likely that a slab would hit the pool, which would be a disaster. Mr. Murphy confirmed that. PB Member Normile asked if concrete bits and chunks could hit the pool. Mr. Murphy stated that precast slabs, when they are delivered to the site they are not clean, they have spalling and concrete dust on them, and, when lifted in a breezy environment, spalling could come off, be picked up by the air and transferred to the pool deck area, unless there was a tragic fault on a cable system, and these things require backups and have many cables. PB Member Normile stated that her main concern is the likelihood of something falling in an area where people are congregating. PB Chair Morriss asked what the City's policy was if there were a problem with spalling or dust reaching the pool deck. Mr. Murphy stated that there is a site under construction at this time, and they use EIFS which is still allowed by the code and it is a standard process; explained that it is expanded polystyrene that they put on the outside of the building, and they have to rasp it before they stucco and finish it; added that it produces a snowflake quality particle that is biodegradable; noted that the City has engaged the contractor in this case, and has put some controls in place where they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 22 go around and clean the area, and if they drop it they vacuum the area to decrease the impact; concluded by stating that, from that aspect, it will be no different for this site, if the City notices something is out of hand, the City puts controls on them. Affected Person Rebuttal: There was no affected person rebuttal. PB Chair Morriss closed the public hearing. PB Member Gallagher moved to adopt a motion to recommend to the City Commission approval of Site Plan 17-SP-04 amending Site Plan 06-SP-06 and the elimination of condition C4 in Resolution 06R-1912 which states , pre-cast or comparable construction shall be utilized above the sixth floor of the project". All remaining conditions and findings of Resolution 06R-1912 remain in effect. PB Member Lindsay seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB member Gallagher stated that he did not hear any compelling evidence indicating that the precast system is safer, that it causes less dust, that it causes any greater impact on the roadways, that it causes greater impact in the staging area; added that we heard a lot of opinions from people who would not like this building to be built, they think it is too tight etc.; noted that all of these things are not on the table this evening, it is a question of two construction methodologies, iti is a mystery why it was put in ten years ago, and this has gotten sO far, however we have not heard any compelling evidence that the precast system is better than the other; stated that, in his opinion, the post tension method is better and quicker; pointed out that most of the testimony was from 1350, but people had to endure this for 1350, many people in downtown Sarasota were not happy when 1350 was built, it is part of the price we pay for living in an active City, there is going to be construction dust around that site for one to two years; and concluded by stating that the Planning Board is debating tonight these two systems. PB Member Lindsay stated that he agrees with all that PB Member Gallagher said; added that it is clear from the testimony that the alley will be obstructed a lot of the time regardless the type of construction used; noted that normally the Planning Board does not dictate types of construction, the PB has received expert testimony that the method proposed in the change is superior, both structurally and in impacts to the surrounding areas, the four month difference in construction time is substantial and would have a beneficial impact on the properties in the area, that would far outweigh anything else, four months-time is substantial in the process; said that what is annoying is that the people of 1350 do not want construction next door, unfortunately that is what comes with being downtown when someone has a site that they can legally built upon; added that, clearly the undercurrent here is that if we make it hard and difficult they will go away, but something will come along; noted that people were unhappy when 1350 was being built and Main Street was closed; added that this is a tight location, but they build all over the world on tight sites, it is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 22 because we are becoming more urbanized, and we will have to deal with some of these issues across the City, just like any other city that is growing and prospering; stated that, in balance, the reality from the expert testimony is that the proposed construction method is not worse, and it is four months shorter, which will substantially reduce the impact, and the other arguments are really driven by efforts to try to stop the project all together, but we are not at that point, that argument should have taken place ten years ago. PB Member Normile stated that she does not think the Planning Board is asked to decide the type of construction to be used in the construction oft this building, rather this is a contract dispute, there was a deal made, and there is evidence that the modification was requested and looked into years ago for cost purposes; added that the permit was applied for, it appears to her, under false pretenses; noted that the burden is on the developer to show that he has a comparable form of alternative building, the PB. has heard testimony from Mr. Lincoln, and it seems logical that there may be other forms of construction that are available that the PB has not had any testimony about, and the PB has been led to believe that it is either one or the other; pointed out that approval removes Condition 4 without replacing it with any other type of construction, just removing Condition 4, sO in her estimation, she will be opposing that, for all the aforementioned reasons. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that he understands the issue before the Planning Board is whether or not to eliminate Condition 4, and he does not find compelling evidence to eliminate that condition; noted that eliminating it, opens it up to any implementation without specifying anything else; added that the Planning Board has no record of what that would be, other than some proposals, but nothing in writing in terms of an alternative or proffer for that; added that the evidence from the original application and the original site plan which was approved, and it was testified again here tonight, that there was compelling evidence put forward that led to Condition C4; pointed out that it was notj just a stand alone," there was a lot of discussion both through the three Planning Board meetings and the three City Commission public hearings that led to having that condition in there; Condition C4, as has been testified here, has not fully been explored, (for example, the steel garter slab option would meet the condition C4 without eliminating it), tells him that they have not provided sufficient evidence that the Condition must be removed because there was no other alternative, therefore he will be voting against the motion. PB Chair Morriss stated that there are a couple things involved, first what is "comparable; noted that Mr. Litchet does not feel comfortable with, and he really should not be, defining something that was dictated by the City Commission years ago, but then using a technicality to kill this is also uncomfortable to him; pointed out that there are some pro's, like the shorter time, four to six months is al big deal, but the other piece of this is eliminating it all together without replacing it with something else; and asked Attorney Connolly if the Planning Board could replace Condition C4 with something that states this method is comparable, sO they cannot substitute it with something else later on. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 22 Attorney Connolly stated he will not say to the Planning Board "You cannot do that;" noted that during the public hearing there was mention of a transmittal letter; pointed out that one cannot come in and build whatever one wants, it must comply with the Florida Building Code; suggested that the Planning Board keep in mind that, at this stage of a zoning regulatory process, it is most unusual to dictate at the zoning regulatory process a construction method; clarified that it was done ten years ago, because it was proffered by that developer; added that if the condition is just taken out, he did not think it will be different than what the Planning Board is used to seeing; suggested the Planning Board members think of all the other development approvals they have done, they have never done sO: and noted that that there is the Florida Building Code that will dictate what can be done. The motion passes with a vote of 3 to 2. (PB Member Normile and PB Vice Chair Gannon voted "No.") III. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO1 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.) Corina Hammond - expressed objections to riding bicycles on the sidewalk in the downtown because they interfere with pedestrian traffic; added that bicycles should be ridden in the street; and stated that Florida law says it is OK to ride on the sidewalk, but in downtown Sarasota, the bicycles should be in the street. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 8, 2017 Page 6, top of page, line 3 should be corrected as follows: 1 .building is not on the property." PB Members, by consensus, approved the February 8, 2017 Minutes, as amended. V. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF ITEMS PRESENTED. ARE INFORMATIONAL ONLY (NO ACTIONTAKEN). ANY ISSUE: PRESENIED THAT: MAY: REQUIRE FUTURE. ACTION WILL BE. PLACED ON' THE NEXT AVAILABLE. AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. There were: no topics by staff. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the: next available agenda for discussion. PB Chair Morriss asked how the Planning Board was going to do the discussion about traffic concurrency, and asked if the Planning Board need City Commission approval. Secretary Smith stated City Commission approval is not required for a Planning Board discussion; noted that, if there is an official Planning Board action, then it will be presented to the City Commission as a Planning Board report, with the request for staff to Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 22 work on a topic. Discussion ensued. Secretary Smith reviewed the schedule, and mentioned that it could be placed on the June agenda; noted that the City Engineer has requested a scope of services from one of the City's Engineering Consulting firms to look at transportation concurrency and to update it, and part of the study is vested trips; pointed out that there will be a study of vested trips, along with five other items dealing with traffic concurrency; and stated it: is anticipated the study will be initiated this year and that information should be included in the Planning Board's deliberations. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked when the Planning Board would see the amendments that were stripped out of the Transportation Chapter. Secretary Smith stated that staff will move forward with the adoption of the amendments that were transmitted to the State regarding transportation; stated first the EAR based amendments should be in place; and stated the other amendments will be brought back in a separate amendment process rather than being part of the EAR amendment, which will provide the opportunity for thorough discussions and public input. PB Member Normile stated that one of the items the Planning Board said they would like to discuss is whether or not Administrative Approvals would be part of a Zoning Text Amendment that the Planning Board approved in the last meeting; and asked Attorney Connolly if that was approved by the City Commission, and then the PB had a discussion of whether administrative approval should apply in a development agreement for property over seven acres would that be considered a taking at that point? Attorney Connolly stated that he thinks the City would be up against a Bert Harris Act complaint at that point; added that under Federal Constitutional Law, one. has to take all beneficial use of the property to be considered a taking; noted that about 20 - 25 years ago the state came up with the Bert Harris Act which addresses inordinate burden, which is a much lower standard; and added that it is not a taking, but he does not think the City would have no consequences. PB. Member Normile asked if the Planning Board should discuss the matter. Attorney Connolly stated that the amendment is scheduled to be presented to the City Commission; explained that after the Commission's action, the burden falls on the property owner, who can hire an appraiser, determine the value of the property without the regulation, and then the value of the property with the regulation and inordinate burden, to determine the difference in value and sue for it. PB Chair Morriss asked if there is an actual inordinate burden between an administrative review and a public review. Attorney Connolly said "That would be the question. Yes." PB Chair Morriss asked if there is case law. Attorney Connolly stated that he is not aware of case law; added that it would not be a taking, because you have not taken away all beneficial use of the property; added that, surprisingly, there are not many Bert Harris Act cases that have been litigated in the past 20 - 25 years; noted that when it was first enacted, it was expected it would be more litigious than it has been; and added that there are a lot of claims but there aren'ta lot of cases. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 22 PB member Normile stated that the question remains, should the issue that was put off at the last Planning Board hearing because it had not been noticed, be heard by this Board before the full Zoning Text Amendment goes to the City Commission. Attorney Connolly stated that it is too late, because it is already scheduled to go to the City Commission on March 20, 2017. PB Member Normile noted that it has not been heard yet, and asked if it should that be postponed. Attorney Connolly stated that the Planning Board could not ask the City Commission to postpone it; and noted the item has probably already been advertised. PB Member Normile asked again if the Planning Board should discuss it. Attorney Connolly stated that in his mind there was nothing in the General Development Plan that could be subject to the Bert Harris Act. PB Member Lindsay asked if there is going to be an August meeting. PB Chair Morriss stated that the plan is not to have an August meeting. PB Member Lindsay asked if the lights are brighter in the Chambers. Responding to PB Vice Chair Gannon's request, PB Member Lindsay described his experience as a panelist on one of the interview panels for the selection of the Director of the Planning Department. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:38 PM. Maute Oui 2Sh David Smith, General Manager-Integration David Morriss, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]