CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board David Morriss, Chair Members Present: Patrick Gannon, Vice Chair Members Damien Blumetti, Eileen Normile, Kathy Kelley Ohlrich Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Steven R. Cover, Planning Director, Planning Department Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services Lucia Panica, Chief Planner, Development Services Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department 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 Planning Director Cover [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were none. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Cover read the pledge of conduct. Attorney Connolly described the procedures for Quasi-judicial public hearings, recommended time limits for presentations, and noted that there are no applications for affected person status for either public hearing. PB Chair Morriss asked PB members if they had any ex-parte communications regarding the two applications. PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that he drives daily by the Sarasota Contemporary Dance location, but he has not had any communications about it. PB Member Ohlrich stated that she has visited the locations of both applications with Chief Planner Lucia Panica. PB Member Normile noted that she did a site visit with the Chief Planner Panica as well. PB Member Blumetti stated that he did a site visit and spoke with one of the architects for the Contemporary Art building about the sign, specifically about who Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 21 designed the sign, and if they were in favor of it. PB Member Ohlrich added that she also had a brief conversation with City Commissioner Ahearn Koch about the sign. Attorney Connolly administered the oath for all present who intended to speak at this evening's public hearings. B. Quasi-ludicial Public Hearings 1. SARASOTA CONTEMPORARY DANCE (1440 BOULEVARD OF THE. ARTS AND 550 CENTRAL AVENUE): Adjustment Application No. 17-ADP-06 is a request for approval of an adjustment from Section VII-110(5)(C), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) for property located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district with street addresses of 1440 Boulevard of the Arts and 550 Central Avenue, known as Rosemary Square. Applicant is requesting to allow a wall sign for Sarasota Contemporary Dance to be located not at the top of the first-floor façade and to allow signage to exceed the allowable height of 2 feet. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Applicant Presentation: Dan Barzel, a volunteer working with the dance company, stated that he has experience with construction planning, and volunteered to help them with the construction of the space on the third floor at Rosemary Square, which is currently permitted and underwayjadded that he volunteered to help them with the sign process as well; noted that there were other members involved with the design of the sign, but he is trying to drive though the execution of it; said that he listened to the previously videotaped meeting for background knowledge, which he used in writing the Adjustment request; pointed out that the original proposal was for the Sarasota Contemporary Dance Studio to have horizontal signs on Boulevard of the Arts as well as on the south side of the building, which basically is facing an alley; noted that approved signs are two for the Opera, and two for Florida Studio Theater; explained that the signs were vertical, banner size, hanging from the top of the building, and the comment in the previous meetings was that the sign for the dance studio does not fit in with the other signs; stated that they had some work done, and they came up with a vertical design hanging from the top of the building, similar in scale and identical in color with everything else that has been put up already, and metallic in nature; stated that this evening they are proposing this sign, they think that it is what was aimed for in the previous PB discussion almost a year ago, it would fit along with the Florida Studio Player's signs as well as the Opera signs, it would also fit with the scale of the building; showed the PB an actual letter that will be used in the sign, stated that he reviewed it with Jonathan Parks,who says that it is the same as the letters on the other signs, and he supports the idea for the signs; pointed out that the character, the shape, the design, and the orientation of the sign are in keeping with the three others that are there now; and concluded that he thinks it will be very pleasant. PB Chair Morriss asked about illumination of the sign. Mr. Barzel stated that they had not talked about it; and noted that budget is a concern for this group. PB Chair Morriss stated that eventually they will have to address it, and asked staff if the illumination of the signs is a separate process once the signs have been approved. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 21 Chief Planner Panica stated that there is a certain type and certain amount of lighting that would be allowed for a wall sign, and it has been addressed in the building permit. PB Member Normile asked Mr. Barzel if all the letters are of similar construction as the one he showed earlier, and if it is a painted sign. Mr. Barzel stated that the letters are cut out, painted acrylic with a fifteen-year warrantee, and very durable. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the font is identical to the one used in the Opera's sign, and noted that the Florida Studio Player's sign seems to have their own logo lettering. Mr. Barzel said it is similar but he cannot attest it is identical. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out that consistency was mentioned repeatedly in the last PB: meeting, when the sign was denied, SO she stated that for the sake of consistency not only should the sign be vertical but the lettering should be identical, or as close as possible; referred to page 15, the letter dated August 22nd, 2017, 2nd paragraph, and noted that at the beginning of the narrative, it states that "the intent is for the Sarasota Contemporary Dance sign to match the current approved signs;" added that "match" equals "identical," sO she would be interested to see that the font of the lettering, if not identical, be as close to identical as it can be, SO that the lay-person'se eye does not notice any difference; and concluded that it appears that that is the case. Mr. Barzel said that he will check and compare the font of the other signs to the font of their sign. PB Member Blumetti asked what the attachment method of the acrylic letters was, and will the attachments be visible, because the other signs do not have visible attachments. Mr. Barzel stated that it will be an aluminum shaft with an attachment bolt or anchor inside of it, SO it will look identical to theirs, and one would not be able to tell the difference Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; stated that the applicant is seeking approval of two adjustments for the Sarasota Contemporary Dance sign proposed for the façade facing Central Avenue, which will be standing vertically from the top of the third floor to the bottom of the second floor; explained that the adjustments are for the location of the sign and for the size of the sign; pointed out that the Code requires a wall sign be located at the top of the first floor façade, and not to exceed 2 feet in height, at any length; added that the adjustments for the other three signs have been approved by the Planning Board; stated that during that process, the Planning Board denied the Sarasota Contemporary Dance sign because it was not consistent and similar to the other signs they approved; noted that the Planning Board advised them at that time to revise their sign and make it look more like the three they approved, and to come back to the PB for an Adjustment approval; they have revised their sign, and staff finds the Adjustments consistent with Section IV,1 1903 of the Zoning Code, and recommend approval of the Adjustments subject to the two conditions in the staff report. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 21 PB Vice Chair Gannon requested clarification as to what is being adjusted, specifically as it relates to the size. Chief Planner Panica stated that one adjustment is the location, the sign is vertical, and the other is for the height, and the height is changed from 21 feet to 18 feet in height. PB Vice Chair Gannon said that the height, in terms of how you read it, it shows that the height of the lettering is 51 inches, and asked how this compares to the height of the letters in the other signs. PB Vice Chair Gannon clarified his question stating on the Florida Players Studio sign the text type is 44 inches and you are asking for 51 inches. Mr. Barzel explained that the Contemporary Dance Studio sign has three lines and smaller letters. PB Chair Morriss stated that the PB was trying to avoid cacophony of signs, and asked what the total sum of signage possible for this building was, including the vertical, the horizontal, and the tenant signs. Chief Planner Panica responded that there can be projected signs and window signs. PB Chair Morriss asked if there are any more signs mounted on the building, and if there is anything in the Code that allows the Planning Board to dictate the logos or the text people can use? Chief Planner Panica responded no to the both questions. PB Member Normile noted that according to the minutes from the last PB public hearing, that would be regulated in the lease, the leaseholder will regulate the signs in the future, according to his signage plan and signage design; asked if the PB has that plan today; and stated that it has been a while, and she thought it would have been incorporated or included in plans for future leases. Mr. Barzel stated that they have guidelines, and that the spirit of the sign is in line with the guidelines. PB Member Normile clarified that she was referring to retail signage that goes along the front of the building; added that it is a concern when you talk about the vertical signs and the additional horizontal signs; pointed out that there was a signage plan, or a vision that was given to the Planning Board when the applicants were here last time; and noted several of the PB members were not here at that time. Chief Planner Panica stated that in December 2016 the Rosemary Square Signage Guidelines were submitted to the Planning Board, which includes 23 different guidelines on specifications for signage, written by Jonathan Parks. PB Member Normile noted that there was discussion that these guidelines would be built in to future leases with the retail establishments, SO that the vision would not disappear. PB Chair Morriss pointed out that thisi is a question for the building owner, and called the owner to speak. Dr. Mark Kauffman introduced himself for the record, and was sworn; stated the architect of record, Jonathan Parks, provided an extensive sign package for the tenants, and they were given this package; noted all the other tenants will have their signs on the band; stated there is a tenant that has three stores, but was allowed only one sign; and stated as a result there would not be a proliferation of signs. PB Member Blumetti asked if the requirements were in the lease or based on a 'good will" relationship. Dr. Kauffman stated that the lease states management must approve the sign. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 21 PB Member Ohlrich asked how many additional tenants are possible in this location. Dr. Kauffman responded that they have three buildings and noted legally they could have fourteen signs however there would on be nine. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the three existing signs and the one proposed this evening are the only signs that will be vertical and colored in that way. Dr. Kauffman confirmed that; added that they are putting art on the Boulevard of the Arts; sated they are putting a major statute in the courtyard that will have three rings, one for each of the arts (dance, vocal, and performing), and noted there is a pattern to all this. Responding to PB Chair Morriss' question, Dr. Kauffman stated that each tenant gets one sign, except the University of Florida who requested and received two signs, because one of their signs will be along the alley, and that side has no other signs. Public. Input: 1. Stephen Rees, Jr., local land use attorney, spoke in support of the Adjustment. 2. Ms. Mayers - in support - stated she has nothing more to add to the above. 3. Jack Shapiro - in support - stated that he also did not have anything to add. PB Vice Chair Gannon moved to find the Adjustment 17-ADP-06 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment subject to the two recommended conditions: 1. All related development and construction plans for the proposed sign shall be in compliance with those plans received by the Department of Development Services on September 21, 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. 2. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Normile seconded the motion. Speaking to his motion, PB Vice Chair Gannon stated that the issues that had been raised in terms of compatibility and consistency have been addressed, it fits in the character of the Rosemary District and Rosemary Square to identify the arts on the Boulevard of the Arts, and it meets the intent of the Code. PB Member Normile, speaking to her second said that the Application meets all the applicable review standards, and she thinks it is attractive and adds to the community. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 21 PB Chair Morriss stated that he thinks it is nice, proportionate, and a nice completion to the sign package for this facility; adding that there is always concern when retail is involved that there is going to be a cacophony, but he likes that they are sensitive to it, and contain it to the best of their ability. The motion is approved unanimously, (vote of 5 to 0). 2. MARINEMAX EXPANSION (1601 Ken Thompson Parkway): Site Plan Application No. 17-SP-03, Major Conditional Use Application No. 17-CU-02 and G-Zone Waiver Application No. 17-GZW-01 are a request for Major Conditional Use and Site Plan approval for proposed improvements at the MarineMax facility located in the G-Zone district with a street address of 1601 Ken Thompson Parkway. Proposed improvements include boat rack replacements and expansion of capacity, a new restroom facility, a shade pavilion, a floating dock and additional parking. A Conditional Use is required for expansion of a leasehold use, which includes the boat dock, within the G-Zone district. G-Zone Waivers are requested for a reduction in waterfront setback for the proposed three tier boat racks; a reduction in the front yard setback for the proposed shade structure; a reduction in the required parking lot buffer; to allow gravel parking; and to allow modified dock regulations regarding maximum length, maximum square footage, minimum depth, and area of terminal platform/marginal dock area requirements for the proposed docks. (Lucia Panica, Chief Planner) Applicant Presentation: Tim Roane, DMK Associates, introduced himself and Sam Lowery, Director of Real Estate of MarineMax, for the record; stated that they are requesting approval of three applications, Site Plan Application No. 17-SP-03, Major Conditional Use Application No. 17-CU-02 and G-Zone Waiver Application No. 17-GZW-01; noted that the proposed project is located at 1601 Ken Thompson Parkway on City Island; pointed out that the adjacent uses include Mote Marine and City Island Park; provided the history of City Island; explained that it was constructed in 1926, when the City of Sarasota paid $800,000 dollars to construct a channel from New Pass to the bayfront; noted that originally it was envisioned to have docks and warehouses, the docks were completed but the warehouses were never built; added that, as the years went by, the City envisioned a busy maritime port at the location but that did not materialize; said that over the years the docks deteriorated, or were destroyed by acts of nature, and the dredged channel returned to its former state; stated that, between 1926 and 1929, the island operated as a small landing strip; noted that, in 1939, the City acquired part of the island and dedicated it as a park; pointed out that, in 1944, the remaining island was acquired by FPL, which later decided they did not want to build a powerplant on the island and did a land swap with the City of Sarasota; stated that, in 1944, the City owned the entire island, except one parcel which was given to the Radio Station WSPB; noted that, in 1958, the Sailing Squadron approached the City and requested to lease a portion of the island for its headquarters; stated that the City agreed, and rededicated the island for public use; pointed out that in the years 1958 - 1967, the only island occupants were the Sailing Squadron and the Radio Station; and added that the City continued to lease Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 21 properties on the island and by the late 1960s most of the waterfront properties on the island was developed. Mr. Roane stated that the marina was built between 1968 and 1974; noted that MarineMax acquired the land lease in 2002; pointed out that, on December 3, 2012, the City of Sarasota unanimously approved the third extension of the leasehold on the parcel; stated that the lease agreement states it is the intent of the City that the marine facilities operated by MarineMax be exemplary, equal to other marine facilities operated and maintained at a First Class level within the State of Florida, and that MarineMax Marina will continue to operate as a marine storage and service facility available to all members of the public; added that the agreement states that the lease premises shall be utilized as a marina facility providing maintenance and repairs for boats and marine engines, as a storage facility with wet and dry storage for boats, as a ship store providing parts and equipment relating to the maintenance, repair and operation of boats and equipment, as a source of services, goods, and supplies for recreational boaters, and as a facility providing for the sale of new and used boats, motors, trailers and related items; pointed out that, with regard to the proposed improvements, the lease states that it is understood that additional repairs and improvements will take place over the term of the lease; stated MarineMax may make improvements and repairs from time to time, as long as those improvements and repairs provide service to the public in the pursuit of marine oriented recreational activities; added that such improvements and repairs must be consistent with the landlord tenant relationship in order to enhance the value of the leasehold or extend its useful life; and stated that any improvements or repairs not covered expressly in the agreement will require prior approval by the City Manager, provided however that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Mr. Roane continued pointing out that the existing MarineMax site has several uses including the Old Salty Dog Restaurant, a boat and sales office, a parts and service building, several boat racks, and a small shade canopy; noted that modifications to the site include new boat racks, additional parking, a new restroom building, a new shade pavilion, and a floating dock; stated that the proposed improvements are consistent with the land lease agreement; added that the improvements shown on the proposed site plan include replacement of six existing boat racks with five three-tier boat racks with an allowable height of 35 feet; pointed out that the proposed boat racks are on the same footprint and maintain the same setback of 15 feet; noted that the new boat racks will not be closer to the sea than the existing ones; and stated that the proposed plan shows the addition of 95 dry slips, and that the increase in slips is the result of going from the two tier to a three tier boat rack system. Mr. Roane spoke about the parking; stated that currently there are 60 parking spaces on the site, and they are proposing 35 additional on site spaces located behind the parts and services building; noted that the proposed restroom building is a 1,900 sq. ft. two story building, to be located at the southeast corner of the marina basin, giving direct access to the patrons of the marina facility; added that utility service for water will be provide by the City of Sarasota through an extension of the water lines on site, and will Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 21 be connected to the existing lift station on site; noted that the shade pavilion is 240 sq. ft. and is proposed to be in the location of the existing pavilion to give protection to the patrons when they load and unload their equipment. Mr. Roane continued with the final request for a proposed floating dock located along New Pass; stated that there are two points of connection to the land, one by the Old Salty Dog and the other on the east side of the property; noted that this dock will serve as a tie up location for transient vessels that come in to use either the marina or go to the Old Salty Dog Restaurant; pointed out that they are not proposing to store or tie boats there overnight; and stated that to allow the improvements on this site plan, there is a need for several waivers. Mr. Roane explained that one waiver is for the waterfront setback. for the proposed boat racks; noted that the current setback is 15 feet, however the required set back is 30 feet, and they are proposing to stay at the current setback; added that they are also requesting a setback waiver for the shade pavilion that will be at the location of the existing pavilion; explained that the setback requirement is 30 ft., and they are bringing it down to 5 feet; noted that there are several additional waivers for the floating dock, and for the parking lot; explained that for the parking lot they are requesting the elimination of the 5-foot buffer requirement along the property line, because the parking area is between an existing building and the property line, and there is currently a fence along the property line that screens the parking from being viewed from Mote Marine; pointed out that the other waiver request for parking is for the use of gravel material, noting iti is a low impact development technique used to increase the amount of impervious area, and they used it on this site before. Mr. Lowery added that the new lease agreement was negotiated in 2014, they gave MarineMax a twenty-year extension for this facility which included an attachment of an itemized list of improvements consistent with the language that Mr. Roane read earlier, and they recognized that in order to meet those standards they would have to invest a considerable amount of capital; and added that the lease also states it is the tenant's S obligation to construct new boat racks, restrooms and the rest of the items that they are requesting through their applications this evening. PB Chair Morriss asked for additional information about hurricane safety. Mr. Lowery pointed out that MarineMax has nineteen marinas around the country and they have experience with securing the boats on the boat racks; noted that during the recent hurricane Irma, the boats on the boat racks at their marinas in Naples and Ft. Myers had no damage, only one boat fell off the boat rack not because of the wind but rather due to failure of the steel structure; and added that the foundations are built to hurricane code. There was discussion about the cost of the restrooms. PB Chair Morriss asked for clarification about public access, and asked how the public would use this facility if they are not a patron of the marina or the Old Salty Dog. Mr. Lowery explained that the facility is open to the public, this is not a private facility, they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 21 serve the public on a "first-come first serve" basis; and added that the restaurant, the repair store, and service store is open to the public as well. PB Member Ohlrich asked if the existing docks or the floating dock provide services to boaters who come in for a weekend stay. Mr. Lowery noted that one of staff's recommended conditions prohibits MarineMax from doing that; and added that the existing dockage is small and only accommodates the "in-and-outs" of the 250 existing customers. PB Member Blumetti asked how many pilings there were and how they will affect the dock, and the marine life in that area. Mr. Roane indicated that they have conducted studies that show that there are no sea grasses at the location of the floating dock, the waters are deep, and the bottom is rocky; added that in terms of the number of pilings, that has not been determined yet; pointed out that County staff has reviewed and approved this; and added that the typical piling spacing is 20-ft to 30-ft. SO it will be pretty typical to a standard dock. PB Member Normile asked what the overall cost of the project was, and how much of that is charged back against the lease. Mr. Lowery responded that the overall project cost is 3.2: million dollars, and that the rent credit allocation: is capped at 2.7 million over the remaining life of the lease. PB Member Normile noted that in the lease there is language about upgrading the technology and capacity of the fuel storage and dispensing system, and asked if it has been done. Mr. Lowery said there are two fueling stations, and they have been upgraded with new lines, new dispensers, and new technology. PB Vice Chair Gannon referred to Page C-5, Demolition Plan, and asked if the new boat racks have the same footprint as the existing boat racks. Discussion about the location of the boat racks ensued. The setbacks relate to the water edge, and the new boat racks will not be closer to the water than the existing ones. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if what is there today is non-conforming to the current Code. Mr. Lowery agreed, and stated that now that they are replacing the existing racks, they are requesting a waiver, but they are not moving anything closer to the water. PB Vice Chair Gannon referred to Page C-6, Best Management Practices Plan, and asked if the floating dock extends beyond the property line. Mr. Lowery stated that what shows on this plan must be an error, because the actual property line of this property is further out, towards the navigation channel. PB Member Blumetti noted that on Page C-7, Site Development Plan and Horizontal Control Plan, there is 25-ft setback between the floating dock and an unidentified line to the north of the boat dock. PB Vice Chair Gannon noted that Page C-7, Site Development Plan and Horizontal Control Plan, shows that the outer edge is going to be 82-feet from the dock; noted that today, there is nothing there, and asked what is the boat traffic in this area; pointed out that just north of here there is a sandbar where people hangout during low tide; stated this is taking 80 feet out of the channel there; and asked what that would do to boat Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 21 traffic. Mr. Lowery stated that the navigable channel is further out in the water than the proposed floating dock structure. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked what the impact of shifting sandbars during certain weather conditions was. Mr. Roane responded that they have not done any sedimentation analysis but that the channel has historically remained open, there is little migration of sand. PB Member Ohlrich asked whose idea is to in increase the number of boat storageracks. Mr. Lowery said it is the tenant S idea. PB Member Ohlrich noted that, when she visited the site, she saw in the area of the proposed parking lot there were boats and boat trailers, cradles are pushed up against the building and a lot of other boat accessories; expressed concern, stating that if these items are going to be in this space in the future, they will not have the minimum required parking spaces, based on the total number of boat storage racks; added that she is concerned, because there already parking concerns at MarineMax, Old Salty Dog, and Mote Marine; and asked what is the applicant's intention for that parking lot if it is approved. Mr. Lowery stated that if approved, it will be striped and used for parking and it will no longer be available for the storage of excess supplies. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the DMK Associates document regarding the waiver of the 5-ft. buffer; noted that it states that "the special conditions and circumstances are not a result of actions from the applicant. - She stated that they are because if the applicants did not ask for additional boat storage racks they would not need additional parking, and if they were asking for fewer additional boat racks, then they would not need the G-Waiver for the buffer. Mr. Lowery stated that the improvements, and the expenditure of millions of dollars, intend to provide access to the water to more Sarasota citizens; noted that their facility is completely full, they have 100% occupancy, and a waiting list, and they would like to provide more access; and added that a way to do that is to expand the capacity of the facility; and concluded that he feels that the additional 95 slips will be filled quickly. PB Member Blumetti expressed concerns about the proximity of the shade pavilion to the road and its adjacency to the new restroom pavilion; and asked why the shade structure cannot be part of the restroom pavilion and also meet the required setback. Mr. Roane explained that the intent of the shade pavilion is to allow patrons to use it while they are loading their cars which are pulled up in the 17 perpendicular parking spaces on the side of the road; and added that the covered area by the new restrooms is not large enough and it could cause traffic to back up on Ken Thompson Parkway. PB Member Ohlrich noted that the shade pavilion is fenced in on the side of the road, and currently people access the awning from either side; and requested clarification about the ingress and egress from the street to the shade pavilion. Mr. Roane stated that the ingress and egress to the parking lot remains as it is today. PB Chair Morriss asked for clarification on the role of the floating dock. Mr. Lowery stated that the entrance to the basin, at it exists today, has a concrete riprap structure Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 21 that results in an extremely narrow entrance, and for unexperienced captains it is challenging to come in and out; added that the challenge is that it opens to Sarasota Bay, it has an extremely long fetch, and, with northern winds, the basin takes a great deal of wind generated wave action; stated that this wall system was built to suppress the waves and calm the basin as the boats go in and out; and added that it is designed SO that it opens up thenavigational channel to the full width of the basin, and it is listed as part of the demolition. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked why a floating dock, and how it attached to the posts. Mr. Lowery responded that the reason for the floating dock is that the water is 17 feet deep and it is not practical to build a fixed system in that kind of water depth; and pointed out that the floating dock is also a wave attenuator. Mr. Roane added that the floating dock allows for a safer transition and ease for the boats during high tides; and stated it has a 12-ft platform to be used in case of emergency, if the Coast Guard needs to come in, or to pick someone up. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked what the maximum tide height this floating dock will account for. Mr. Roane stated that there is a 2-ft. fluctuation between mean high and mean low tide; referred to Page C-9 and pointed out that there is a 10.5-ft maximum pile height allowed from mean high water surf, if there is an increase in the tide. PB Member Ohlrich referred to page C-9 and asked about the dumpster pad and enclosure detail; noted that currently the dumpsters are in what is going to be the parking lot; and asked if they will remain in that location or if they will take upi parking spaces. Mr. Lowery stated the dumpsters will be located at the southeastern corner of the property, along the property line, and they are not taking up parking spaces; and added that these dumpsters will not collect refuse from the Old Salty Dog. Staff Presentation: Chief Planner Panica introduced herself for the record; stated the zoning is G Governmental) on the entire subject property, and on the entire island with the exception of one RSF-1 parcel; noted that MarineMax has held the leasehold since 2002, and the property has been used as a commercial marina dating back to the 1960s; stated that the applicants are requesting approval of three applications, Site Plan Application No. 17-SP-03, Major Conditional Use Application No. 17-CU-02 and G-Zone Waiver Application No. 17-GZW-01 for the proposed renovations and expansions; added that the major conditional use is for the expansion of the lease and the floating dock; noted that the applicant is requesting eight G-Zone Waivers for standards as they are outlined in the staff report, relating to: the front yard setback for the shade structure, the water setback for the boat racks, the parking lot perimeter landscape around the new parking lot, the parking lot surface material, and the dock plank area and terminal platform for the floating dock; pointed out that these waivers are a result of the site being currently developed, the inability to increase the land area and expand, applying fixed dock standards to the floating commercial dock, and applying RSF-1 standards to a commercial marina; stated that the Code allows waiver to be granted from the regulations where there are difficulties and unnecessary hardships; added that required Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 21 parking from the additional dry slips is provided on site, as well as required mitigation for the three palm trees to be removed; noted that a full analysis of this project and the petitions has been provided in the staff report; and proposed a slight modification to the language of the recommended Staff Condition #1, under the recommended motion for the Site Plan and the Conditional Use, to read as follows: Additions are underlined; deletions re-Striekei-threngh The floating dock shall only be used as transient temporary slips. fer e-eseFEAMAeF-HeAFiNA. Boats shall not tie off overnight or on a permanent basis and the dock shall not be used as rental slips. Chief Planner Panica explained that this change will allow the general public to use the floating dock; pointed out that currently there are discussions about the City having a water taxi, and this could potentially be a pick up/drop off location; and concluded that staff recommends three different motions, one for each petition, subject to the modified Condition #1. PB Member Ohlrich referred to the staff recommended motion about the G-Zone Waivers, and asked if the current Code has stipulations regarding the use of parking lots. Chief Planner Panica stated that the Code does not allow parking lots to be used for storage; and stated outdoor storage is not permitted at this location PB Chair Morriss asked why no overnight boat tie offs at the floating dock. Mr. Lowery responded that the main reason for that is to make it a temporary use, because a permanent slip requires additional parking. PB Chair Morriss asked if there has been any discussion over the income that will be generated by the additional dry docks. Chief Planner Panica responded that topic was not part of this review. Mr. Lowery noted that it was part of the review when the City and MarineMax re- negotiated the lease in February 2014; explained that there were appraisals from the City, and the lease was negotiated based on those valuations, both from a current rental income stream, and from a fee-simple ownership, as well as the capital investments which are required as part of this lease. Responding to PB Vice Chair Gannon's question, Mr. Lowery stated that the 2014 lease is not a fixed amount, it has annual CPI increases, and it goes up in 2018. PB Member Blumetti asked why a waiver reducing the parking spots rather than green space and the 5-1 ft. buffer was requested. Mr. Roane stated that from the practical point of view the spaces were needed. PB Chair Morriss asked what the ratio between slips and parking spaces was. Mr. Roane stated that the Code requires one parking space per every three slips however the reality is one parking space per five slips. Mr. Lowery stated that, based on his experience the majority of the year the ratio is one parking space to fifteen slips, because the activity is not SO high, but there are four days in the year that you could not have enough parking spaces. Discussion ensued. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 21 PB Vice Chair Gannon asked for clarification about the landscape buffer shown on page C-7. Mr. Roane explained that is an existing buffer, and if they had continued it north, they would lose the parking spaces along that side of the parking lot; and added that in terms of tree replacement they are removing three trees and planting six trees, because they need trees for all the parking islands. PB Member Ohlrich stated that her real concern was about the parking, but after the discussion this evening her concern has been taken care of. PB Member Normile asked Attorney Connolly what the approval would be based on, since there no standards in the Zoning Code for a floating dock. Attorney Connolly stated that the Planning Board is approving the Site Plan, the Conditional Use and the G-Zone Waivers, SO PB Members need to refer to the Site Plan and Conditional Use, which are discussed in the Staff report, starting on page 10. Mr. Roane pointed out that during the permitting of the floating dock, it will be reviewed by the City of Sarasota, Sarasota County, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the Army Corps; stated that they have already coordinated with Sarasota County; stated the construction review process will provide the extra level of review for the design details, number of pilings, structure, materials, etc.; pointed out that what the Planning Board is approving this evening is if the floating dock can be placed at this location; and added that the details of construction will be reviewed during the construction review process. Chief Planner Panica stated that staff has contacted other cities to see how they regulate floating docks; noted that none of those cities regulate floating docks, they leave that regulation to state authorities; and added that, to be on the safe side, staff, in reviewing these applications, has applied the regulations for regular docks currently found in the Code. PB Member Normile asked if it is OK if the dock crosses the boundary line. Chief Planner Panica stated that docks can extend over the property lines, however that requires approval from the State, which they will get. Public Input: There was no public input. The Public hearing was closed. Attorney Connolly stated that normally the Planning Board approves a site plan, but with the three applications this evening the Planning Board is just making a recommendation because the Site Plan is located in a G-Zone, and the Code provides that, for a site plan in G-Zone, there will be a public hearing at the City Commission level, SO, that is why, with all three of the recommended motions, the Planning Board Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 21 is making a recommendation to the City Commission; and added that the Commission will have a Quasi-judicial public hearing of their own. PB Member Blumetti asked for clarification of what to do if one does not agree with the entire site plan; and asked if one can take things out. Attorney Connolly stated thatitis better to discuss it with the applicant; added that it is the applicant's application, they bring to the Planning Board what they want, and the Planning Board applies the criteria, and either votes it up or down; stated that if it is something that could change the vote from voting it down to voting it up, then you discuss it with the applicant, to see: if they can make a proffer, or if they can change something to address your concern. PB Member Blumetti stated he is concerned about the shade pavilion because it could be potentially dangerous for pedestrians walking back and forth to the marina, and to the structure itself; added that people park there, and people drive by, kids are getting out pulling their stuff out in that area, and being a loading and unloading area, it is a bit of a concern; and concluded that he does not believe it creates a hardship for the applicant to deny the waiver. Attorney Connolly noted that the public hearing is no longer open, and it may be a good idea to re-open it. Mr. Lowery clarified that the structure is already there, and people come in and out now. Mr. Roane noted that the existing parking is how people come in and out right now. PB Member Blumetti expressed concern that the shade pavilion is not a permanent structure. Mr. Roane noted that it is not fixed with a foundation, but it is permanently located there today. PB Chair Morriss asked if the applicants have considered any alternatives. Mr. Lowery stated that the alternative is what exists there today, iti is a tent, a temporary tie-down structure that serves as a place to get out of the elements; added that it is not very attractive, and it is not consistent with the investments that are going to be made to make this a first class facility; it is an amenity that the customers would appreciate, it is at the exact same foot print as the existing tent, today; and added that the building construction, color, look and feel will be consistent with the restaurant building which is immediately adjacent to it. PB Member Blumetti explained that it is potentially dangerous because the people are pulling up and it is more of an entry point, not to mention its redundancy; explained that the bathroom pavilion is not there right now, SO there is a need for the shade pavilion, but when you are building another shade structure twenty feet away, which can potentially serve the same exact purpose, he does not see the need. Mr. Lowery noted that they have inherited what has already been built; pointed out that the forklift activity has to travel between the forklift area and that entrance pavilion, which is a dangerous situation, SO they want to see all the commercial traffic activity away from the pedestrian traffic; added that the shade pavilion serves as a point Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 21 of entry for those customers, a striped walkway walks them from the pavilion to the restaurant building, and this keeps people from wandering everywhere else; and concluded that this is another reason for this layout, and our thought process. Responding to PB Member Ohlrich's questions, Mr. Lowery stated that the current awning is behind a fence, and after the permanent shade pavilion is constructed, the fence will still be there; and added that the structure is not open to the street. PB Member Ohlrich pointed out that people pull in vertically and not parallel to the street as they are unloading at those few places that are available. PB Chair Morriss pointed out that if one has to drop off all their stuff, coolers, etc., it is better to have it right next to the road, rather than moving it 20 feet off the road, and keep doing the stuff again and again; and asked if PBI Member Blumetti wanted to make a motion or if is he satisfied with the responses. PB Member Blumetti stated he is satisfied. Motion for Site Plan 17-SP-03 PB: Member Ohlrich moved to find Site Plan 17-SP-03 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan 2030, and the standards for review specifiedby Section IV-506 pfthe Zoning Code and the City's Tree Protection Ordinance and recommend approval to the City Commission of the petition subject to the following conditions: (Additions are underlined; deletions areSiriekew-threwg") 1. The floating dock shall only be used as transient temporary slips frthe-restaurant and/erthe-marina. Boats shall not tie off overnight or on a permanent basis and the dock shall not be used as rental slips. 2. All related development and construction plans for the proposed project shall be in compliance with those plans labeled Marine Max received by the Department of Development Services on September 21, 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. 3. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Vice Chair Gannon seconded the motion. Attorney Connolly pointed out that Condition 1 was revised earlier. PB Member Ohlrich added to her motion "including the change offered by Planner Panica." Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 21 Speaking to her motion, PB Member Ohlrich stated that the applicants did a good job of explaining why they need a floating dock, and why it would be to the benefit of our community; added that she is pleased to hear that not just the City will be approving the standards but also the county, state, and federal authorities have to approve it, SO she thinks it meets the standards. PB Vice Chair Gannon, speaking to his second, stated he has nothing more to add. The motion was approved unanimously (vote 5 to 0). Motion for Conditional Use 17-CU-02 PB Member Normile moved to find Conditional Use 17-CU-02 consistent with Section IV 906 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition subject to the following conditions: (Additions are underlined; deletions areSirieke-threng", 1. The floating dock shall only be used as transient temporary slips fOrthe-restaurant and/er-the-marina. Boats shall not tie off overnight or on a permanent basis and shall not be used as rental slips. 2. All related development and construction plans for the proposed project shall be in compliance with those plans labeled Marine Max received by the Department of Development Services on September 21, 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. 3. The issuance of this development permit by the City of Sarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB Member Ohlrich seconded the motion. PB Member Normile, speaking to her motion stated that the applicants have met the criteria. There was no further discussion. The motion was approved unanimously (vote 5 to 0). Motion for Application 17-GZW-01 PBI Member Ohlrich moved to adopt a motion to find Application 17-GZW-01 consistent with Section IV-1706 of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission of the petition. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 21 PB Vice Chair Gannon seconded the motion. Speaking tol her motion, PB Member Ohlrich stated thather concerns regarding parking have been met, the Zoning Code does not allow parking of boat trailers, etc., in the parking lots, SO she is pleased to make this motion. PB Vice Chair Gannon had no comments. The motion was approved unanimously (vote 5 to 0). IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TOTHE PUBLIC: AT THIS TIME CITIZENS MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING BOARD ON TOPICS OF CONCERN. ITEMS WHICHHAVE BEENI PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSEDA AT. PUBLIC HEARINGSI MAY NOT BE ADDRESSED AT1 THIS TIME. (AMAXIMUM: 5- MINUTE TIME LIMIT.) There was none. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 13, 2017 PB Member Ohlrich stated that she has submitted to staff her revisions to page 11 of 16, second paragraph from the top, where she was commenting, she just gave a little different wording that she thought better clarified her intent. The September 13, 2017 minutes were approved by consensus. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were: no presentations. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the: next available agenda for discussion. PB Member Normile asked if the Planning Board will review last month's presentations. PB Chair Morriss stated that the idea was to have the context for all transportation things, SO that they all are hearing the same context at the same time; noted that there have been some programs of different sorts about transportation in the City, and it becomes a bit chaotic, and confusing, and some pieces are missing from that puzzle, SO the question is what happened with the monthly primer on transportation items, provided it is noticed. PB Secretary Cover stated that what they plan to do in the future, when applicable, they would like to do some presentations for the Planning Board, they will give notice of what Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 21 is coming up, and it will be part of the agenda SO that the public will be knowledgeable; and stated that staff did not have anything this evening. PB Chair Morriss stated that the specific topics the Planning Board touched on last time made him look forward to a bigger context, sO the PB Members can plug all those different components into it, SO they can understand, for example, that they will never have a monorail down on US41, because we just cannot afford it; noted that we have physical and financial limitations that prevent us from doing certain things, SO we eliminate those from our vocabulary; requested that if staff does that, to treat it as starting out with Transportation 101," cars, people, bicycles, and then go on from there, sO the Planning Board has a nice steady foundation to go on. PBI Member Normile stated that she is disappointed because she thought Ryan [Chapdelain did a nice presentation, but it had not been presented exactly the right time, and she thought that the Planning Board had requested to bring it back at this meeting, SO that the Planning Board would have the discussion; added that it has not happened, and she would hate to have this put off; stated that it would be good to bring back what Ryan [Chapdelain was talking about last time, which was very basic information about additional planners and how the Planning Department is developing, and things like that, because the PB Members probably have some comments and lots of questions, and she had hoped that that would come back; and added that she does not want it to be put off months and months. Attorney Connolly stated that under the Sunshine Law, the requirements are: notice, it has to be at a place that is open to the public, minutes have to be taken, and the public has to have an opportunity to speak before the Planning Board takes action on a proposal; explained that the last time he was concerned about the notice, because it must include the date, time, place, and subject matter; pointed out that subject matter is very important to a lot of people, and nobody knew about it; stated that when we are talking about things that are not on the agenda, like Topics by Staff, if the discussion is substantive, then there is a problem, but if it is procedural or ministerial, it is fine; asked if the PB Members have substantive questions or procedural/ ministerial questions. PB Chair Morriss stated that they have to assume that they will be substantive questions. Attorney Connolly stated that it has to be on the agenda, and if it is on the agenda, then PB Members do not have to worry about their questions. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if it would be an agenda item under topic VI, and any materials to be presented would be included in the packet, sO the public would be able to download it and review it. PB Chair Morriss stated that the degree of specificity of the discussion will be very clearly laid out before we speak. PB Member PB Member Normile asked how the PB members can have input into the planning process if when they request that something be put on the next month's agenda, it is not done. Once PB members receive the agenda--at which point they can see what is actually on it--it is too late to add anything. Attorney Connolly explained that when it is time for Presentation of Items by the Planning Board, that is when you can bring procedural and ministerial items forward, you can make a motion and ask staff to bring back these topics, as the schedule allows. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 21 PB Member Normile made a motion for a full discussion about the changes in the Planning Department, especially regarding transportation. PB Chair Morriss added that he would like this to happen next month, and every month thereafter. Discussion ensued. Secretary Cover stated that PB Members could decide which topics will be discussed every month, staff will advertise, and will have the information for the presentations. Discussion ensued. PB Member Ohlrich asked if it would be OK if the motion asked staff to present the topic for discussion that was specified on the agenda, but not necessarily transportation; explained that might allow staff to come to the PB with a topic of discussion that is more pressing than having transportation at every meeting; added that soon the Form Based Code will come to the Planning Board and she feels that most of the PB Members need a little education about the Form Based Code prior to coming to a meeting and having to vote on matters; and suggested not to stipulate that the discussion topic must be transportation. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly pointed out that if they feel they need additional information about a topic they can also have workshops on these topics; he cautioned the PB Members if they have monthly discussions to make sure the discussions are legislative, and not specific. Discussion ensued. By consensus, the Planning Board Members agreed transportation to be the topic of discussion at the next PB meeting. Discussion ensued about the schedule of upcoming meetings relating to the Form Based Code. PB Vice Chair Gannon said that there is a published schedule of meetings; staff will send this schedule to all PB Members. Secretary Cover suggested that the Planning Board could benefit from updates on the Bayfront project which will be moving fairy quickly. PB Member Normile requested a diagram showing who is where in the Planning Department. Secretary Cover said he can provide that. PB Member Blumetti asked why there were only three motions when there were several waivers. Is there a way to separate them, a motion for each waver? Attorney Connolly referred to pages 7 and 8 of the Staff report for the last public hearing, where there is table of the eight G- Zone Waivers that were requested; explained that the motion was for the entire packet of G-Zone Waivers; noted that it is the applicant's application, they have the right to bring to the Planning Board what they want, for you to vote; noted that generally, it would not be appropriate to have a separate motion for each of the eight waivers; and suggested that if one is problematic for you, you have a discussion, and if it is not worked out, then you have to make a decision of what is more important to you. Gretchen Schneider, General Manager, Development Services, stated that if he were to vote "no"t to one of the waivers, then the Site Plan would not be approved, because it is dependent on the G-Zone Waivers; it is all or nothing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 21 Attorney Connolly noted that this is the reason he stated earlier it is the applicant's application; pointed out that staff spends a long time interacting with the applicant to get the application to what would be for the public's best interests, but in the end the applicant brings forth the applicant's application, and you have to take it as a whole, and it is either "thumbs up," or "thumbs down." PB Member Ohlrich pointed out that, based on what Ms. Schneider said, the Planning Board should have voted first on the G-Zone Waivers, and then the Site Plan. Attorney Connolly agreed. PB Vice Chair Gannon noted that in past public hearings citizens have come to the meeting and testified that they live within 500 feet of the subject property, but they had not received notices for the public hearings; he stated that often times, they are renters who have not received the notices. Notices go to the property owner, who could be living out of town, that is why we erect signs at the subject property. Citizens may not be aware of that; suggested that when this comes up again we can explain it to the citizens. PB Chair Morriss also said that there are occasions when the Clerk's office does not post signs for vacations of properties. Ryan Chapdelain, General Manager, Planning Department, stated that it is a function of the Clerk's Office which works with Public Works; added that he will clarify that, because at a recent workshop for the Hyatt, which involved an alley and a street vacation, signs were posted for the workshop. Attorney Connolly referred to Section IV-202 (c) of the Zoning Code which sets forth the required notices for public hearings, states the following: For site plans (except those approved administratively), variances, major and minor conditional uses, site specific quasi-judicial rezonings, "G" zone waivers, adjustments considered by the Planning Board and privately initiated amendments to the future land use map, by conspicuously posting, at least ten days prior to a required public hearing, a weatherproof: sign(s), provided by the City Auditor & Clerk's Office, at least two by three feet in front surface area, on every roadway, frontage of the zoning lot(s) to which the application pertains. Such sign(s) shall not be removed by the City until the conclusion of the public hearing. Attorney Connolly stated that "street vacations" is not one of the applications listed in what he just read; noted that the Zoning Code requires posting for only those particular applications; added that if the Planning Board feels it should be more than that, they can request a Zoning Text Amendment. PB Vice Chair Gannon asked if a community workshop requires posting. Attorney Connolly noted that Zoning Code Section IV-201 (b), Community Workshops, states that: Workshops are required for the following: changes to the Future Land Use Map, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 21 Illustration Lu-6ofthe Sarasota City Plan, Rezone wuith or wuithout Site Plan, Major or Minor Conditional Uses, Street and Right-ofWay Vacations, G-Zone Waivers, or amendments to the text of the Sarasota City Plan that affects a specific and limited area of the City, as determined by the Director. Attorney Connolly added that for notices, the Zoning Code states: Notices shall be provided fourteen days prior to the community workshop, each ozner on record of land within 500 feet of the property, the neighborhood associations. He noted that it does not refer to signs. General Manager Chapdelain stated that the Administrative Guidelines refer to posting signs. Discussion ensued. Attorney Connolly suggested that PB Members take a look at Sections IV-201 and IV-202 of the Zoning Code, to be able to make recommendations about the Community Workshops and the notices of the public hearings, and recommended that PB Members ask staff to put on the agenda a discussion regarding a future Zoning Text Amendment. Discussion ensued about Administrative Regulations. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:16 PM. aul AMaue Steven-/Cover, Planning Director David Morriss, Chair Planning Department Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]