Loading...
07/25/1991 (2) ! ' DCAB DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DATE . 07j-Zsj'l ~/- J fC;:; "' """', , ' .......... '-. ,. ACTION AGENDA DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Thursday, July 25, 1991 - 1:00 p.m. - Commission Meeting Room - City Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code: 1. Public Hearings Item A - (continued from 7/11/91) Russell J and Jamie J Latimer for variance of 5 ft to permit garage addition 20 ft from a street right- of -way at 1857 Venet i an Po i nt Dr, Venetian Point Sub, Blk A, Lot 26, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-40 Item B - (continued from 7/11/91) City of Clearwater (Beach Diner) for variance of 8 parking spaces to permit a 656 sq ft deck addition at 56 Causeway Blvd, City Park Sub} part of Lots 7, 8, and 9, zoned CB ~beach commercial). V 91-42 1. Richard P Levy (T-Shirt Factory) for variance of 4 parking spaces to permit conversion of storage area to retail with zero additional parking spaces provided at 1498 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Boulevard Heights, Blk G, Lots 6, 7, and part of Lots 5 and 8, zoned CG (general commercial) and RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-45 , 2. Paul and Daisy Koenig for variance of 15.15 ft to permit roof (canopy) 9.85 ft from a street right- of-way at 936 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, 8lk 52. Lot 6, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-46 DCAS 1. Public Hearings Item A - Granted subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. Item B - Granted a variance of four parking spaces subject to the following conditions: 1) the requisite alcoholic beverage separation distance variance from the City Commission being obtained; 2) the City's sign regulations shall continue to be observed by the app 1 i cant and 3) the requ i s ite occupational 1icense and building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. 1. Denied 2. Granted subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. 1 7/25/91 ~....... " ............,.. ~""*",.. , ~ 3. Edgar A Bradford for variance of 80 ft to permit establishment of A.e.L.F. 920 ft from a similarly licensed facility at 1835, 1837, and 1839 East Dr, Quail Run, Lot II, zoned RM 8 (multiple family residential). V 91-47 4. Daniel B and Carole E Lowrey for variance of 16 ft to permit dock width of 66 ft at 892 Harbor Island, Island Est of C1wr, Unit 7-C, Lot 53, zoned RS 6 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-48 5. Hickory Grove Condo Assoc, lne . for variances of (1) 14.9 ft to permit carport 4 ft from a side property l1ne; and (2) 14.9 ft to permit encroachment of carport into clear space at 9 and 15 Turner St, Hickory Grove Condo, zoned RM 12 (multiple family residential). V 91- 49 6. DanIs Island 1660 Condo Assoc, lnc for variances (1) of 13 ft to permi t seawa 11 seaward of Coasta 1 .. Construction Control Line (C.C.C.L.); and (2) to permi t wa 11 in setback area adjacent to waterfront at 1660 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island on Sand Key Condo I zoned RM 28 (mu ltip le family res i dent i a 1 ) and OS/R (open space/recreation). V 91-50 II. Review: URules of Procedure and Po 1 i ci es II . DeAB 3. Granted subject to the following condition: 1) the number of individuals housed in this facility shall be limited to five plus a full- time supervisor; 2) there shall be no changes to the exterior of the structure and the grounds sha 11 be maintained in a manner consistent with the surrounding residential area: 3) no less than six parking spaces shall be provided for the site at all times and 4) the requisite occupationa 1 1 icense shall be obtained from the State within six (6) months from the date of th i s pub li c heari ng. 4. Granted subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. 5. Denied 6. Granted subject to the following conditions: 1) the toe walls shall be only 2 feet 6 inches high and constructed as indicated on the site plan; 2) all necessary permits shall be obtained by the app 1 i cant from other app 1 i cab 1 estate and city review agencies and boards and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within twelve (12) months from the date of this public hearing. II. Continued to 8/8/91. 2 7/25/91 F~ III. Board and Staff Comments III. .Oiscussion of . the Issue Response Schedule. IV. Approval of Minutes of June 27, IV. Approved as submitted. 1991 V. Adjournment v. The meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m. } , (''"'I .......; ""-" DCAB 3 7/25/91 f'.;,\ c"~, '-- "- ' DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD July 25, 1991 Members present: Thomas J. Graham Otto Gans, Vice-Chairman John W. Homer Alex Pliska Emma C. Whitney Absent: None Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. He out lined the procedures and advi sed that anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. I. Public Hearings Item A - (continued from 7/11/91) Russell J and Jamie J Latimer for variance of 5 ft to permit garage addition 20 ft from a street t'ight-of-way at 1857 Venetian Point Dr, Venetian Point Sub, Blk A, Lot 26, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-40 Sandy Glatthorn, the Planning Official, stated the applicant wishes to construct an enclosed garage to replace a carport which was destroyed by a storm. The proposed garage will be of the same type of construction used in surrounding homes. This item was continued from the meeting of July 11, 1991 to allow the applicant to submit additional information. ' Russell Latimer, owner and applicant, stated many older houses in the area have been upgraded. Ninety percent of these houses include garages which extend beyond the front of the house. He stated the garage cannot be built against the house due to the roof overhang and he feels this is a minimal request. DCAB 7/25/91 1 Robert Greg, architect representing the owner and applicant, presented J.\.,' photographs of houses in the area noting their narrow front setbacks and r"~ submitted an aerial photograph of the subject property. Due to its location on a cul-de-sac, a IS-foot setback cannot be provided. He indicated no trees or landscaping would be removed and the garage would be built over existing blacktop. He said an interior length of 21 feet 6 inches was a conservative size for a garage. In response to questions, Mr. Latimer indicated the garage would not be built against the wall and the house was originally built with only a covered carport enclosed on three sides. Six letters in support of the application were submitted for the record. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically because; the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the owner or applicant, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the lot size and the positioning of the house, subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. Item 8 - (continued from 7/11/91) City of Clearwater (Beach Diner) for variance of 8 parking spaces to permit a 656 sq ft deck addition at 56 Causeway Blvd, City Park Sub, part of Lots 7, 8, and 9, zoned CB (beach commercial). V 91-42 After discussing the request with the Traffic Engineer, ',it was discovered the applicant can provide four parallel parking spaces in the rear of his property. He is decreasing his request to a variance of four spaces. The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating this item was continued from the July II, 1991 meeting due to scheduling sequencing associated with the Planning and Zoning Board conditional use permit. The Planning and Zoning Board granted a conditional use on July 18, 1991. She stated the applicant is requesting the variance to expand the sale of alcoholic beverages onto a deck to be constructed on the east side of the restaurant. The City.s Traffic Engineering Department commented that any variance of required spaces on Clearwater Beach only adds to the overall parking problem. Steve Chandler, representing the applicant, stated he hopes to beautify the property and update the style to the 1990's. He indicated the adjacent metered parking lot is seldom full during the restaurant1s peak hours, 50 percent of the customers are tourists and a freezer and storeroom occupy over 800 square feet of floor space. Discussion ensued regarding the traffic flow into the diner and the four parallel parking spaces at the rear of the establishment. Mike Gust, Traffic Engineer, stated traffic enters from Causeway Boulevard. He indicated the on-site fenced dumpster provides a protection area for the four parking spaces. ',,-- DCAB 7/25/91 2 ~. In response to a question, Mr. Chandler indicated the tourist information center is left open providing informational brochures and he considered it to be an asset to the property. Discussion ensued regarding the diner being the first establishment one sees when approaching Clearwater Beach from Causeway Boulevard and concern was expressed for the deck to be attractive. Mr. Chandler stated the new deck will be a wooden platform with a white fence and black and white umbrellas, tables and chairs to match the interior and exterior of the building and extra flowers will be added. Additional landscaping is to be added later. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant a variance of four parking spaces because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically, because the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by parking on Clearwater Beach subject to the following conditions: 1) the requisite alcoholic beverage separation distance variance from the City Commission shall be obtained; 2) the City1s sign regulations shall continue to be observed by the applicant and 3) the requisite occupational license and building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. 1. Richard P Levy (T-Shirt Factory) for variance of 4 park ing spaces to permi t con vers i on of storage area to reta i 1 wi th zero additional parking spaces provided at 1498 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Boulevard Heights, Blk G, Lots 6, 7, and part of Lots 5 and 8, zoned CG (general commercial) and RS 8 (single family residential). V 91- 45 \ ......~...,. ......,. . Based on a request from the app 1 i cant. s representative, Mr. Homer moved to continue the request to the end of the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant's desire to increase the retail storage space 1,100 square feet by converting an existing storage area will require additional parking spaces. " Mr. Gust, the Traffic Engineer, indicated since there is no change of use, the subject property is not eligible for conversion. The City. s Traffic Engineering Department, commented uThis location does not have any parking that meets the Land Development Code and it was not revised when it changed use from fruit sales. The back-out parking onto Highland and Gulf-to-Bay traffic is extremely dangerous. We feel no variance should be granted and the existing parking should be revised. On their drawing they show some of the existing parking entirely in the right-of-way.u Dan Grieco, attorney representing the applicant, gave a brief history of the subject property stating it was upgraded to make it more attractive and it is limited in usable retail space. He indicated the conversion will allow the use of wasted space to increase display areas. DCAB 7/25/91 3 ,~;,ol (. " '- Concern was expressed regarding incy'eased traffic congestion resulting from increased retail space. Mr. Grieco indicated since the proposed modification will not alter the axterior of the building, the conversion will not ihcrease the customer load or traffic flow to the area. It was noted item #6 on the application should read, "...The requested variance will not have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood...u; the word IInot" was inadvertently omitted. Discussion ensued regarding the parking conditions and striping of the existing spaces on the subject property. Concern was expressed regarding Traffic Engineering1s reference to parking spaces being in the right-of-way and increasing an already dangerous situation. It was indicated these spaces would be surveyed. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012{d) of the Land Development Code because no unnecessary hardship was shown, the variance is not the minimum, the request for the variance is based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property, the granting of the variance will be materially detrimental or injurious to other property in the ne i ghborhood, detract from the appearance of the commun i ty , substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community, and violate the general spidt and intent of this deve 10pment code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request denied. 2. Paul and Daisy Koenig for variance of 15.15 ft to permit roof (canopy) 9.B5 ft from a street right-af-way at 936 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 52, Lot 6, zoned RS 8 (single family residential). V 91-46 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a roof over an existing deck within a street right-af-way. She stated the right-af-way is unimproved and primarily used by the public for pedestrian traffic to the beach. Concern was expressed regarding the poor condition of the right-of-way. It was noted a boat is parked in the right-of-way. ~l;chael Landis, representing the applicant, stated the canopy would provide protection from the sun and would not extend beyond the existing building line. Paul Koenig, owner and applicant, stated the deck has existed for 15 years and would not be enclosed with walls or screening. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Pliska moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development DeAB 7/25/91 4 ''':". < ' f~'\ Code more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant; the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the dedicated right-af-way being used strict ly as access to the beach by pedestrians, subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Reauest Qranted. 3. Edgar A Bradford for variance of 80 ft to permit establishment of A.C.L.F. 920 ft from a similarly licensed facility at 1835, 1837, and 1839 East Dr, Quail Run, Lot 11, zoned RM 8 (multiple family residential). V 91-47 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the subject property is an existing triplex and will be permitted a maximum occupancy of six individuals. The nearest similar facility is located 920 feet from the subject property in a different subdivision. The Cityt s Traffic Engineering Department, commented that there have been problems with some ACLF1s (Adult Congregate Living Facilities) providing the required parking. Edgar Bradford, the owner and applicant, stated the subject property is separated from the other ACLF by a busy street, has six existing parking spaces and the exterior of the building will not be changed in any way. Two citizens spoke in opposition and one citizen raised questions in regard to this application. It was questioned whether the clientele residing in the ACLF would be mentally and/or physically responsible, how the facility would be supervised, if the facility would be regulated by HRS, and the total number of residents. Concerns were expressed regarding confused residents wandering through the neighborhood, increased traffic flow, parking, resale values of surround ing propert ies t the facil ity having an absentee owner and the ma intenance of the property. It was pointed out that two of the surrounding property owners had not received notices of the subject public hearing. The Assistant City Clerk stated an affidavit of mailing reflected notices had been sent. The Planning Official stated this type facility functions equivalent to a family prav i ding sOllle ass i stance for those under its care. These i nd i v i dua 1 s may include the aged, physically handicapped and non-dangerous mentally impaired. Mr. Bradford said there is a great need for affordable care and housing for the elderly. The facility will be operated according to HRS standards and he anticipates at this time providing housing for five residents plus a full-time supervisor also serving as a caregiver. He is looking to attract residents that are self-sufficient not requiring around the clock care. Two petitions containing 39 signatures in opposition were submitted for the record. DCAB 7/25/91 5 " i ....."'"..... Discussion ensued in regard to this ACLF being the only such facility in this subdivision, that the nearest similar facility is located in another subdivision separated by Greenlea Drive and the proposed use of the facility is allowed by code. Concern was expressed that the applicant obtains the required state licenses. It was felt real estate values would not be endangered by allowing such a facility ;n the area. In response to questions, Mr. Bradford indicated he recently acquired the property from his father, the lawn is being mowed regularly and the building is under renovation. He said he is not aware of the state's licensing requirements but will have no problem in complying. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically because; the variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant, the use of the facility for this purpose is permitted by the code and the variance deals exclusively with the d i stance from another ACLF subject to the cond it ions: 1) the number of individuals housed in this facility shall be limited to five plus a full-time supervisor; 2) there shall be no changes to the exterior of the structure and the grounds shall be maintained in a manner consistent with the surrounding residential area; 3) no less than six parking spaces shall be provided for the site at all times and 4) the requisite occupational license shall be obtained from the State wi th ins i x months from the date of th i s pub 1i c hear i ng. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimoUSly. Request Qranted. The meeting recessed from 3:35 to 3:46 p.m. 4. Daniel B and Carole E Lowrey for variance of 16 ft to permit dock width of 66 ft at 892 Harbor Island, Island Est of Clwr, Unit 7-C, Lot 53, zoned RS 6 (single family residential) and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). V 91-48 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the applicant wishes to construct a catwalk perpendicular to an existing dock to permit the docking of a 34-foot boat. The existing dock was not designed to accommodate a boat this large and the proposed addition will increase the width of the dock to 66 feet. Robert Ress of Ress Marine, representing the applicant, stated the 40-foot-long catwalk will provide access to the ownerts boat. He said the proposed design is the minimum necessary for mooring the boat considering the water depth and the location of the existing dock. In response to questions, r~r. Ress indicated another smaller boat is moored at the existing dock. DCAB 7/25/91 6 ~L,~ , ~~ ._..~ , " v.. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the catwalk and it was indicated the catwalk would be positioned parallel to the seawall due to the heavy wave action. It was indicated the adjacent property owners have no problem with the application. ',') ...J Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically because the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the wave action as a result of the location of the dock being at the very north end of Harbor Drive subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request qranted. 5. Hickory Grove Condo Assoc, lnc for variances of (1) 14.9 ft to permit carport 4 ft from a side property 1 ioe; and (2) 14.9 ft to permit encroachment of carport into clear space at 9 and 15 Turner St, Hickory Grove Condo, zoned RM 12 (multiple family residential). V 91-49 The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are requested to pernlit the reconstruction of a six-stall carport. The original structure was built prior to the existing regulations and was classified as a nonconforming structure. On April 25, 1991, the structure was destroyed beyond 50 percent of the replacement cost by a severe storm. Two additional parking spaces which are not covered by a carport are situated perpendicular to the six spaces in question. Lowell Bond, Condominiu," President representing the applicant, submitted photographs of the damaged carport structure. He indicated the structure was rendered unsafe and unusable due to a direct hit by the storm of April 25, 1991. He said there is a large hickory tree on the property restricting the relocation of the carport, the new carport structure wi 11 be compatible with the surrounding buildings and the affected owners have always been afforded covered parking. Discussion ensued in regard to other available space for relocating the carports on the site. Thomas Tafelski, representing the applicant said there were two covered spaces adjacent to Building No.1; however, expressed concern in changing the direction of ingress for the affected residents. He felt the subject carports were consistent with the style of the existing buildings. Concern was expressed in regard to encroachment into the clear space and it was indicated the only ones affected by an encroachment would be the people on the property. There was also concern regarding reconstruction of a non-conforming structure. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Pliska moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code more specifically because, the variances arise from a condition which is DCAB 7/25/91 7 unique to the property and was not caused by the applicantj the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant and the variances are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the slope and width of the property and the structure existed prior to the current code and was knocked down by a wind storm subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Whitney and Mr. plisko voted "aye"j Messrs. Graham, Homer, and Gans voted "nay". Motion failed. Based upon the information furnished by the app1icantl Mr. Gans moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has not demonstrated he or she has met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Deve10pment Code because the variance requested does not arise from a condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary hardship was shown; the variances are not the minimumj the granting of the variances would impair an adequate supply of light or ventilation to adjacent property, detract from the appearance of the community, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, substantially diminish or impair the value of surrounding propertyj the granting of the variances would violate the general spirit and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 131.005 and 131.006. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Messrs. Graham, Homer, and Gans voted "ayeU; Ms. Whitney and Mr. P1isko voted "nayll. Motion carried. Request denied. 6. Danis Island 1660 Condo Assoc, Inc for variances (1) of 13 ft to permit seawall seaward of Coastal Construction Control Line (C. C. C. L. ) j and (2) to permit wa 11 in setback area adjacent to' waterfront at 1660 Gulf Blvd, Danis Island on Sand Key Condo, zoned RM 28 (multiple family residential) and OS/R (open space/recreat~on). V 91-50 . The Planning Official explained the application in detail stating the variances are requested to enable the applicant to construct toe walls that will prevent wind-borne sand deposits from collecting in pipes causing severe drainage problems on the property. Paul Wade, representing the applicant, presented photographs of the area taken after recent storms. He said the location is extremely windy and the area des i gna ted for retent i on cannot be ma i nta i ned. He i nd i cated the wa 11 wi 11 function as a drift fence trapping 60 to 70 percent of windblown sand and will be perforated at the bottom for drainage. He stated heavy winds and wave action destroyed sea grapes and sea oats planted for sand retention. In response to questions, Mr. Wade indicated one seawall looks newer due to a difference in maintenance and the original shoreline had been changed by a storm. John Taylor, Pipes Scan, stated the 14-foot pipe which runs along the length of the parking lot and ties into a junction box fills with sand, obstructing drainage from the roof and pool. He indicated the wall would function as a drift fence to retard the sand drifting action. -".,.. ~ > T DCAB 7/25/91 8 pt';'~:~ ......,. r ' , ' r' "'~ .' "", , . Discussion ensued regarding the construction and maintenance of the proposed wall and this being a minimal request. Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Homer moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the land Development Code more specifically because, the variances arise from conditions which are un i que to the property and not cau sed by the app li cant, the sea wa 11 west of the intended wall and the wave action due to sustained winds and the inability of sea oats to survive, subject to the conditions: 1) the toe walls shall be only 2 feet 6 inches high and constructed as indicated on the site plan; 2) all necessary permits shall be obtained by the applicant from other applicable state and city review agencies and boards and 3) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within twelve (12) months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Request Qranted. The Assistant City Attorney left the meeting at 4:10 p.m. II. Review: "Rules of Procedure and Pol iciesll. This item will be discussed at the next meeting. III. Board and Staff Comments The Development Code Adjustment Board Issue/Response Schedule dated July 11, 1991 was reviewed. Staff was requested to investigate if additional parking has been provided for the conversion of a barber shop/coin laundry to a restaurant on Clearwater Beach, boats being kept in setback areas at Bohemia Circle and Eldorado, if the parking requirement has been met for the former Perma-House property, parking fees being charged across the street from the Pelican restaurant, if seating is allowed on the patio at Fritz's Market and the legality of the signs, if parking is adequate for the conversion from motel to retail for the T-shirt shop next to Britt1s, the use of vehicle signs and the use of the roof surface as a deck in the 800 block of Eldorado. IV. Minutes of June 27, 1991. Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of June 27, 1991, in accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. V. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. ATTEST~ )].. AA ~9(~/~"--JL./ ~itY -l rk .~/e DCAB 7/25/91 9