Loading...
06/25/2019 - Special COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF CLEARWATER June 25, 2019 Present: Chair Michael Boutzoukas, Vice Chair Christopher J. Anuszkiewicz, Board Member Mike Flanery, Board Member Mary A. Lau, Board Member John Quattrocki, Board Member Brian Barker, Acting Board Member Elizabeth Van Scoyoc Absent: Board Member Jordan Behar Also Present – Jay Daigneault – Attorney for the Board, Michael Fuino – Assistant City Attorney, Gina Clayton - Interim Planning & Development Director, Patricia O. Sullivan – Board Reporter A. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Chair called the special meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at the Main Library followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. B. ROLL CALL: C. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD RE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Lisa Lanza recommended the Board schedule workshops to review and discuss cases prior to meetings, which have limited time. D. CONTINUED FROM MAY 21, 2019: (Item 1) 1. Level Two Application Case: FLD2019-01002– 1919 Edgewater Drive, 1026 Sunset Point Road Owner: Edgewater Valor Capital LLC Agent: Sandra Lee Bradbury, Northside Engineering, Inc. (300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater FL 33765; phone: 727-443-2869; email: sandy@northsideengineering.net) Location: 2.931 acres located at the southeast corner of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive. Request: The Community Development Board is reviewing a proposed 80-unit attached dwelling development in the Tourist (T) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts for the properties located at 1919 Edgewater Drive and 1026 Sunset Point Road. The project consists of building heights of 86 feet in the T District and 38 feet in the MDR District (both from base flood elevation), includes a minimum of 164 off-street parking spaces, and requests allowable flexibility from height, lot width, and use; and a two-year development order (Community Development Code Sections 2-304.G., 2-803.B. and 4-407). Community Development Special 2019-06-25 1 Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Edgewater Drive Homeowners Association Presenter: Ellen S. Crandall, Development Review Manager Member Flanery said as an Old Clearwater Bay HOA (Homeowners Association) member he attended a meeting that presented this project’s first plan; he had no contact with the developer. Kate Belniak, Edgewater Drive HOA president, requested Party Status on behalf of the HOA. Member Barker moved to grant Party Status to Kate Belniak as the Edgewater Drive HOA representative. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Dean Falk requested Party Status, stating he lived 25 feet outside the circumference of those receiving notice; he said the only exit from his property was past the proposed development. Member Lau moved to grant Party Status to Dean Falk. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Karen Cunningham, Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition president, said the coalition had authorized her to request Party Status; Bill Jonson would make a presentation on her behalf. Member Quattrocki moved to grant Party Status to Karen Cunningham as the Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition representative. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Karl Balducci requested Party Status Member Barker moved to grant Party Status to Karl Balducci. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Paul Tracy Spikes requested Party Status. Member Quattrocki moved to grant Party Status to Paul Tracy Spikes. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Veronica Groth withdrew her request for Party Status after being advised she lived outside the project area. Jeremy Reynolds presented Reid Ragsdale and Kim Kaszuba’s June 20, 2019 notarized affidavit appointing him as their agent/representative before the CDB (Community Development Board) at today’s meeting. He requested Party Status on their behalf. Community Development Special 2019-06-25 2 Assistant City Attorney Michael Fuino said the City objected based on the affidavit signatories’ credibility. It was noted the Board had received substantial information from the property owners. Concern was expressed Mr. Reynolds would be unable to answer cross examination questions. Member Flanery moved to grant Party Status to Jeremy Reynolds as representative for Reid Ragsdale and Kim Kaszuba. The motion was duly seconded. Members Anuszkiewicz, Flanery, Lau, and Acting Member Van Scoyoc voted “Aye”; Members Quattrocki and Barker and Chair Boutzoukas voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Maria Ortenzio requested Party Status. Member Anuszkiewicz moved to grant Party Status to Maria Ortenzio. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Debra Adam requested Party Status. Member Barker moved to grant Party Status to Debra Adam. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Lisa Lynn requested Party Status. Member Barker moved to grant Party Status to Lisa Lynn. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Attorney Carlton Ward requested Party Status as representative for Thomas Generalli, who was not present. Concern was expressed Attorney Ward did not have an affidavit signed by Mr. Generalli and may have insufficient knowledge to answer cross examination questions. Attorney for the Board Jay Daigneault said Attorney Ward was a professional and doubted he would jeopardize his credibility by misrepresenting Mr. Generalli. Member Barker moved to grant Party Status to Attorney Carlton Ward as representative for Thomas Generalli. The motion was duly seconded. Members Anuszkiewicz, Flanery, Lau, Quattrocki, Barker, and Acting Member Van Scoyoc voted “Aye”; Chair Boutzoukas voted “Nay.” Motion carried. No motions were made in response to requests for Party Status by Gail Pollack, Elle Arsove, Angelica Vrondos, and Dan Farrell. Member Anuszkiewicz moved to accept Ellen Crandall as an expert witness in the fields of zoning, annexations, land use/rezoning applications, comprehensive planning, site plan analysis, and land development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development Special 2019-06-25 3 Development Review Manager Ellen Crandall reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant and staff agreed to an additional Condition of Approval re landscape islands in the parking lot. In response to questions, Ms. Crandall said the alley would have to be vacated for the project to move forward. Level Two attached dwellings in the tourist zoning district could be up to 100 feet tall. Most tourist zoned properties were on the beach, subject to Beach by Design guidelines. The mainland had few tourist zoning district properties; the zoning was adopted in 1999 when the Development Code was revised. Concern was expressed that approval could result in nearby high-rise development; the previous motel on site had no more than 2 stories. It was noted developing high-rises on narrow, tourist zoned properties in Old Clearwater Bay would require additional criteria. In response to questions re the development’s compatibility with the neighborhood’s character, Ms. Crandall said compatibility was difficult to determine when a tourist property abutted LMDR (Low-Medium Density Residential) properties, however, mitigating circumstances included a large buffer as wide as 3 residential lots between the structure and neighborhood. Member Barker moved to accept Robert Pergolizzi as an expert witness in the fields of planning and traffic engineering. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Anuszkiewicz moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of land use, planning and landscaping. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Anuszkiewicz moved to accept Alan McDonnell as an expert witness in the fields of architecture and garden architecture. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Anuszkiewicz moved to accept into the record the evidence packet submitted by Attorney Brian Aungst. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Attorney Brian Aungst said the applicant was committed to Clearwater, the Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and the City Council’s legislative intent. He said the applicant had invested millions of dollars in the property and design of a high quality residential building. He said the building’s height was the only flexibility requested. He said the 152-foot buffer benefited the abutting neighborhood; all project setbacks were larger than required. Attorney Aungst said “consistency” and “identical” did not have the same meaning. He said it would be illegal to build single-family houses in the tourist zoning district which the City Council reaffirmed in 2001. He said the multifamily development was the most Community Development Special 2019-06-25 4 harmonious use next to single-family residences; tourist zoning district uses included hotels, bars, nightclubs, etc. He said to limit neighborhood impacts, property egress onto Sunnydale Drive would be limited to left hand turns. He said a solar analysis indicated the building would slightly shade nearby houses during winter months between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. He said Sunnydale Drive residences did not have water views. He said since November, project representatives listened to neighborhood residents at 9 meetings and redesigned the project 6 times, including 3 major redesigns. He said 60 letters in his evidence packet supported the project. Robert Pergolizzi, representing the applicant, reviewed his November traffic impact analysis adjusted for annual averages; the Edgewater Drive LOS (Level of Service) was D and Sunset Point Road was C. He said the project’s main driveway would be on Sunset Point Road, a county road. He estimated the project would generate 435 trips per day with 29 trips during the peak a.m. hour and 35 trips during the peak p.m. hour; deliveries were included in the count. He said project traffic was considered insignificant as it would comprise less than 1% of Edgewater Drive and Sunset Point Road capacity. Wayne Wells, representing the applicant, said there was no basis to deny the project which met or exceeded all development standards. Alan McDonnell, representing the applicant, said limiting the building’s height to 50 feet would result in insufficient setbacks. He discussed the multiple meetings with the neighborhood association and resulting design improvements that relocated the building away from Sunnydale Drive and the neighborhood, added a sidewalk to improve neighborhood access to the waterfront, and improved elevations with stepbacks, multiple building material textures, and vines to break up the building’s mass and soften its appearance. He said the rear entrance would be limited to residents. In response to a question re site zoning uses prior to 1999, Attorney for the Board Jay Daigneault said the Board needed to base its decision on current Code. Party Status Holder Kate Belniak, representing the Edgewater Drive HOA, said the HOA opposed the project. She said she was committed to protecting the character of her beautiful, charming, and close knit Sunnydale neighborhood. She said the project’s architecture was inconsistent with her neighborhood’s aesthetics. Member Flanery moved to accept Patricia Ortiz and an expert witness in the field of planning. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Patricia Ortiz opposed the project, stating it was inconsistent with the neighborhood’s character, the Comprehensive Plan’s policies and goals, and the project’s bulk, height, setbacks, and placement did not meet general standards for Level Two approvals. Party Status Holder Dean Falk opposed the project, stating the application admitted it was more intense and not in harmony with adjacent properties. He said it did not meet Community Development Special 2019-06-25 5 general standards for Level Two approvals. He said the parking garage would be closer to the street than presented and pedestrians would have to walk next to a wall. Bill Jonson, speaking on behalf of Party Status Holder Karen Cunningham representing the Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, opposed the project, stating it would not create value or enhance nearby property values as required by Code and would negatively impact the neighborhood. He said the 1999 Code rewrite was intended to benefit residents and developers with predictable projects built in harmony with neighborhoods. Party Status Holder Karl Balducci opposed the project stating the building’s scale and bulk would be intimidating, tower over the skyline, reduce property values, and disrupt the community’s character where trees dominated the skyline. He said landscaping, not green paint, would soften the building’s hard edges. He said visiting neighbors in the building would be a hardship due to locked gates and elevators. He said to lessen traffic impacts, the project’s units and height should be reduced to match the Comfort Suites Hotel, which should be the tallest building in the neighborhood. Party Status Holder Paul Tracy Spikes opposed the project stating it would be too tall and would intrude on his beautiful working class neighborhood where families enjoyed a quality of life where children could safely play and ride bicycles. Party Status Holder Jeremy Reynolds, on behalf of Reid Ragsdale and Kim Kaszuba, opposed the project stating the large structure lacked aesthetic compatibility with the neighborhood and case law criteria cited in a submitted memorandum indicated residents with first-hand area knowledge were as qualified as expert witnesses to offer testimony, such as their views on aesthetic incompatibility. He said the scale and accuracy of applicant pictures were inaccurate. Party Status Holder Maria Ortenzio supported the project stating it would improve home values and was attractive, superior to commercial enterprise development, and would appeal to quality homeowners who would benefit the neighborhood unlike the Comfort Suites Hotel which looked terrible and attracted transients and prostitution. Party Status Holder Debra Adam opposed the project’s height, stating the building was beautiful but did not fit with the character of her neighborhood with its huge oak trees and Florida charm. She expressed concern the tall building would light the neighborhood, limit backyard privacy, and increase traffic problems. She recommended the City do a traffic study. Party Status Holder Lisa Lynn said she was not told about the project when she recently purchased her house. She opposed it, stating it would impede on her privacy, cause traffic pollution, overwhelm City utilities, create water environmental issues, and negatively affect everyone. She said she had to follow all Codes for her house and now wanted to sell it. She said it was disgusting the Board would consider the request. She said the building would be beautiful in a different location. Community Development Special 2019-06-25 6 Party Status Holder Attorney Carlton Ward, representing Thomas Generalli, said his client’s home at the Edgewater Drive/Sunset Point Road intersection was most impacted by the project. He said Mr. Generalli supported the project, believed it met all Code criteria for tourist zoned property, preserved lower densities east on Sunset Point Road, would keep traffic off Sunnydale Drive with its ingress/egress onto Sunset Point Road, was relocated away from single-family residences, and would benefit Clearwater. It was stated that case law decisions submitted by Party Status holders were not applicable to this case. Attorney Aungst said speaker submitted photographs were not to scale. In response to cross examination by Attorney Aungst, Ms. Ortiz said she had reviewed Code several times. She said she had received information from affected neighbors. She said she provided exhibits for reference but not the report in her packet. She said she did not create the photograph of the skyline which approximated the project’s size. In response to cross examination by Attorney Aungst, Ms. Crandall said single-family residences were not a permitted use in the tourist zoning district. Considering differences in zoning, the project was consistent with surrounding uses and could be approved by staff without a public hearing if it was 50 feet tall above BFE (Base Flood Elevation). A 10-foot side setback was required. The project did not request additional density and underwent multiple revisions. In a photograph, the Comfort Suites Hotel side setback from the abutting single-family residence appeared to be less than 10 feet. The project met minimum standards, provided significant setbacks, and maximized its buffer along the east property line. The site was significantly different from the neighborhood. She said the City recommended approval; provided testimony did not change her mind. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Belniak, Ms. Ortiz said Edgewater Drive was a City corridor and the low density, low profile neighborhood had water views and was bordered on the south by Stevenson Creek. She said comparisons with Villa Del Mar in the Old Clearwater Bay neighborhood were unfair assessments. She said the 2-story Comfort Suites Hotel was substantially different from the project, proposed to be 7 stories above parking. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Belniak, who noted Dunedin had sent a letter opposing the project, Mr. Wells said the project was harmonious and consistent with the area based on divergent zoning. He said the tourist zoning district permitted 4 times the density of the Sunnydale neighborhood. He said the attached dwelling project was more consistent with the neighborhood character than other permitted commercial uses. He said proposed setbacks were larger than required; the proposed fencing and buffer were not required by Code. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Falk, Mr. Wells indicated referenced language re harmonious and scale in an April submission was modified. He Community Development Special 2019-06-25 7 said the Code did not define “harmonious.” He said the residential neighborhood and project site had different zoning. Ms. Crandell said the project mitigated the difference between abutting zoning with setbacks and buffering; the project had a 15-foot buffer from the gasoline station site. The project met zoning parameters and was harmonious and consistent with surrounding properties. In response to cross examination by Bill Jonson, representing Party Status Holder Cunningham, Ms. Crandell said the tourist zoning district did not have a minimum standard or use table. Tourist zoning district setbacks started at 15 feet but developers could request 10 feet. The project provided a 15-foot front setback and met parking requirements, The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed development parameters for redevelopment applications for the tourist zoning district. Staff could approve a Level One application for a 50-foot building with 10-foot side setbacks in the tourist zoning district. Page 12 of the Staff Report addressed the project’s adherence to each of the 6 general standards for Level One and Two approvals. The use was consistent with the community’s character. The project provided setbacks and buffering to contribute to community water views. A scrivener’s error in the Staff Report was redacted elsewhere in the report. In response to Mr. Jonson’s concern that staff had not discussed the appropriateness of smaller setbacks in the tourist zoning district than in surrounding properties, Planning & Development Acting Director Gina Clayton said the City based setback requirements on subject zoning districts, not adjacent ones. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Balducci, Mr. McDonnell said the superimposed image of the project on the skyline in a resident submitted photograph was pushed forward and not to scale. He said the developer felt a residential neighborhood was the best use for the site. He said the project would not permit short-term rentals. He reviewed the project’s setbacks, buffer, fencing, and greenery. He said adopting the style of nearby single-family residences built 60 to 100 years ago would not work for a new building. He said the project would be more contemporary and its mix of exterior building materials and textures would complement area design elements. Mr. Wells said the Code did not require perimeter buffers; significant landscaping, including shrubs low and tall trees which will mature, was proposed to mitigate and soften views of the building. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Balducci, Ms. Crandell said the project proposed the maximum number of units permitted. The City did not require consideration of sunlight on nearby mangroves. Engineering Specialist I Hector Hernandez said the Sunset Point Road lift station was recently refurbished; wastewater capacity was sufficient for the project. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Balducci, Attorney August said the Board was not considering the project’s density. He reviewed the buffer and landscaping. He noted a 77-unit condo project was approved for the site in 2004 and the applicant had a legal right to develop the property. He said the applicant could have Community Development Special 2019-06-25 8 applied to develop resort attached dwellings but was committed to the neighborhood’s residential character. He said the Comfort Suites Hotel provided overnight accommodations. Mr. Pergolizzi said traffic impacts of a 120-room hotel could generate more than 1,000 daily trips. The CDB recessed from 4:39 to 4:50 p.m. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Spikes, Ms. Crandell said the project minimized adverse visual affects by its large setback from residential properties. The project would have 164 off-street parking spaces as required by Code; surface parking would be setback 20 feet from the property line. A business on this site could have more required parking. Most tree preservation would be along the east property line. The landscape buffer and shade trees along the property line would mitigate heat from the parking lot. The external lighting plan would be submitted at the permitting stage; light could not spill onto adjacent properties. Fencing and landscaping along the property line would minimize parking lot noise and headlight glare. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Spikes, Mr. Pergolizzi said cameras were installed at the Edgewater Drive/Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive/Sunnydale Drive intersections for the traffic study. Mr. Spikes said the traffic study should have included more streets. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Reynolds on behalf of Mr. Ragsdale and Ms. Kaszuba, Ms. Crandell said she used Code definitions; the Code did not define “compatible” or “harmony.” Multiple Code sections regulated development of the property. The project must meet all general applicability standards. The tourist zoning district allowed flexible ranges based on lot size. The project’s request for height flexibility required Level Two approval. When the Staff Report was revised, all other documents and photographs remained on the web page; none was removed. Ms. Crandell’s analysis of the request and her conclusions were included in the Staff Report as submitted. She used her professional judgement to reach conclusions. She and staff reviewed Code when considering scale and harmony criteria. In response to cross examination by Party Status Holder Reynolds on behalf of Mr. Ragsdale and Ms. Kaszuba, Messrs. McDonnell, Pergolizzi, and Wells reviewed their resumes and familiarity with the local area and project. Attorney Aungst said the 36-foot height increase request was not a 300% increase. He said he and staff had explained numerous times how the project was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. McDonnell said after numerous meetings with the neighborhood, the project was redesigned to expand setbacks and preserve water views from Sunnydale Drive. He said the project did not meet the definition of a high-rise. Nineteen people spoke in support and 16 people spoke in opposition to the project. Community Development Special 2019-06-25 9 Party Status Holder Belniak expressed concern the project would increase traffic. She said substantial evidence was not provided that the project would not negatively impact property values. She recommended denial. Ms. Ortiz said maximum density was not a guaranteed right; projects had to meet Code criteria. She said the applicant had the option to propose fewer units. Party Status Holder Falk recommended the project be reduced in size. He said he wanted to preserve his small unique neighborhood. He said the project did not belong there. Party Status Holder Balducci said the project would negatively affect his unique neighborhood and box in nearby houses. He said the Board should err on the side of caution as the project would be there forever. He said developers would start building similar projects on Sunset Point Road creating additional traffic problems and stress. He said a study was done to reduce congestion and bicycle accidents on Alternate US 19. He said Dunedin opposed the project. He opposed condos in the area. Party Status Holder Spikes said the neighborhood already had good development and low crime. He opposed the project’s height. He said the project would be bad for the community. Party Status Holder Reynolds on behalf of Mr. Ragsdale and Ms. Kaszuba said the Board should know by now what resident concerns were. Party Status Holder Attorney Ward, representing Mr. Generalli, said Mr. Generalli who owned abutting properties, supported the project, which was required to meet Code. He recommended the Board listen to the professional staff who worked hard on this application. He said many resisted change. He said the request was only to increase the height. He said other permitted uses would increase traffic more. He said Dunedin’s opposition was surprising considering its marina was bordered by multiple high-rises. Attorney Aungst said substantial evidence was provided in support of the project in the tourist zoning district. He said no competent substantial evidence was presented in opposition; lay witness unfavorable speculation was not competent substantial evidence. He said no facts were presented supporting concerns re light pollution or traffic. He said experts and City traffic engineers studied the location and supported the project. He said speaker exhibits were inaccurate and should not be considered. He said the applicant had 9 meetings with the Edgewater Drive HOA and redesigned the project to move it away from residences. He said the request was for a small flexibility. He said the Tampa Times’ published opinion supported the project. It was stated CDB members had differing criteria of expertise and considered staff’s recommendations, building materials, the Code, additional research, and testimony before reaching a decision. Community Development Special 2019-06-25 10 In opposition, it was stated the 96-foot building, including BFE, had too much bulk, would hug the road, a scenic corridor at the entrance to the City and downtown, and would ruin Edgewater Drive which was a jewel. It was stated Dunedin opposed the project, the height could be reduced, it could be located elsewhere, it did not enhance nor was it compatible with the scale and character of the adjacent rustic neighborhood and there was no transition between it and the neighborhood. Concerns were expressed mitigating impacts did not make the project harmonious with the neighborhood, the developer did not minimize the traffic situation, 165 residents signed a petition in opposition, and the board should represent residents. In support of the project, sympathy and appreciation was expressed for residents’ passions. It was commented that all Clearwater residents want what is best, it was encouraging that so many cared about their community, neighborhood residents and the applicant had property rights, neighbors would be unhappier with setbacks for a more intensive resort use, it was a problem that the opposition did not have a traffic engineer re Sedeeva Avenue traffic, and it was suggested that traffic humps be considered on Sedeeva Avenue. It was stated the tourist zoning district was limited in size with little opportunity for expansion, the property was in the tourist zoning district for a long time and its zoning was not up for review. It was commented the Code did not mandate architectural style or require developments to protect views, the site plan and proposal were consistent with the Code’s flexible criteria, and similar projects would not extend up Sunset Point Road or along Edgewater Drive unless the Code was changed. It was noted the property owner had rights to develop the property in the tourist zoning district, expert testimony was persuasive and indicated the building’s height met Code flexibility development criteria and all other Code requirements, the applicant had done a good job designing a project consistent with Code flexible criteria and had pushed the project away from the neighborhood, the project had quality architecture, the 86-foot building’s 152 feet from the neighborhood was more palatable than a 50-foot building with a 10-foot setback and footprint that was twice as large, a 5-story hotel would create significantly more traffic, and the use was most compatible with the neighborhood compared with other permitted uses. Staff was complimented for doing a great job and not deviating from Code and confidence was expressed with staff’s conclusion that the project fits in the Code without stretching it. Resident concerns were understood, public opposition was listened to closely and everyone’s input was appreciated. It was stated the Board recently approved a high-rise on the beach over similar neighborhood character objections, it was important for the Board to be consistent, and this decision was not made until all testimony was heard. In response to a concern that nearby traffic patterns needed to be shifted, Engineering Specialist II Bennett Elbo reviewed the City’s traffic calming policy. Member Lau moved to approve Case FLD2019-01002 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and Community Development Special 2019-06-25 11 hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed with an additional condition: "That prior to the issuance of any building permit, except for demolition, the landscaping islands in the vehicular use area be revised to meet the dimensional requirements of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.E.2.5." The motion was duly seconded. Members Anuszkiewicz, Lau, Quattrocki, Barker, and Chair Boutzoukas voted "Aye"; Member Flanery and Acting Member Van Scoyoc voted "Nay." Motion carried. E. DIRECTOR'S ITEM: None. F. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Chair — Communi D opment Board Community Development Special 2019-06-25 12