Loading...
PC Minutes 1987-10-20374 Arroyo Grande Planning Commssion October 20, 1987 The Arroyo Grande Planning C,armission met in regular session with Chairman Carr presiding. Present are Commissioners Moore, Flores, Boggess and Soto. Commissioners Olsen and Gerrish are absent. Interim Planning Director Rogoway, Planning Director Liberto - Blanck and Associate Planner Iversen are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of September 15, 1987 were approved as prepared, on motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Corranissioner Moore, and unanimously carried. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING DIRECTOR Mr. Rogoway introduced Ms. Doreen Liberto- Blanck to the Planning Commission and audience, stating she is assuming her new responsibilities this week as the Planning Director of the City of Arroyo Grande. Ms. Liberto- Blanck stated she is looking forward to working with the Planning Commission and the citizens of Arroyo Grande. Chairman Carr welcomed Ms. Liberto- Blanck, stating the Planning Cammmission is looking forward to her guidance and a long relationship with the Arroyo Grande Planning Caranission. CONTINUATION (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED) - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 87 -1) - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, 201 BRISCO ROAD. (RICHARD AND NADINE RAY). Interim Planning Director Rogoway reviewed that the request is to amend the General Plan from Medium High Density Residential land use to Heavy Commercial/ Light Industrial land use. He advised that the matter was heard by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 15, 1987, however no action was taken because of a lack of four affirmative votes of the Ccmnission. Mr. Rogoway described the land uses surrounding the subject property. He noted that the configuration of the subject property seems to indicate that the amendment designating the property for manufacturing uses would be compatible with the adjacent uses to the east. From the Ray's property to the southwest, all of the lots are developed along Brisco Road with residential uses and, therefore, the Ray's property forms a departure point for the change of the General Plan classification. Mr. Rogoway stated it is the staff's reconmmendation to amend the General Plan as requested. However, staff first recommends that the Commission consider acceptance of the Negative Declaration and then act on the General Plan amendment. Chairman Carr re- opened the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 87 -1. Jane Schilling, 185 Brisco Road, presented a list of signatures of property owners in the area that object to the change to Heavy Commercial/Light IndustriaL She stated they did not object to what they are doing there now, however they do not want any heavy commercial use any closer to their homes. Steve Cool, Attorney, 1577 El Camino Real, representing the applicants, spoke in favor of the General Plan amendment. He briefly reviewed the history of the property, noting that the property has basically always been used for commercial purposes. When the property was annexed to the City in 1981 the land use and zoning was changed to the current designations. What the applicants are requesting tonight is to establish a zoning and General Plan designation which seems to be more appropriate with the use on the property at this time. Mr. Cool distributed a list of the different uses of property on Brisco Road. He pointed out that there are 146 living or commercial units along that stretch, and the property we are talking about now basically is one lot and one business with a caretaker's unit on it. He commented that his clients have a right to continue using this property as they have been for many years. Hearing no further continents for or against the proposed amendment, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Boggess stated he is concerned about allowing the heavier zoning on the property because of the possibility of the owners selling it and putting a heavier use on the property. Commissioner Soto questioned the auto body business on the property. Commissioner Flores suggested accomplishing this zoning change and at the same time, satisfy the City's needs through a requirement for a use permit. Conmiissioner Moore stated his concerns regarding traffic and his opinion that this is one of the most dangerous streets in the City. He stated any commercial use in there is going to bring in commercial vehicles and trucks. Commissioners Boggess and Soto agreed that if the property is sold, a new use could result in more traffic. After further discussion the following action was taken: Arroyo Grande Planning Omission, 10 -20-87 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 87 -1132 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Flores, Soto and Chairman Carr NOES: Commissioners Moore and Boggess ABSENT: Commissioners Olsen and Gerrish the foregoing resolution was defeated this 20th day of October due to the lack of four affirmative votes. Chairman Carr advised that the failure to achieve four affirmative votes constitutes no action by the Commission. Steve Cool, representing Mr. and Mrs. Ray, stated that his clients originally were asking for the Highway Service designation on the property, and they would be agreeable to the Commission considering Highway Service rather than the Heavy Carmercial/Light Industrial if the Commission would feel more comfortable with the uses under that designation. Mr. Rogoway pointed that out that the Highway Service designation may present a problem relative to spot zoning. Chairman Carr commented that the Highway Service or C -3 zone would require a different General Plan Use designation, and he personally would have a real problem approving that land use change. He advised that the proposed amendment will go to the City Council in three weeks. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE 87- 200,, PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM "R -3" MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO "P-M" PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, 201 BRISOO ROAD. (RICHARD AND NADINE RAY). Chairman Carr advised that because no action was taken by the Planning Commission on the General Plan Amendment previously discussed, action on the Rezoning would have to be continued pending the Council's decision on the application. On motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, Rezoning Case No. 87 -200 was continued to November 17, 1987. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 87 -447, 405 AND 407 TRAFFIC WAY. (JERRY AND JEAN BOWSER). PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 87 -428, TO ALLOW FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE "C-3" HIGHWAY SERVICE DIS'T'RICT, 405 AND 407 TRAFFIC WAY. (JERRY AND JEAN BOWSER). Planning Director Rogoway advised that this application has been before the Commission before. He reviewed that the Use Permit application is for a condominium. The accompanying lot split proposes to divide the property into three parcels for purposes of selling one of the two buildings existing on the property, and the third parcel would be common open space. Mr. Rogoway advised that this matter went to the City Council with a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission because, (1) the ordinance did not permit this kind of lot split. Also, there was a question about the driveway being too narrow, and other concerns that caused the Planning Commission to indicate to the Council that it was not acceptable. He stated that the City Council felt that the lot split would be acceptable through the Conditional Use Permit process. Mr. Rogoway further stated it is staff's feeling that there are no environmental effects caused by this action and recommends that a negative declaration be issued. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Lot Split Case No. 87 -447 and Use Permit Case No. 87 -428 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. Jerry Bowser, 510 Woodland Drive, applicant, spoke in favor of the lot split and use permit. He stated he has no problem with the conditions set forth in the staff report. Marie Cattoir, 195 Orchid Lane, questioned whether or not approving this lot split application would be setting a precedent and opening the door for commercial developments, such as Oak Park Acres, to request to sell off individual stores? Mr. Rogoway commented that there is nothing now that would prevent shopping centers from subdividing. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Lot Split, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. 375 376 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -20-87 Page 3 Commissioner Soto referred to the - Resolution adopted by the City Council determining that a Planned Unit Development is similar to other uses in the "C -3" Highway Service District. Commissioner Moore corrected an error in the staff report relative to the size of the parcel, from 7,665 sq. ft. to 11,070 feet. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and carried with one "no" vote, Lot Split Case No. 87 -447 was approved, with the finding that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is appropriate for this application. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 87 -428 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed Use Permit, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed, and the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 87 -1133 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, APPROVING USE PERMIT CASE NO. 87 -428, AT 405 AND 407 TRAFFIC WAY. On motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Flores, Boggess, Soto and Chairman Carr NOES: C,onimissioner Moore ABSENT: Commissioners Olsen and Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of October 1987. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE CASE NO. 87 -107, REQUEST TO ALLOW LESS THAN 80 FT. FRONTAGE ON LOTS WITH 7% TO 20% CROSS SLOPES (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTION 9- 3-403, 511 PLATINO LANE. (K. J. AND L. M. OSTAPOWIEZ). Interim Planning Director Rogoway advised that the applicants have applied for a Variance to permit a lot less than 80 ft. frontage on lots between 7% and 20% cross slopes, and a parcel map to divide their property. into two lots in a Single Family Residential District. He noted that the parcel is 20,669 sq. ft., which is 147 ft. wide on the rear property line, and averages 141 ft. in depth. Mr. Rogoway explained that there is -one single family house existing on the property, and the applicants plan to divide the property into two parcels. The remaining vacant property would be eligible for sale, but 'the 'width is 67.02 ft. wide at the rear property line. Mr. Rogoway pointed out that Platino Lane is not a public street at this time. The right of way comprises two driveways, each 30 ft. in width. The driveway areas have been dedicated to the City for public street purposes and, therefore, in order for the street to be brought to standard, it must be improved to specification. Mr. Rogoway stated he had talked to the City Attorney about this request and he wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission makes the proper findings on this variance request. He advised that State law and. the City Ordinance requires a finding be made that there are special circumstances existing in the granting of the variance. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 87 -107 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Bill Harvey, 308 Oro Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed Variance. He stated when he moved there, one of the things they liked was the large lots in the area. Also, he stated that, on a property like this with such a steep slope, it would take away his privacy. Mr. DiCarlo, 515 Platino Lane and Ronald Olsen, 516 Platino Lane, spoke in favor of the Variance being granted. Mr. Olsen commented when the subdivision was originally put together, the reason they had to go to the larger lots was because of the water pressure. Jerry Bowser, representing the applicant, stated that the frontage they are creating is 71 ft. Mr. Bowser pointed out that, as stated by Mr. Olsen, the water pressure problem has improved since the Wildwood development went in. One of the conditions of approval was to complete and loop the high pressure water system. He stated the applicants felt that going to Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -20-87 Page 4 a smaller size lot would be consistent with the rest of the lots in the area, and the only problem they had was with the 80 ft. frontage, however, because of the depth of the lot and with the new improvements on Platino Lane, it was felt that this wouldn't really create a problem. Mr. Bowser further stated they have no problem with the conditions set forth by staff. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. Mr. Rogoway stated that the applicant feels he is being deprived of certain uses of his property. Also, he states that there are other lots in the neighborhood that have less than 80 ft. frontages and of the same slope. Chairman Carr referred to a letter from Mr. Tognazzini, dated October 17, 1987, stating his objections to the proposed variance and lot split. Commissioner Soto recalled when the Ron Olson proposal in this area was before the Commission for consideration, some of the concerns expressed by the residents were traffic, density and drainage. Commissioner Flores commented, in his opinion, the key to approval or disapproval of this request is if others in this area have been granted less than 80 ft. frontages and, if so, then a precedent has been set. After further discussion, Jerry Bowser, representing the applicant, requested a continuance to enable him to do some research to determine if there are other properties in the area with slopes and less than 80 ft. frontages. On motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, granting a continuance of Variance Case No. 87- 107 and Lot Split Case No. 87 -446 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 3, 1987. PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 87 -429, ADDITION OF A CHURCH STEEPLE, IN THE "A" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, 497 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. (GOSPEL LIGHTHOUSE CHURCH). Mr. Rogoway advised that the Conditional Use Permit application is to construct a church steeple in excess of 30 ft. The steeple would be constructed similar to a lighthouse and placed adjacent to the existing sanctuary and recreation addition. The Zoning Ordinance indicates church steeples may exceed the ordinary height limits (30 ft.) upon securing a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Rogoway pointed out that since the steeple is being placed in the center of the property, it would not adversely affect any neighboring properties and, therefore, the Staff Advisory Committee did not find reason to condition the proposed steeple. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Use Permit Case No. 87 -429 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Reverend Larry Booker, Pastor of the Gospel Lighthouse Church, spoke in favor of the Use Permit. John Pryor, Architect on the project, reviewed a scale drawing of the proposed structure. With regard to the proposed flashing light, Chairman Carr suggested that this be reviewed in 6 months to see if it presents a problem. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed use permit, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed and, after a brief discussion, the following action was taken, limiting the height of the addition to 45 ft. not including the cross, and review of the rotating light by the Planning Commission in 6 months. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -1134. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 87 -429, APPLIED FOR BY GOSPEL LIGHTHOUSE CHURCH, AT 497 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. On motion by Carmissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Boggess, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moore, Flores, Boggess, Soto and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Olsen and Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of October 1987. VARIANCE CASE NO. 87 -108, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM ZONING ORDINANCE SEC. 9 - 4.408, REQUIRING 10 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THE "A" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, 497 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. (GOSPEL LIGHTHOUSE CHURCH) Interim Planning Director Rogoway explained that the request is to enclose a covered patio area and to construct classrooms within 5 ft. of the adjoining property line. The property is zoned agriculture, and the ordinance requires a 10 ft. side yard setback for new structures. Mr. Rogoway advised that with a Variance application, it is necessary for the applicants to justify the variance, stating the reasons why they cannot comply with the standard requirements of the ordinance. 377 378 Arroyo Grande Planning Clâ–ºmissic n, 11 -20-87 Page 5 In response, the administrators of the church indicate the 10 ft. requirement is associated with the Agricultural zone and it is their intent to request a rezoning on the property into a district with normal standards of 5 ft. sideyard setback. Mr. Rogoway noted, however, that the rezoning request has not yet been made, nor have hearings been held which would indicate whether or not the City would be agreeable to the change of zone. Mr. Rogoway advised that the Staff Advisory Connnittee felt the reasons justifying the Variance do not speak to the basic issue of hardship. If the Variance is approved, the Staff Advisory Committee recommends the following condition: 1. That the church install an on -site fire hydrant in the location specified by the Fire Chief. 2. That the new additions to the church be indicated on the property master plan on file with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That the church obtain from the Catholic Church a temporary easement 5 ft. in width the length of the new construction which prevents the Catholic Church from constructing a structure within the easement area. Said easement to be removed and property setbacks restored to the Catholic Church at the time the Gospel Lighthouse Church property is rezoned requiring a 5 ft. side yard setback. Upon being assured by the Planning Commission Secretary that public hearing for Variance Case No. 87 -108 had been duly published and property owners notified, Chairman Carr declared the hearing open. Reverend Larry Booker, Pastor of the = Gospel lighthouse Church, spoke in favor of the Variance being granted. He briefly described the patio, stating it was' built with a permit, and they now have the need for additional classrooms and would like to enclose the patio area for this purpose. Hearing no further corrrnents for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Carr declared the hearing closed. Chairman Carr noted that if a rezoning is approved, then the Variance would only be temporary, however, there is no guarantee that the rezoning will be approved, and to approve a variance based on a possible rezoning is difficult for him. Commissioner Flores stated he doesn't feel the Commission has a solid basis for approving a Variance. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 87 -1135. A RESOLUTION- OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A VARIANCE, CASE NO. 87 -108, APPLIED FOR BY GOSPEL LIGHTHOUSE CHURCH, 497 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. On motion by Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moore, Flores, Boggess, Soto and Chairman Carr NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Olsen and Gerrish the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of October 1987. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87 -384, GUIDETTI SQUARE RETAIL CENTER, WEST BRANCH STREET AND WESLEY AVENUE IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. (J. AND J. GUIDE'I'TI/RICHMOND, ROSSI AND MONTGOMERY). Interim Planning Director Rogoway advised that the application before the Corrnnission involves key property in the downtown area. The application is to construct a retail center on the corner of Wesley Avenue and West Branch Street. The proposal calls for 30,500 sq. ft. of building floor area on a 2.54 acre site, and would require 159 off - street parking spaces. The plan proposes site coverage of 19 %, 54% in parking and paving, and 27% in landscaping and plaza. Mr. Rogoway advised that staff has negotiated two studies involving the proposed solutions to the flow of drainage waters and the handling of traffic generated by the' project. Consequently a traffic report prepared by Omni -Means Engineers discusses in length how the project can be accommodated on the site so that traffic generated by the project is properly handled within the street system. Arroyo Grande Planning Camrission, 10 -20-87 Page 6 A drainage study was submitted by Westland Engineering showing several alternative proposals which would detain water flow into the piping system leading to Arroyo Grande Creek. Because drainage pipes were not adequate to handle increased run -off, the drainage engineer proposed to negotiate a right of use of the Methodist Campground directly behind the Guidetti property. A drainage basin which would retain a sufficient amount of drainage water to allow the flow of water into the Arroyo Grande Creek was proposed by the engineer. The two initial studies have been reviewed by staff and we find they are acceptable to answer questions about traffic and drainage at the hearing. Mr. Rogoway stated that the building is intended to be two stories in height and of unusual design. The applicant believes the design is in keeping with the character of the downtown area and the intent of the Village Design Guidelines. The applicant has submitted samples of the exterior materials and color scheme intended to be used on the exterior of the building. Colors are earth tones of various hues and produce an unusual and somewhat unique color scheme and appearance of the building. Exterior materials include stucco siding, canvas awnings, aluminum windows and store fronts, and metal seam roofing. Mr. Rogoway pointed out that the project is on the edge of the Central Business District and it is intended that the Village Guidelines be applied to the development of this property. The Design Guidelines call for new buildings to be constructed to the edge of the sidewalk and, in that respect, the guidelines are not being followed. Mr. Rogoway reviewed the conditions recommended by the Staff Advisory Committee as outlined in the staff report, dated September 30, 1987. Keith Gurnee, R.R.M. Design Group, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of approving the architectural review. He briefly described the proposed project, including the architecture and color scheme of the buildings. He stated they have met with City staff and have attempted to design something that would compliment the downtown area. Also, they have spent a lot of time evaluating the issues of traffic and drainage impacts. He pointed out that Public Works Director Karp was the one that had to be satisfied with the drainage and traffic reports, and the applicants agree with his recomnendations. Jim Silva, 1360 Brighton Avenue, stated he owns three businesses in the Village area and served on the committee that worked on the design criteria reviewing this project. He commented that the committee was very much in favor of the project. The committee felt the project would have a nice relationship to the buildings that are here, plus it would be beneficial to the Village area. Commissioner Flores commented that since this is a very large structure, he felt the feeling of the Village might be lost. He suggested that additional colored renderings be submitted for the Commission's review. After a brief discussion, on motion by Commissioner Boggess, seconded by Commissioner Soto, and unanimously carried, Architectural Review Case No. 87 -384 was continued for two weeks to enable the applicant to submit architectural renderings to provide the Commission with a clearer picture. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 87 -395, OAK PARK PROFFSSIONAL CENTER, OAK PARK BOULEVARD AND JAMES WAY (LOT 5, TRACT 604), IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (K. KENNEDY, R. SHAPEL/WARING GROUP). Interim Planning Director Rogoway advised that plans are on file from the applicants to establish a professional center at the corner of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard. He noted there is a question about whether the health club is a permitted use which falls within the language of "...uses catering to medical or professional services." He commented that Dr. Shapel's letter attempts to justify the relationship between the health club and the medical services, whereas Kevin Kennedy's letter requests the Planning Commission approval for both the health center and the opening on Oak Park Boulevard providing access for all four lots on the property. Mr. Rogoway advised that, after reviewing the master plan, staff felt that the design of the total project would not work well. They requested the applicant re- design the development so that circulation on the properties can be handled without the driveway opening on Oak Park Boulevard. In addition, the Fire Chief has expressed concerns that the parking layout does not give sufficient turning for fire apparatus. He pointed out that staff held a meeting with the applicants to suggest various alternatives that could be considered for a redesigned project, and the applicants intend to do this. Mr. Rogoway explained that the questions of the Oak Park Boulevard opening and whether it can be used as an entrance into the project, as well as the interpretation of the 379 380 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -20-87 Page 7 ordinance, with respect to the health club, needs to be answered in order for the applicants to proceed with the project. He commented it is staffs feeling that the Oak Park Boulevard opening should be closed and the opening on James Way used as the primary source of access. The easements for access and for utilities need to be worked out by the applicant, which he intends to do. The Casa Grande Motel uses an easement crossing the property to James Way as their primary exit. Mr. Rogoway stated that staff has no objection to interpreting the P -D ordinance of Oak Park Acres to allow a health club as a use catering to professional services. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the Oak Park Boulevard driveway opening be closed, and the health club be permitted as a use in ' this project. Dr. Shapel, one of the applicants, stated they are asking for a determination from the Planning Commission that a health club is a permissible use on this piece of property and second, they wish to establish, on the part of the other three owners, whether the entrance off of Oak Park Boulevard is acceptable. Commissioner Boggess commented that, in his opinion, the health club use does cater to professional people. Chairman Carr stated he doesn't see a problem with the health club, or the entrance from Oak Park .Boulevard as long as it is done to everyone's satisfaction. Canmissioner Soto stated that the proposal looks feasible. Michael Morris, attorney representing the property owner of one of the parcels, spoke regarding the access to Oak Park Boulevard. He suggested getting together with the City of Pismo Beach to try to solve these problems. After further discussion, on motion by . Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and unanimously carried, a recommendation was made to the City Council that a health club and related facilities be considered as an acceptable use on Lot 5 of Oak Park Acres, and a determination that access to the property from Oak Park Boulevard appears to be feasible pending study and final agreement with the City of Pismo Beach. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 11 :55 P.M. A V Secretary Chairman 1