Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 23, 1983 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA' TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Siegfried arrive.d at 7:45 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Bolger and Crowt'her Minutes Commissioner Nellis moved to waive the reading of the minutes of March 9, 1983 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Dr. Head, 14684 Pike Road, Request for Site Modification to construct a structure on a site of over 10% in slope Commissioner Nellis moved to approve the' item on the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2a. Negative Declaration - SD-1509 - Peach Hill Development (Lauer) 2b: SD-1509 - Peach Hill Development (Tom Lauer), Request for Tentative Sub- division Approval for a 3-lot subdivision for a site at 15840 Peach Hill Road Chairman Schaefer gave the history of the project, citing the issues. Staff described the proposal, pointing out that if the Commission approves the pro- ject they would have to make an exception relative' to the length of the cul-de- sac. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Dr. Molineux, Sunset Drive, representing three neighbors, raised the issue of ownership of Sunset Drive. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that Staff is of the opinion that it is a public road and was dedicated to and accepted by the County. He added that it would remain a County road unless that property in the future was annexed to the City. Dr. Molineux stated that he had a letter from the County, dated 1963, refusing to!maintain the road. Dr: Molineux was requested to give a copy of that letter {o the Deputy City Attorney. Dr. Kim, 19977 Sunset Drive, addressed the following issues: (1) safety aspect regarding access on Sunset, (2) the dedication of Sunset, (3) maintaining and possible failure of the Sunset extension walls, and (4) geological conditions of tWo-of'the lots. Bill Elving, Peach Hill Road, described Peach Hill Road as a very narrow winding road and stated that Sunset is the more appropriate access. Daryl Dukes, Peach Hill Road, agreed and discussed the traffic on Peach Hill. Joan 'BO's'~,? Peach Hill, agreed with the two previous speakers, adding that another house on Peach Hill would impact her privacy. She also inquired about the ordinance relative to ham ra. dio aerials and discs. It was determined that the Commission'will review 'that subject at a future study session. Robert Dale, Peach Hill, addressed the safe~y factor relating to access on Peach Hill. \ .Plan'~ng Commiss ion Page 2 .N~eeting Minutes 3/23/83 SD- 1509 (cont.) Martin Messinger, Peach Hill, stated that Peach Hill Road is at the saturation point now relative to traffic. Jack Zaches, Peach Hill, discussed the safety of the children on that road. · The Deputy City Attorney addressed the two lots in the Count.y, explaining that they are existing lots of record, but a development proposal was not approved by"the County. He commented that the review at thi's time by the County is in co,nnection.with this application and specifically the road. He indicated that the applican~.f~'s original intention had been to annex those two lots, but that procedure is now on hold because of other legal complications involving the County. Lester Sachs, Sunset Drive, discussed the traffic and safety aspects of both Sunset and of Peach Hill. He commented that the residents were asking. for, as a compromise, a total 'development of 4 homes instead of 5, with 2 lots off of Sunset and an additional home off of PeaCh Hill. He questioned the ownership of Sunset Drive, indicating that the acc.eptance of the dedication refers to Map Book N, page 47, which is in fact anl acceptance of a dedication of Sunset Drive in the City of Los Altos, not in Saratoga. Mr. Sachs submitted a packet with this material and other letters referencing the dedication. He also noted that there is a 50'-70 ft. area on parcel. 30 that is actually not connected to Sunset Drive, and it is still their position that the applicant does not have direct access. He added that they feel that there should be an Environmental Impact Report on the project because of (1) traffic, (2) neighborhood objec- tion., and (3) substantial amount of grading. Mr. Sachs also asked that there be a coordinated hearing with the County on this project in order to have con- sistency. Chairman Schaefer stated. that a Negative. Declaration had been prepared instead of an EIR because it .is felt that the pr.oblems with this.. development can be alleviated by mitigating measures. She cited the various 'mitigating conditions in the Staff Report. The Deputy City Attorney c'ommented that they had reviewed the maps and there has been an endorsement from a title company which addresses the issue of access; therefore, they would stand by the opinion that the applicant does have access to Sunset. He suggested. that if Mr. Sachs has any doubt on the access issue he should meet with the City Attorney"s office so that his arguments can be reviewed in more detail. He added that the Commission could add a condition in the tentative map, if approved, that satisfact'ory evidence of access be given. Discussion followed on the procedure to be used to avoid having the City get in a posture of having to condemn property in order to get access if it is found that the applicant does not have access to Sunset. The Deputy City Attorney stated that it could be conditi'Oned that no building permits could be issued for the development of any lots until the access to those lots has been established to the Commission's .satisfaction. Staff commented that it might be more appropriate to condition the approval on the verification of access, since recent changes in the Subdivision Map Act indicate that a final map should not be denied simply because of the lack of access that was shown at the time of approval of the tentative map, and that the jurisdiction is then placed in that position of acting in the condemnation or providing that access at the expense of the builder. Mr. Lauer, the applicant, commented that'he has provided the information from the title company, as previously requested by Mr. Sachs. He added that he intends to annex the remaining two parcels as soon as possible and would like the Commission to give him the alternative of annexing the property where the existing house..is and adjusting the lot line. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the .public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried commented on the DiManto property which had previously been approved. He explained that it is a rather unusual piece of property because of some of the rock work and work that had been done historically over many years. In approving that map the F~ommission in fact approved two minimum access roads, one over. 1400 ft. and one ·approximately 1000 ft. in length. He added that ·in fact. those roads could have bee'n 'connected', either by an emergency .~° Pla~'hing Commiss ion Page 3 Meet.ing Minutes 3/23/83 ; SD-1509 (cont.) access or a through road. He explained that the Commission agreed that the property was so unique that they were willing to approve those two very long minimum access roads and not opt for any through construction to preserve all the work that had be'en done. Commissioner Siegfried added that this is a different situation because, while Sunset is some considerable length, the applicant has proposed an 'emergency access to Peach Hill which is not a through road but would be there as a form of emergency access. Therefore, that leaves the issue of the cul-de-s'ac. from that point to the end, which in fact exceeds the 400 ft. requirement by approximately 80 feet. He stated that he feels that the finding can be made that that 80 ft. deviation from the requirement, given the emergency access, is not a problem. He commented that, relati.ve to Dr. Kim's concerns, there are detailed conditions required for the road constr.uction and any street improvements that meet those concerns. He added that the applicant is allowed 4 lots on this property under the ordi- nance; he could not have voted for 4 but is prepared to vote tonight for the approval of. 3 lots accessing off of Sunset, with no additional access off of Peach Hill'because it cannot take any additional access from this subdivision, other than the emergency access. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she has a problem with the retaining walls and the fact that the road splits the property on the 3 lots into two sections. She commented that she. is influenced at this time by the rain and the property damage and could approve 2 lots off of Sunset, but could not vote for 3. Commissioner Nellis indicated that he could support the 3 lots with access totally off of Sunset, since he feels that the point has been well made that Peach Hill is a very winding curvy road. He added that he can'make the find- ings necessary for the exception to the'cul-de-sac. Commissioner Hlava agreed that she does'not feel it is appropriate to put more homes accessing on Peach Hill.. She also agreed with Commissioner McGoldrick that there is a definite problem with the Sunset access because of the high retaining walls. However~ she added, whether there are 2 houses or 3 houses approved, the 'same access has to be built and .the 3 building lots that are there do seem to be appropriate. She commented that she would like to see a condition that all of the property on the bottom side of the road where there is no building be put into a scenic easement, not only as a buffer for the neighbors but also to prevent any further building there. She added that she feels the Sunset access question should be a condition in the tentative map. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she was here in two roles, one as a neighbor and the other as a Commissioner. She.cOmmented that subjectively as a neigh- bor there is no question she would want :only 2 lots accessing on Sunset because the traffic is going to affect her. However, her role as a Commissioner must overrule her feelings, and she'does not 'see any legal reason why she could deny having 3 lots'. She added that she feels that considerat-ion has been given to the geological problems and the process, and she feels that people have a right to develop individual property if an appropriate job in building it is done. Therefore, she would vote for 3 lots off'of Sunset,' with conditions addressing the scenic easement, the access, and annexation and a lot line adjustment. Discussion followed on a condition for the lot line problem. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration on SD-1509, re.ferencing the reasons previously givenl by Chairman Schaefer as to why a Negative Declaration is appropriate. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with' Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SD-1509, per the revised Staff Report and Exhibit·B-7, subject to the following additional conditions: (1) The applicant shall develop and submit a map, subject to Staff approval, showing a scenic easement on Lots 1 and 2 on all that property of the parcel east of the ~oad, and on Lot 3 a scenic easement approximately from the Center of the creek up to the easterly and northerly portions of the property; (2) The residence on Lot No. 1 shall be removed prior to Final Map Approval. If, however, adjacent lot is annexed to the City and a lot 'line adjustment is ap·proved, the existing residence shall remain, and (3) At the time of recording of the Final Map the City shall still be satisfied that there is public access on Sunset to the lot lines. Discussion followed on the wording of the condition regarding access. It was determined that the approval wo·uld· be g~anted on the basis that a condition be properly worded to carry out the intent of the Commission that the tentative ~Pla.~ing Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 3/2.3/83 'SD'- I509 (cont.) map shall be void.if public access from'Sunset is not provided by the developer to the lot line, so that it does not become the City's problem if the access is not there. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion to approve SD-1509. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting. After the break whi'ch foliowe'd the Deputy City Attorney clarified that the approval per se of the map for SD-1S09 was conditioned upon Staff being satisfied and reporting back to the Commission on the issue of access. He stated that he had requested the 'developer to obtain a copy of the documents submi. tted by Mr. Sachs' and the 'City Attorn°ey's. office will review them and- report back to'the CommissiOn at the nex't meeting. Therefore, the'access would not be a condition of the tentative map, which would get the City into the situation of possibly'having to condemn a road, but the approval of the map as a whole is conditioned upon the alccess problem being resolved. Break 10:15 10:35 p.m. 3. A-852 - Thomas Whitney, 14880 .Sobey Road, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second-story addition to a one-story single family dwelling in the R-i-40,000 zoning district (near Springbrook Lane) It was directed that this matter be continued to the meeting of April 13, 1983. 4. GPA-83-1-A.- Consideration of Draft Housing Element of the City of Saratoga and Environmental Impact Report The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m. 'Andy Beverett noted that many of the senior citizens had left the meeting because of the lateness of the hour, and'he suggested that he give his comments at a future hearing on this matter. Staff noted the dates of the scheduled meetings on thi's matter. It was directed that it be continued to the meeting of April 13, 1983. 5. A-861 - Gerald Butler, Lot #4, Tract 6632, Montalvo Road, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-~tory single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zoning 'district (near 'Lira Drive) Staff described the proposal. They noted' that there has been no unauthorized removal of ordinance size.trees from the ~ite. Commissioner .Siegfried. gave a Land Use'Committee.report, indicating that they had discussed the possibility of moving the home slightly in the easterly direction to increase the setback on the westerly side, thus increasing the area of parking and access to the garage. Commissioner Hlava expressed concern regarding the cypress tree because of the curve of the driveway. The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m. The applicant stated that he had moved the driveway to the side of the house · because of the wishes of the neighbors. However, he felt he could move it · slightly to save both of the trees in that area. Dr. Donald Call, representing the Montalvo Homeowners Association, expressed concern regarding (1) the size of the home oH a small lot, (2) the fact that it-is a spec home, and (3) setting a precedent for massiveh.0me,s. in that area. Mrs. Marino, who lives one lot away from the proposed home, spoke against the large size and the fact that it is a spec home. The size of the houses and the lots in that area were discussed. Alma Arata, 20400 Hill, spoke against the'project, addressing the area and existing homes. : ~red'King, 15159 Montalvo, pointed out that the Commission had denied both of the applicant's developments because of traffic, and he feels this large home would produCers. more cars in the ares.. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the'public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Further discussion followed on the size of the homes in the area and the - 4 - · ~Pla~ning Commission Page 5 Meet.ing Minutes 3/23/83 A-861 (cont.) interpretation of the findings, as to whether they apply to the visual imp.act of tILe house on the surrounding sites that are impacted by it :.flY:'{'~4'~'Z~:R'~"~;~]Y~''' h.:~i~Z~"'~dB'¥:.~'"!~d'F-"~'ir~n~.~'~ :' a~v'~ 'o f--."" ~']Ye'-.':'~'['~.~li'i~ {- ~.:-. ~ l'6:fi~':"-L:fi e'--d-6v'e ]. o'.fi:ed';7"':":":i' There was .a consensus 'to have Staff get i_nput of the size of the homes and garages in that area ..' "Cornmiss i6nef:'H!a'~' c'O~men. t_ 6.d' j"~.h'~:'jf .'sh'e'-wbUl.d:'l'i, ke._-S~a-~'f"" ." to supply tILe minutes from tILe subdivisi'on he~ring to determine what was said at that time about size. It was directed that this matter be continued to April 13, 1983. 6. UP-529 Public Storage, 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for Use Permit to allow a mini-stor. age facility in the C-V (Visitor- Commercial) zoning district (north of Manor Drive) TILe proposal and site were described by Staff. The public hearing was opened at 11:10 p·.m. The applicant stated that he had met with the present tenants and facilities will be made for them. He commented that he would like to address the setbacks at the site review which is to follow. He addressed the flood control work they are planning to do. The potential traffic was discussed. Mr. Oliver, representing his mother who owns property at 12361 Saratoga-Sunny- vale Road, expressed concern regarding the flooding that has occurred. He also expressed concern about the appearance of the two-story structures. Staff clari- fied that Design Review Approval is required on tILe structures. They described the engineering and ·grading that will be done relative to the flood control work. Jacques Boubille, 12316 Julie Lane, stated that he is on the Board of Directors of the Oak Creek Homeowners Association, .and they are very much against this project. He expressed concern relative to the dangerous traffic pattern. He also asked the Commission to consider what ·would happen to this unsightly building if th~s business fails. Don Sifferman, 12400 Green Meadow Lane, expressed concerns regarding (1) the massive twO-story structures, (2) lighting to provide security, and (3) the need for such a facility in Saratoga. Dick Foley, 20615 Oak Creek ·Lane, stated 'that he did not feel that the average Saratoga citizen is in need of such a facility, much less on a problem property. He cited additional external traffic, safety hazard problems, health problems, and additional crime. The applicant commented that the lighting will be turned off at closing hours. He added that he feels that a 2-story is a better design and that 'this is .-~ o'~' an ideal location for mini-storage, which~ is needed in Saratoga. The traffic trips were discussed. It was clarified that there would be a total of 270 trips per day. Sandy Sifferman, 12400 Green Meadow Lane,. expressed concern regarding the · 2-story and length of buildings. She indicated that she would be looking at a big wall. She added that other homeowners in opposition had left the meeting because of the late hour. Carl Billianie, 20643 Oak Creek Lane, spoke in opposition to the project, citing tILe height' and size. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff reported that there are deferred improvements along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road that would be called upon to be compl'·eted if this last parcel were to be developed. They described the basic design of those improvements, which would be for a frontage type roadway and entrances perhaps just at either end. Commissioner Nellis expressed concern regarding the road design. and access, specirfically the center lane. Staff indicated that the master plan would call essentially for two entrances', one at Kirkmont and one at Seagull. They added that the developments on efther side of the highway are under bond for partici- pating in a signal at Kirkmont when it becomes warranted, if it .becomes warranted - 5 - .l,!pl~a?~ing Commission Page 6 ~ Mee=ti..ng Minutes 3/23/83 UP- 529 (cont.) 'with. in five years of the completion and..acceptance. of those improvements. Staff added that because of the :p,~O'~x"i~'~.~e-1.o_cat.ionJ"~f t]~-~ f~a.i!r'b~'d"a'~t'._itS'._':. associated protective equipment, left turns would probably not be allowed in at the Seagull entrance but wo'uld be' controlled at Kirkmont. Commissioner Hlava commented that she would like to see this area developed because she feels it is a health hazard and when it is developed the City can proceed wi.th the assessment district. She noted that during the General Plan · discussions in this area mini-storage was one of the uses that was brought up as appropriate at that time. She added that she is concerned about the comments and concerns from the neighbors. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that the expressed concerns are very valid but feels some things can be done to mitigate them. She commented that she would prefer not to have any variances at all on the setbacks and would. like the height and size of the structures reduced. She noted that she would like a change in the proposed hours to alleviate traffic and provide privacy. She indicated that she feels there is a demand for mini-storage; however, she does have a concern about the control of dangerous objects being stored. Commissione'r Siegfried agreed that he would like to have ~his area developed so' that the improvements can be made. He commented that he is concerned that, while there are not as many trips generated here as the previously proposed project, the type of vehicles may be a greater safety hazard than work traffic. He added that he is troubled by' the 'siZe 'of the two-story building and he is not really sure that Saratoga needs mini-storage. Commissioner McGoldrick pointed out that the General Plan' meetings had speci- fically requested that this site be for low intensity commercial or office use. She commented that it is obvious that thi's use, no matter what the number of tri'ps is, 'is lower than any other use and she feels this would probably be the best use for the neighborhood. She expressed concern with the size of the two-stories' and the general bulk of the building. However, she indicated that she feels those problems 'could be 'mitigated in Design Review. She added that she would want no variances on the setba'cks and would not approve the .proposed hours. Commissioner Nellis stated that the possibility of the Deferred Improvement- Agreements had minimized much of his concern about the traffic. He noted that he would have difficulty approving. the two-stories and would support a 5:00 p.m. closing time. Discussion followed on the two-stO_rX .de. sign and the setbacks. ~here'w~.s.'c~n:' · ~'~ns u~ 'tHa t"th'~ des ~n :-'and.. -~'i~ .-~ ~.~ ~t~e ,.. s ~ructu~'~ s "~n~"'.'~H'~ "s etb'~kS 'wi i I 'b'e 'deter - . . -._ mined at Design Review. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve UP-529, per the Staff Report dated March '15, 1983, amended to delete the approval of Exhibits B and C; making the find: :i_ngs, and with the additional condition that the lighting and hours of opera- tion shall be determined at a later date by the Planning Commission. Commis- sioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Discussion followed on the access. Commissioner Nellis suggested that a condition be added that the access be off of Kirkmont. The Deputy City Attorney commented that the access can be address- ed at the time 'of Building Site Approval 'and this approval would be for the use only. The vote was taken to approve UP-529. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Siegfried dissenting. 7. UP-531 - Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way, Request for Use Permit to allow the construction of four condominiums in the C-V (Visitor Commercial) zoning district (west 'of 4th St.) The p'roposal was described by Staff, who .stated that the previous approval had expired. The public hearing was opened at 12:25 p.m. IVarren Heid, architect, explained the project and.the history of it. He stated th. at he feels that this is a good use for the land, since it will be a less dense use of the site than the' commercial and the impact as far as privacy would be less.. He added that he feels that this use will maintain the property value better than .an office or commercial building. : ...... .z .'. :z~-=~-~....-.. · ....... · ................... ~-~,-';. · ..... .._: · ..~.. J .- ., -~, ,- _. , .~:. - ' · ..... .~_ "'.' " · -""- -, ...... ~-~'~'~"'r~,~.... '3j- "=' ".· ., .- .... _. - 6 - ' .... Plan~ing Commission Page 7 '~Mee~{.n.g Mi'nutes 3/23/83 UP-531 (cont.) A letter from Stone Pine Condominiums, asking that the proposed project be redesigned as a single level 4-unit cluster design, was noted. Mr. Heid indicated that'he had done studies to attempt to use that design; however, it was not feasible and was a wasted use of the land. Mary Boscoe, a member of Stone Pine Cond~miniums, spoke in opposition to the impact of this building on a very small lot. She noted that it is not in character with the Village and addressed' the financial impact. She commented that they had not been notified of the previous use permit, since the notices had been. sent to the former own'ers, even though it was known' that they no longer lived there. Lynne Gillmartin Lindsey, of Unit B of Stone Pine, commented that she had mis- takenly approved the previous plan that Mr. Heid had approached her with for this property because he did not explain the ramifications. She noted the privacy impacts and commented that the architect has not looked at the project for their benefit. The owner of Unit No. C commented that he would have to .change his life style. if this were appro~e'd'~'-. since it would impact his privacy great~y~ He' added that it would take away the sunlight and would decrease property values. Mr. Heid commented that the notices for the original application were sent to the owners listed at the County at the time. He added that this is a commer- cial piece of land and it is entitled to commercial consider.ation under the ordinance. Mr. Heid requested that the item be continued so that he could present too're data on the project and be'c~use 'his~ciient.-~ out of .toY~n. There was a consensus to vote on the matter at this time. There was also a Consensus that the project as proposed is inappropriate for the neighborhood. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the p~blic hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff noted that this project has an approved Design Review which has not expired. There was a consensus that this item should be denied without preju- dice, in order to allow the applicant to' come back with a revised design significantly different in terms of height, size, parking and privacy concerns. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny UP-531' without prejudice. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was c.arried unanimously 5-0. The 10-day appeal period was noted. DESIGN REVIEW 8. A-863 - Union 76, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Blue Hills Center), Request for Design Review Approval of Landscaping and Sign Staff described the proposed landscaping and sign. They commented that they were requesting modification to the sign and recommending that it be lowered to a monument type. and moved back from the street by 2 feet. Mr. Heid, architect, addressed the landscaping, the curved side walk and the proposed sign. Staff commented that the. reason they have suggested that the sign be lowered is because of so many complaints about signage along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Jeff Heid discussed the trees and plantings being used. After further dis- cussion on the sign there was a consensus that a condition should be added that the sign be no higher than 4 feet, made of wood except .for the inserts, and be 'of natural colors. Commissioner Nellis commented that orange and blue colors are' the corporate colors and he felt they should be allowed. Chairman Schaefer noted that other applicants along that road had been required to have natural colors. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-863 subject to the Staff Report, amended to include the above condition, with final design of the sign to be approved by Staff. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Nellis dissenting. -~',Pl~ning Commiss ion Page 8 Me~-ting Minutes 3/23/83 MISCELLANEOUS 9. A-831 - Steve Scialabba, 12501 Woodside Drive, Reconsideration of Design Review Approval for construction of a two-story addition to an existing one-story dwelling It was directed that this matter be continued to the 'meeting of April 13, 1983 because of the lateness of the hour. 10. UP-530 - St. Andrews Church, Saratoga Avenue, Design Review for Landscape Plan Staff reported that the plan addresses all of the concerns of the Commission. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the addendum to UP-530 for the landscape plan. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, whi'ch was carried unani- mously 5-0. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Siegfried moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 1:29 a.m. Respectfully submitted, R-ojbert S. Shook Secretary RSS:cd