Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1990.10.09CITY OF BURLINGA14E PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 1990 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Tuesday, October 9, 1990 at 7:31 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Graham, Kelly, Ellis Absent: Commissioner Jacobs,.Mink Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jane Gomery, Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the September 24, 1990 meeting were continued for action to October 22, 1990. AGENDA - Item #7 reviewed before Item #6 on the agenda. Otherwise,, the agenda is approved as shown. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2800 MARIPOSA DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Requests: Changes in requests for 1989 and 1990 applications; describe fences and hedges as defined in code; provide the lot size. Item set for public hearing October 22, 1990. 2. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS AT 1445 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. Requests: Provide plans and elevations at a larger scale that are clear and readable; show what the two columns are doing (one for support and one for security gate); provide clearer statements as to. why we are reviewing this application. In the past, the application was approved without the sideyard setback. If all information above is received by October 11, 1990, then this item will be set for public hearing October 22, 1990; otherwise it will be set based on the timing of receipt of the additional information. ti Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 9, 1990 ITEMS FOR ACTION 3. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN EXISTING CARPORT AT 120 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1. Reference staff report 10/9/90 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details at the request, staff review, planning staff comments and applicants letter. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Mr. Sims, applicant and property owner, was present. His comments: He -had a building permit to build the garage and carport in the early 601s. The permit was issued with a non -conforming side setback. The city building inspector at that time inspected the project under construction and said the garage was not setback as it should be. The city building inspector said he should have three feet of clearance from the garage to the property line. Mr. Sims indicated he could not get his boat in with 3 feet and the CBI and the then City Planner settled for two feet. At that time, Mr. Sims had the property resurveyed and the garage wall rebuilt. The garage was never finally inspected and signed off by the city inspector. He built the carport in 1989 according to the original plans in the 60's and aligned it with the existing garage, he did not get another building permit. He built the carport because of his wife's poor health and the need for shelter when loading and unloading from the car. He included with his application, comments from his neighbors indicating their approval of the carport. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Cers asked if the original building was covered by permits. City staff indicated that there were building permits on file for the garage and carport but that the carport was not built while that permit was valid. Com. noted that applicant had a permit in the early 60's but did not build a carport. Since that time, he has now gone ahead and it is a problem; the permit sat in the garage for a number of years and the owner was given a concession for an illegal situation in 1965; 25 years later, the carport has been built and the original permit has lapsed; it appears that there was an intention to avoid a building permit for the new carport. Com. questioned that the applicant already has a garage with covered access to the house through the patio and that it could be used to park and unload a car now; concerned about fire spread from the carport; impact on the structure and on neighbor caused by reconstruction to current fire requirements including 32' long stucco wall 2' from property line. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 9, 1990 Com. Galligan suggested time limit of 2 to 5 years because of the family's present needs and moved for approval of the side yard setback variance with the four staff conditions plus the time limit: (1) that the carport, accessory structure, is built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 20, 1990; (2) that the minimum ceiling height clearance will be seven feet zero -inches; (3) that a one hour rated fire wall without openings shall be provided along the property line side of the carport; (4) that a site survey shall be prepared and reviewed to confirm the exact location of the existing carport; and (5) carport side setback permit shall be reviewed in 5 years time (October 1995). Comments on the motion: what can the commission do legally in response to variances to the Uniform Building Code requirements? Can the commission override UBC and fire code regulations; if exception is granted then UBC or fire codes will need to be met for 1990 and not early 1960's standards; if safety is a problem, they can not ignore the issue. City attorney noted that in the past, on occasion, the planning commission with specific justifications has relinquished responsibility of homeowner to meet the code; could a removable or temporary carport that would meet existing 1990 codes be built; the carport roof will keep the fire in and allow the fire to travel laterally because it is open on the side; it is important to protect the neighbors and the applicants property from the spread of fire. The code requires a minimum of six feet between structures in residential areas. This means that the carport support posts and roof would have to be moved back three feet from the property line; with that location, the driveway would not be usable Com. expressed the need to require seven foot ceiling clearance throughout and that the carport have a one hour fire wall along the property line side; concerned about the neighbors opinions of a solid fire wall where the carport now is open. Com. Galligan moved that condition #2 be changed to read: that the minimum ceiling height clearance shall be 710"; and condition #3 be changed to read: that a one hour fire rated wall without openings shal-1 be provided along the property line side of the carport. The motion was seconded by Com. Kelly. Motion to approve with the above amended conditions on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Deal voting no. Coms. Jacobs and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised . Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 9, 1990 4. REVOCATION OF VARIANCE DATED AUGUST 20, 1990 BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2612 HALE DRIVE. ZONED R-1. Reference staff report 10/9/90 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of requests, staff review, planning staff, applicant's letter. Com. and staff discussed how resolutions are recorded with the county. Revocation would be added to the existing title and recorded. with the county files. Com. Graham opened the public hearing. Alexander Moissiy, applicant and property owner submitted a letter objecting to the staff report, claiming he was misled by the planning and the building departments about the definition of a bedroom vs. a den. He wishes the parking _variance to be revoked and all former actions pertaining to the variance application to be removed from the county records. Staff stated that the variance document can not be removed but it could be nullified by the revocation. It was noted that the applicant chose to, apply for a variance in the first place. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: there is no problem attaching something to a title, there are plenty of attachments with conditions on existing titles; not inclined to support a.motion that applicant did not require the parking variance in the first place. Com. Galiigan made a motion to approve the revocation of the variance by resolution, and seconded by Com. Ellis. Revocation of variance approved on a 5-0 roll call vote. Com. Jacobs and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A FOUR UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1022 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-2. Referenced CE's agenda memo of 10/9/90 and planning commission comments on original action since this request is for a renewal: CE recommended this mapping action be forwarded to council for approval. Com. Ellis moved to recommend .this tentative condominium map to city council for approval, seconded by Com. Galligan and approved 5-0 on a roll call vote. Com. Jacobs and Mink absent. Staff will forward to council. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 9, 1990 6. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO BUILD A SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM 1346 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. Referenced staff report 10/9/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of their request, staff review; planning staff comments, applicant's letter and study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration at public hearing. Com. Graham opened the public hearing. Arkady Massarsky, applicant was present. His comments: he designed the project to meet all city and planning dept. requirements; he has tried to provide a good design with good quality and to provide a high standard of living that will be beneficial to the community. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Com. discussed the problem of the curved driveway and difficulty for cars exiting to see entering cars, a mirror was suggested on the bottom of the drive; the absence of a control dimension on the plans for the height of the building was also noted. Jerry Deal made a motion to approve the project by resolution with the conditions as stated in the planners report and adding two to address commissioners concerns: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 13, 1990 (Sheets A.3 and A.4) and September 14, 1990 (Sheets A.1 and A.2); ( 2 ) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memos of August 14, 1990, September 13, 1990 and September 20, 1990, the Fire Marshal's memo of September 18, 1990, and the City Engineer's memo of October 1, 1990 shall be met; (3) that a security system with an intercom to each unit shall be provided for access to the designated guest parking in the garage; (4) that three guest parking stalls shall be designated and marked on the plans and tentative map and not assigned to a unit but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association; (5) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (6) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser' of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; (7) that the project including egress and access requirements, shall meet Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City, (8) that if vision for cars coming out of the garage is obstructed, a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 7. Ep Page 6 October 9, 1990 mirror shall be installed at the bottom of the garage ramp; and (9) that the height of the building shall be 3510" maximum. This motion was seconded by.Com. Galligan and the resolution was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Coms. Jacobs and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. TENTATIVE MAP FOR SIX UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX AT 1346 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. Referenced CE's agenda memo; CE recommended this mapping action be forwarded to council for approval. Com. Galligan moved to recommend this tentative condominium map to the city council for approval. Seconded by Com. Ellis and approved 5-0 on a roll call vote. Coms. Jacobs and Mink absent. Staff will forward to council. SIGN EXCEPTION TO AMEND SIGN PROGRAM AT 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, DAYS INN. ZONED C-4. Referenced staff report, 10/9/90 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicants letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Gary Yuke, the Architect, represented the Hotel owners and indicated that Days Inn was not built to the same size and height as the Ramada Inn and Sheraton Hotel. The Hotel is interested in more identification signage because of the distance of the Hotel from the freeway. Originally, the applicant wanted a roof sign but the planning staff indicated that this may be difficult to provide and meet city code requirements. The Sheraton, Ramada and Hyatt are all closer to Highway 101 and their signage has better visibility from the freeway. The applicant has provided further information as requested on the height of the sign as it relates to the structure. Letters are 3 feet 6 inches and would be glad to -put them on the roof but since those signs are prohibited, they had to put it on a pole. How tall is the building; 421 to 43' tall. where do the majority of the visitors come from? David Alberts, General Manager of the Days Inn Hotel, stated that 75% of their guests are transit or business guests from out of town who arrive from the airport or by driving, 25% are pleasure or vacationing guests; 65% have reservations. He further indicated that the occupancy rate of the Hotel. has dropped 8% over the last 4 years; 1987 they had a 94% occupancy and in 1990 it was 86%. This equates to approximately 5,840 room nights or about $300,000 reduction in business. The applicant Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 9, 1990 feels this loss of customers is because the building is over shadowed by the larger neighboring hotels. Com. asked how new freeway exit was affecting their business. Mr. Alberts indicated that it is now easier for northbound travelers to get to the hotel. Southbound travelers see lots of hotels before they get within visibility of the Days Inn. They feel there is a problem with visibility, especially for guests coming from the airport or for guests without reservations. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Comments: 75' tall sign is a very high sign; concerned about the image this portrays for the City of Burlingame; questioned if other hotels in the area also had a drop in business; staff noted that most hotels would strive for the occupancy rates now achieved by the Days Inri; Days Inn.has historically run a high occupancy, but there are more hotels in the same price range and so competition has increased in the immediate area. Further Commissioner Comments: the view of the hotel from the freeway has not changed and most people know where they are going when they are approaching the hotel; some change in signage might be applicable but not at 751 in height; 75% of the guests are business and 65% have reservations so the new signage would only address 25-30% of the drop-in guests; staff notes that roof signs are specifically prohibited in the code, but the city has allowed other hotels in the area to have three foot high letters on the parapet walls. Also, the code prohibits freeway oriented signage, the city has allowed parapet identification signs for hotels so people can locate their destination from local streets, these are visible from the freeway but not intended as freeway signage. Com. Deal moved that the sign exception be denied without prejudice, seconded by Com. Kelly. Motion for denial was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote. Com. Jacobs and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. SIGN EXCEPTION TO AMEND SIGN PROGRAM AT 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, SHERATON HOTEL, ZONED C-4. Reference staff report 10/9/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicantts letter, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chrm. Graham opened the public hearing. Dewey Bell, representative for_ the Hotel, was present. His comments indicated that the trees on Highway 101 in the right-of-way currently block the present sign as shown in the attached photograph; stated the hotel needs further identification as Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 9, 1990 viewed from the freeway. Com. asked if the signage was necessary for the new theatre. Mr. Bell indicated that the new sign would advertise the theatre shows as well as provide further identification for the hotel. How will the reader board would operate; the reader board would be a flip-o-matic, metal disk, light reflecting letters, electronically controlled type face. The sign message would flip, as it changed and would not be something that runs, left to right to distract drivers on the freeway; sign would be lite at night but would reflect on its own during the day. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Comments: problem with the sign being used as a identification for the Sheraton Hotel, the current sign on the top of the parapet wall of the hotel has excellent visibility and identification of the hotel; there is a way to get the landscaping trimmed by working with Cal Trans. Com. Kelly moved for denial of the sign exception which was seconded by Com. Galligan. The motion for denial was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote with Com. Jacobs and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO INCREASE OFFICE AREA FROM 26.8% TO 33.5% AT 1649 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report 10/9/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of their request, staff review, and study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chrm. Graham opened the public hearing. Ted Meeham, applicant was present. His comments: he had no problem with the first three conditions. On condition #5, he was concerned about limiting the office hours from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.; condition #6, he had no concerns about further conversion of warehouse to office but was interested in clarification on the parking requirements; with item. #6 and #4, he was concerned about limiting the number of current and future employees and having to amend the use permit for a change in number of employees. He indicated that the proposed number of parking spaces at 167 would be more than the office would need to take care of the present total 150 employees. Typically, each day they have anywhere from 10% to 15% fewer employees on site due to illness and other occurrences, this should be considered and reduce need for their total number of parking spaces. Com. Kelly asked if the employees worked on a flex time schedule. Mr. Meeham indicated that they do offer flex time schedules, anywhere from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. during the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 9, 1990 day. Commissioner indicated that it was the intent of condition of #4 to encourage Good Guys to come back for a parking review when their total number of employees increased. Greg Steel, Representative of the Good Guys, indicated that he had determined his best guess for the future employee growth of the business; he can't be specific and felt it might be cumbersome to come back to the city for a change every time their employee or parking needed to be revised; could increase current parking by 15 to 20 spaces now; prefer permit to show larger number of employees. He felt the Good Guys helped the current traffic problems by having flexible hours when employees would leave after 5 p.m. and come to work before 8 a.m. The Good Guys would prefer to stay in Burlingame and likes the community very much. There were no further comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Comments: Coms. asked if they could adjust number of employees and/or parking spaces. CP indicated that the limits would be used as.a bench mark for complaints, comparisons and as a base number for reviews. The relationship of employees to the number of parking spaces is very important since the number of employees is what impacts traffic within the area. Com. Galligan moved to approve the application with amended conditions #4, #5 and #6. Condition #4 would be changed to increase the number of employees on site from 150 to 170 and the number in the office from 130 to 150. Condition #5 would be changed to add "normal" office and warehouse working hours; imply the posted hours but allowing for flex time; condition #6 would be changed to indicate the applicant would need to come back for further review when there is a reduction in parking spaces on site, change in landscaping area or an increase in the number of employees on site. The motion was seconded by Com. Kelly. Comments on Motion: Com. noted that he agreed with the applicant that the number of parking spaces provided now is more than applicable and that the Good Guys is a good business for Burlingame; concerned about the 20% office rule and the conversion of warehouse to office, if this continues in the area, traffic will -increase and parking will become a problem in the future. Com. Galligan moved for approval of the application with the staff conditions as amended: (1) that the 8,648 SF conversion of warehouse to office not commence until the on site parking area is restriped to include 167 spaces as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Dept. and date stamped September 27, 1990 and that no existing landscaped area shall be used for additional parking area; (2) that the additional area being converted from warehouse (storage) to office shall be as shown on Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 9, 1990 the plans submitted to the Planning Dept. and date stamped September 27, 1990 and all improvements to the proposed office areas shall be submitted to the Building Dept. prior to issuance and included as required in the building permit; (3) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Fire codes as amended by the city; (4) that the total number of employees on this site at one shift shall not exceed 170, 20 of which shall work in the warehouse area and 150 of which shall work within the office area; (5) that employees in the office portion of the building shall be on site during normal office hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. five days a week and warehouse employees normally shall be on site from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. seven days a week; and (6) that there shall be no further conversion of warehouse to office area, reduction in parking, or change in landscaping or increase in number of employees on site without amendment to this use permit. Com. Kelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote; Coms. Jacobs and Mink absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT 460 AND 480 AIRPORT BOULEVARD. lla. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report for 460- 480 Airport Blvd., Zoned C-4 llb. Special Permit for height to build a 150 one room hotel at 480 Airport Blvd., Hotel A llc. Two Special Permits for height, 3 Special Permits for front setback, Shoreline setback, and landscaping exceptions to the Bayfront design guidelines, to build a 300 room hotel at 460 Airport Blvd. (Hotel B) Reference staff reports for FEIR, 460 and 480 Airport Blvd. dated 10/9/90, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the requests, staff comments, mitigation measures on the EIR, applicant's letters, and study meeting questions. 34 condition s were suggested for consideration on the 480 Airport Blvd. Hotel. and 30 conditions were suggested for the 460 Airport Blvd. Hotel. Coms. and staff discussed signalization along Airport Blvd. CE indicated that 460 Airport driveway will be signalized and an intersection further to the east possibly at the entrance of the office building would also be signalized. The costs for these improvements will be shared by the Hotels and other development in the area. In addition, it was noted that Bayview Place is a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 October 9, 1990 private road and that the hotel at 480 Airport will require an access easement from the leaseholder •and the State Lands Commission. Com. Graham opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments on the EIR. Com. Kelly moved to certify the Final EIR finding that the mitigations requiring changes and alterations to the project so that it reduces identified impacts of the project to insignificance as identified in the summary of impacts, mitigations and finds have been incorporated into the conditions of each project and shall therefore be implemented when each project is developed. 'The motion was seconded by Com. Galligan, and approved 5-0 on a voice vote, Coms. Jacobs and Mink absent. Peter Callendar, Landscape Architect, spoke: he has reviewed all the conditions with the owner and finds them appropriate with the following concerns: Condition #3 relating to the schedule of construction and questions if that precludes the owner from having an option to apply for a one year extension. CA noted that the applicant can always apply for an extension. Com. Graham noted that a letter states the earliest the hotel at 460 Airport Blvd. could begin construction, would be December of 1992; if approve the application tonight, the owner with a one year extension would only have until October of 1992 to commence so would have to re -apply before he could build. The condition says December of 1991 and a further letter attached from Peter Callendar dated August 20, 1990, indicates December 1992. Applicant indicated they prefer the maximum flexibility because of market conditions. Coms. noted that the process in the zoning code will not allow for a December 1992 commencement without a reapplication. Com. questioned why the property was being divided into two parcels. They indicated that they felt it was better to save on processing time, to integrate the site plan and design it at one time; due to financing, will need flexibility to build the two projects. Coms. expressed concern about approving something that might not be built for 5 to 8 years. Mr. Ganesh Patel, National Capital Development Corporation, applicant, noted that the hotel at 480 Airport Blvd. is the only one they intend to build at this time. He further indicated that he has not negotiated the leasehold for the hotel at 480 Airport Blvd. yet and doesn't have the financing in place. Com. Kelly noted to the applicant that if the city grants an extension, that application would have to meet current UBC and city code requirements at that time. CP noted that there were two approaches for the approval process. One was a phase project which would be one design for the entire parcel built over a period of years; or two separate projects as shown here with each project done independently. She indicated Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 October _9, 1990 that the applicant did not want the phase approached because they would be required to make some site wide improvements such as installing all of the shoreline protection structure and bayside public access improvements. Com. asked applicant, if they were willing to accept a time frame established in condition #3. Mr. Callendar said that the owner would reluctantly accept the conditions as stated. Com. Galligan expressed concerns about the hotel at 480 Airport; he indicated there were only two other hotels at 3 -stories in the city. He felt it would be odd to put a low rise hotel on the site which may not meet market demands in the future. Applicant felt the market place could accept a 3 -story hotel at the current time. He also indicated there was a 351 height limit on site because of a height easement established for the restaurant across the street on Airport Blvd. The owner is not interested in pursuing the height easement in litigation. Com. Galligan asked what type of construction would be used to build the hotel at 480 Airport Blvd. Mr. Patel indicated that this 35' building would have Type 5 wood frame construction. There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Comments: Coms. expressed discomfort with timing, and division of site and project; concerned that the hotel at 460 Airport is not being built now and that the hotel at 480 Airport is a 3 -story wood frame hotel. He feels this may not be the best use of the land and that the hotel at 460 Airport is really a better product. Confusion expressed that the developer has proposed a 35' tall hotel well within the city's height limit but the city is telling him that they would really prefer a larger and taller hotel; understand the view easement concern across Airport Blvd. feels this needs to be resolved before the hotels proceed. The city can not get involved in the height easement issue. It was noted that the parcel at 460 Airport is limited by the development of 480 Airport and that a 3 -story hotel may not be viable in the future. The design is too open-ended, felt that one hotel of varying heights may have been a better solution. Com. Galligan move to deny the two hotel applications for 460 and 480 Airport Blvd. and was seconded by Com. Graham. Comments to Motion: Coms. expressed concerns about access to both of the parcels and within each parcel; indicated the current proposal would provide two fine hotels and was in support of the existing applications. Noted the developer had been put in an awkward situation with the height easement restrictions and the development of two separate parcels. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 October 9, 199Q The vote on the motion for denial of the two hotels at 460 and 480 Airport Blvd. was 3-2 on a roll call vote (Corns. Deal and Kelly dissenting, Coms. Jacobs and Mink absent). The motion was not passed because there were not the four necessary votes for approval. However, the application was denied because there was not a majority vote of the total appointed Commissioners voting for or against the motion. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe reviewed City Council October 1, 1990 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT J The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Vice Chairman MINUTES.109