Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.05.26REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 26, 1998 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chair Key called the May 26, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga, Mink, Wellford and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Fire Marshall, Keith Marshal CEREMONIAL MATTERS: Chair Key opened the event by speaking for the entire commission expressing her thanks for the service of John "Jay" Wellford, Michael "Mike" Galligan, and Charles "Chuck" Mink who are all stepping down from the commission this evening. Chair Key, presented a Planning Commission Resolution to each of the retiring commissioners thanking each of them individually for their unique contributions to the city and commission; and to C. Mink she presented a plaque commemorating his 25 years of service to the commission. Mayor Mike Spinelli thanked all the retiring commissioners and presented C. Mink with a Proclamation from the City Council recognizing his unmatched 25 years of service on the Planning; Commission. Each Commissioner thanked the Council for allowing them to serve and their fellow commissioners for their friendship and insights. C. Mink, who served as commission chair in 1969 when the General Plan was adopted, briefly reviewed the highlights of planning history in Burlingame, citing the many council members, planning commissioners and staff members he had the pleasure of working with over the years. He noted the special contributions many of these people made to Burlingame as it stands today. A number of past Council members and Commissioners spoke from the floor reminiscing about the commission and thanking Chuck Mink and the other commissioners for their many contributions to the city as we know it today. Chair Key then asked the newly appointed commissioners, Joseph "Joe"' Boju6s, Ann Keighran and Stanley "Stan" Vistica to take their seats. Chair Key called for a 20 minute recess for a reception in the foyer for the out going and in coming commissioners. Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Coffey, Deal„ Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Key Absent: None -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1998 MINUTES C. Deal moved approval of the minutes of the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as mailed. C. Coffey seconded and the motion carried on a voice vote 7-0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 21 HAYWARD COURT, ZONED R-1. (FRANK H. MERLOTTI JR. AND SUSAN MERLOTTI-WOOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented the staff report and the commissioners had no questions. The item was set for public hearing on June 8, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE AT 1234 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. (ANN BURATTO, APPLICANT AND KEIL SONOMA CORP., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report and the commissioners asked the following questions: what color will the awnings be; refer to a "brand store front", provide picture of a typical at another location; provide color scheme for entire frontage including facade, signs etc. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on June 8, 1998. APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE NUMBER AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNAGE ON THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE AT 1800 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4. (GREG JENSEN, MILE HI VALET SERVICE, APPLICANT ,AND HMH SFO INC., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: include the minutes from the Council's action on the parking lot including the locations of the control booths; are the control booths where the 4.21.98 plans showed them to be; total nwnber of parking spaces before the parking control installation and after, were any spaces lost. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on June 8, 1998. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL, PERMITS FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING HOTEL (ADDITION OF 140 ROOMS, NEW MEETING ROOMS AND BALLROOM AND THE EXPANSION OF THE HOTEL LOBBY) AT 600 -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1998 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (EDWARD J. GEE, APPLICANT AND HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the negative declaration and staff report on the ;proposed addition to the hotel and the commissioners asked the following questions: applicant provided findings for each of the special permits requested, note on each response which special permit it applies to; in their letter the architect notes that the FAR of 1.73 is within the 2.0 FAR allowed, explain; is a special permit needed for view obstruction under the design guidelines, note page one; lot coverage is over 60%, how much of this is parking garage, break down lot coverage by type of structural coverage; 8 % landscaping, does it include parking lot landscaping, in another place refers to 6.5 % of parking area landscaped, explain; is the traffic generate from the vacant site to the left included in the evaluation; where will hotel employees park:; provide a table which compares what was requested and approved in the 1988 addition proposal with the current proposal; the 577 Airport Blvd. project now provides less FAR than it could, could this development add more structure in the future and increase trip generation; how will oil run off from vehicles be addressed; how will guests parking on the new deck at the rear get into the hotel; designated shoreline parking will be affected by the project, will additional be provided, will the existing be relocated; would like to see an expanded site plan that would show more of the area especially the automobile accesses to the various properties, might be able to devise from the aerial of the area with an overlay; what will the view be from the Bayshore Freeway and higher up on the hills; how will the street scape look; we have required a distant view analysis for all projects there, this one should provide as well, can do same as 577 Airport did; what are land use designations/zoning in the area, and what can be expected in the future. There were no further questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing as soon as the information requested could be provided. APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCE FOR A TWO-STORY 11,484 SF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TRAINING FACILITY AT 1519 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1. (PLUMBERS, STEAMFITTERS & REFRIGERATION FITTERS, LOCAL 467 AND STANLEY E. PANKO, APPLICANTS AND PIPE TRADES APPRENTICE AND JOURNEYMAN TRAINING TRUST FUND FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY BUILDING FOUNDATION, PROPERTY OWNER_ CP Monroe presented the staff report and the commissioners asked the following questions: are the 25 parking spaces used next door marked for the use of 1519 Rollins Road; have there been any complaints about parking on these two properties; where are the 100 students located within the building during training; does the original special permit for this use address rentals of the hall by other groups; what is the use of the space call "rental" on the plans; include a copy of the study and action minutes for the Planning Commission and Council from the 1969 use permit action; show parking requirement by square footage of use; how was the parking requirement for the class room use figured; is the reciprocal agreement for parking recorded; what happens -3- City of Burlingame Pkmning Commission Minutes May 26, 1998 to the agreement if the structure or use at 1511 Rollins is ever expanded; are the facilities rented during the week; are rental users included in the week day parking demand; describe rental use and actual use of the facilities. If all the questions can be answered and materials gathered by June 8, the public hearing will be set for that date. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT ON UNCLASSIFIED LAND AND A PARKING SPACE DIMENSION VARIANCE AT 1190 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED, (NEXT CENTURY RESTAURANTS, APPLICANT PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT AND THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD, PROPERTY OWNERS). CP Monroe presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: parking stalls 3, 4, and 5 are 16 feet long, are there are more spaces than required with standard dimensions on the San Francisco Water property that could be used and eliminate the parking dimension variance; clarify the location of the parking on the San Francisco Water site; was the lease with San Francisco Water approved on May 26; what will the signage program be, the color scheme for the building and signs; what is the concept of the restaurant, will food be served by waiters or will people stand on line and place orders to pick-up; will there be outdoor seating; why do they not want take-out service if they sell sandwiches. There were no further questions and the public hearing was set for June 8, 1998. ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) IN EXCESS OF 600 SF, WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS IN THE GARAGE HIGHER THAN 10'-0" ABOVE GRADE AND SKYLIGHTS WITHIN 10'-0" OF THE REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES AT 721 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MICHAEL J. & CHRISTINE L. READ, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (76 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 05.26.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioner asked if skylights could be changed from the bubble to flat type, staff suggested applicant might discuss. There were no further questions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Mike Read, property owner 721 Walnut spoke, he noted that the skylights as drawn on the plans were flat; commissioner noted that he should check with the building department because there are specific circumstances under which flat skylights can be used in accessory structures. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Coffey noted that he had been to the site, looked at it from Newhall, feels that it would be an improvement to remove the existing dilapidated garages, the increase of 264 SF would have no impact on the neighbor because the lot is deep; unusual for someone to provide additional -4- City of BwGng— Planning Commission Minute May 26, 1998 off-street parking; proposal is under maximum lot coverage allowed and remainder of design meets all zoning requirements; considered the impact of the skylights at night from adjoining properties, did not seem to have a negative effect therefore move approval of requests with conditions in the staff report and based on the findings in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Comment on the motion: understand providing two additional parking spaces is not intended in this case to get cars off the street, concerned about the bulk of the building, will be massive at the rear of the property; for garages 500 SF used to be the city's bench mark, increased it to 600 SF to be more permissive, this is 360 SF over that threshold; prefer a smaller 24 feet deep, 27 feet wide or 668 SF; concerned about the number of skylights, which will act as a beacon on the neighbors at night, structure is going to be there for years so how this applicant uses it is not as important; too big; skylights face neighbors, not applicant; if over 600 SF need to look at extraordinary circumstances on the property, this is a standard lot 600 SF is enough for a garage; cannot find a hardship to justify such a garage; now have 718 SF of garage available, could see him replacing that square footage; house at 716 Newhall has no windows to rear, but structure very tall; could park four vehicles in 718 SF which is what have; the proposed structure would require the removal of the oak tree; this garage would take the whole backyard, does not need to be so large. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 3-4 (Cers. Deal, Luzuriaga, Keighran and Vistica dissenting). Commissioner Deal moved to deny without prejudice with direction to resubmit within 60 days the garage request noting that the structure was too large, 700 SF would be all right as a maximum, the skylights need to be addressed, the structure to the rear without windows facing the new garage is in poor condition and will eventually be removed and replaced and will be impacted by all these skylights, skylights could be placed on the front and limited to a couple with tinted glass which would diffuse the light out, no problem with the dormer, the oak tree should be saved, the one in front of the garage. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair Key called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED FORWARD OF THE REAR 30% OF THE LOT AT IC05 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (MELANIE MOUNTANOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (42 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 05.26.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioner asked if work on the structure was completed. There were no further questions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Otter Miller, contractor, 401 Primrose Road spoke. Commission asked since there was a stop work notice, had the work on the structure been completed; no, still plywood on outside without roofing finish; reason for flu height, need to -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1998 keep flu 4 feet from property line, put equipment too close to property line so had to angle flu which raised the ridge line of the structure; why not relocate equipment so flu is further from property line and reduce height, would mean relocation of slab and all equipment, flu already bent, all the equipment is tied together in its function so would have to redesign the whole; who decided to move the pool equipment structure, Mr. Miller, the contractor, did; the proposed location was at a location in the yard where he wanted to put a play set:, pool covers 50 percent of the yard; both neighbors prefer the equipment structure where it is, :neighbor to the left can't see it, it is next to neighbor to the right's bathroom window; have operated pool equipment at this location for a year and a half, no noise complaints; did you do this for your family, no sold house 3-4 months ago, needed to get final as a part of the sale, and need variance; neighbor has no problem with the pump; just need to placate city, noise was not a problem when the pump was uncovered; structure is unfinished and needs insulation and to comply with all codes to address noise. C. Coffey noted that he made a site visit, biggest concern was neighbor at 1009 Drake, spoke to Mrs. Cappazoli, who had no objection and wrote letter at desks tonight; based on existing there is no negative visual impact from the properties on either side, move for approval of the side setback variance for 4 feet based on the comments made, action is by resolution with conditions in the staff report and two added conditions: that gutters be placed on the pool structure to insure that drainage is contained on the property at 1005 Drake and that the pool equipment structure is adequately insulated so that the noise at property line shall not be increased by 5 dBA. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Discussion on the motion: support that all roof drainage should go to the street by any approved method; would like to add to the motion a condition that the vent pipe be: painted a non -reflective color to match the roof of the structure. C. Coffey, maker of the motion and C. Deal, second, agreed to the amendment. Discussion continued: pool equipment does have a detrimental visual impact to the neighbors, can see it from the street in the side yard between the houses, reduces the open space between structures, if it were placed further back it would have less visual impact, lots of places it could be put on the lot with less impact; talked to neighbor, with letter from adjacent neighbor and no complaint, leave equipment house where it is, if move back it would break up the yard area; moving it back would have less visual impact but an undue financial burden, not necessary since both neighbors agree. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with three additional conditions that gutters be placed on the pool structure to insure that drainage is contained on the property, that the structure be adequately insulated so that the noise level at property line shall not be increased by 5 dBA and that the vent pipe shall be painted a non -reflective color to match the roof of the structure; the conditions on the project are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 9, 1998; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 13 and April 21, 1998 memos shall be met; 3) that should the pool equipment ever be abandoned or the swimming pool removed or rebuilt the pool equipment enclosure shall be removed and in no case shall this structure ever be used to house a toilet, sink or for any living purpose; 4) that gutters shall be placed on the pool M City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26. 1998 structure to insure that drainage is contained on the property; 5) that the structure shall be adequately insulated so that the noise level at property line shall not be increased by 5 dBA; 6) that the vent pipe shall be painted a non -reflective color to match the roof color of the structure; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 6-1 vote (C. Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2304 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (JESSE W.J. & ROSANNA B. MYRES, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 05.26.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioner Deal stated than he would abstain from this item since he had a business relationship with the applicant. Commissioner Luzuriaga stated that he would also abstain from this item since he lived within the public noticing area. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Jess Myers, property owner 2304 Poppy Drive, spoke, he presented a packet of information including a petition in favor of this variance; he showed two sketches one with the roof peak which causes the variance and one without; the project complies with all other zoning requirements; regarding the requirements for granting a variance he noted that the lot slopes away from the street with a 5 foot rise, the height for this addition would be less on a flatter lot; the existing Tudor design has a steep roof, if going to match to keep the character without causing an aesthetic loss to the building, need height exception; the style of the addition is in keeping with the existing house; have lived in the neighborhood for 14 years. Did the people on the left side sign the petition, no left at 5:30 a.m. for Europe, called and said it was all right; did you raise the height of the existing; chimney, drawings do not show the chimney accurately it is not higher because it is far enough away from the new roof. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comments: the project is fine, it breaks the height rule but has a minor impact; the request is consistent with the notion of being consistent with the architectural styles in the neighborhood. C. Coffey noted that the city though design review is looking for a different direction, to provide incentive for the tudor style, present code is restrictive on this architectural style so creates a hardship, the code prohibits a continuation of the tudor style of this structure and that is a hardship, there is also a change in the slope of this lot, an increase at the front, which causes this structure to be measured taller than it would if the lot were flat, for these reasons he moved for approval, by resolution, with the findings in the design review report and with the conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 12, 1998, except that the trim on all windows shall match that of the existing house and there shall be no skylights facing the street; and 2) that the project as built shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes 1995 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. -7- Chy of Burlingame Planning Commissron Minutes May 26. 1998 The motion was seconded by Chair Key, who then called for a voice vote. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal and Luzuriaga abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A ONE STORY ADDITION TO ONE UNIT IN AN EXISTING DUPLEX; VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED FOR LOT COVERAGE, FIRST FLOOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 1126-1128 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (DIANE PLESSET, APPLICANT AND LAGUNA ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) Reference staff report, 05.26.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Three conditions were recommended for consideration. The commission had no questions of staff. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Diane Plesset and Denise Groebner, real estate agent and property owner, spoke. Want to remodel the unit at the rear for daughter and son-in-law to live in. Denise is now the owner of record, a recent completion of paper work. Proposed addition to create more liveable space in second unit; cannot add more parking, showed model of how parking would work and how infeasible it would be to park three cars in the uncovered area at front; would also require the removal of a street tree; can the curb cut be widened, yes it is possible but still would not get more than two cars in; CE Erbacher noted that with a 50 foot wide lot, maximum curb cut is 16 feet, if need wider for three cars to access would need a variance. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: the lot coverage and side setback requests have no real impact 0.9 % is not significant and the 11 inches on the side is not significant given that the: existing wall is already at that location and would not have a greater impact on the neighbors; parking however, is a problem, there is none in the Broadway area, if not provide 4 parking spaces the whole neighborhood will be impacted, presently use two units as one family who can agree on moving cars, may not all ways be the case; difficult see livingroom upstairs which is open to a hall, could be used as a bedroom in the future by other owners/tenants; this duplex is maxed out as it is, there is no parking on the street, driveway is short, charming would not like to see another parking place at the front; this is the wrong location to intensify the project without parking. C. Luzuriaga moved to deny the project. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: if denied what next, applicant can reapply if the revised project is substantially different and addresses the parking issue; as project is can't do anything, cannot support. Chair Key called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 4-3 (Cers. Coffey, Deal and Bojues dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised.. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1998 REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION REGARDING DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND - STORY ADDITION AT 1319 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Reference staff report, 05.26.98, with attachments. CP and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. CA Anderson and CP Monroe explained the request, for the Planning Commission to make a determination on whether an addition to the roof only was encompassed in the ordinance requiring design review of all second story additions or higher and all new construction with second stories or higher. CA Anderson noted that this decision will be binding on how the present ordinance requiring design review is applied to all projects in the future; it is not a decision for just this property. C. Deal commented that he would abstain from this action since he had a business relationship with the applicant. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Laurie Novinski, 1319 Benito., spoke noting that they were trying to improve the head room at the top of the stairs to the second floor of their house, both she and her husband are tall (he 6'-5") and continually bump their heads on the beam at the top of the stairs; the added square footage would not be seen from. the front or rear of the property, have to look down from above to see; doing work on site, yes we are remodeling the kitchen on the first floor, thought to fix stair problem at same time; Commissioner noted that he bumped his head on his site visit. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: staff report indicates that design review is required for "any" addition to a second floor or above, review is not of interior remodel; if going to find design review does not apply to this circumstance need to explain in terms that are understood for all applications in the future or ask council to change the ordinance, current ordinance has no exceptions; design review body is a sub -body of the Planning Commission, so commission will review all cases; minor changes as exemptions were discussed at the time the ordinance was approved, decided not to allow exemptions because did not have time to determine all the exceptions; want to streamline process; purpose of ordinance is to help avoid time spent on minor issues, not what to spend time on this; saw design review as a learning process and this is a case to learn from; would like to grant tonight; CA Anderson noted that if a measurable exception to design review was created on the basis of this determination there would probably be: many more request for exemptions. C. Coffey moved to grant an exemption for this roof addition based on the finding that the current interior ceiling height is substandard and granting the exception would make the property conform to code. There was no second to the motion. CA Anderson noted this item was not noticed for commission to approve design review tonight and the project had not been reviewed by a design reviewer. RZ City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1998 C. Key moved not to change the design review criteria and to bring this item back to the Commission for review at the meeting of June 8 if possible. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chair Key called for a roll call on the motion, the vote was 3-3-1 ( Cers. Keighran, Luzuriaga, Coffey dissenting and C. Deal abstaining). The motion failed on a tie vote. C. Luzuriaga moved to determine that the design review ordinance exempt changes to roof areas where the enclosed area is less than 100 SF, the roof addition's pitch matches the existing roof pitch on the structure; and the height of the roof addition is not higher than the highest ridge of the existing roof. C. Vistica seconded the motion. Chair Key called for a roll call vote. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Key dissenting, C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. CA Anderson noted that this determination would be reviewed by the City Council at their meeting on June 1; they can call the item up for discussion at their meeting on June 10, 1998. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed briefly the City Council's actions on the planning items which were on the May 18, 1998, council agenda. - New commissioner briefing on commission procedure. Commissioners agreed to meet on Thursday June 25th at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room A with the City Attorney and City Planner to discuss procedure, staff repon.s and questions. - Commission election of officers. The commission agreed to hold the election of new officers at the meeting of June 22, 1998. They also noted that Chair Key would be absent at the meeting of June 8, and C. Deal, vice -chair, had a conflict on one item on the June 8 agenda, therefore C. Coffey would act as chair for that item. ADJOURNMENT Chair Key called for a motion to adjourn. C. Luzuriaga moved for adjournment. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. MINUTES5.26 -10- Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary