April 5, 2021 — Meeting Minutes

DRAFT

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD VIRTUAL ZOOM MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 5, 2021 17:30 (05:30 PM)

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lichtenfeld at 17:30.

ROLL CALL

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, City Manager David Gipson, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, Carolyn Gaidis, Robert Denlow, George Hettich and Helen DiFate answered roll call.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Stephanie Karr, City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, AICP, Contract Planner with the City of Clayton

2 MINUTES

The minutes of the February 22, 2021 and March 15, 2021 meetings were approved, after having been previously distributed to each member.

8215 CLAYTON ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- VETERINARY CLINIC

Contract Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the location of a new veterinary clinic. The subject site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection between Clayton Road and Clayshire Drive. The property has a zoning designation of C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District. Veterinary hospitals/clinics are allowed uses with a Conditional Use Permit in the C-1 District. The proposed veterinary clinic would occupy approximately 11,562 square feet of space in the current building. Shared parking is provided on the site, with 55 existing spaces. The proposed hours of operation are seven days a week, 24 hours a day. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW Conditional uses are those types of uses that are considered to be desirable, necessary or convenient to the community but which by their nature can create additional traffic volume, parking demand beyond the development's capacity, and/or a detrimental impact on adjacent or neighboring properties due to noise, pollutants, or other characteristics associated with that particular use. Surface parking lots are permitted in this zoning district subject to approval of a conditional use permit as per Article VII of this Chapter and the following criteria: Compatibility 1) The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and with the surrounding neighborhood; >> The proposed use is located in an existing commercial building that has been vacant since 2017 when the Scholarship Foundation of St. Louis relocated its offices and closed the retail store, ScholarShop. The applicant is proposing signification modifications to the interior of the building, but few and minor alterations to the exterior of the building or the site. The proposed use will be oriented toward commercial and retail uses. The adjacent multi-family residential property to the north will be buffered by the existing landscape area and parking. The proposed veterinary clinic is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2) The comparative size, floor area and mass of the proposed use and/or proposed structure are appropriate and reasonable in relation to adjacent structures and buildings on surrounding properties and in the surrounding neighborhood; >> The applicant is not proposing changes to the massing or orientation of the existing structure. The existing structure is compatible with the two-story retail building to the west and the additional vacant retail space to the east. 3) The proposed use will not adversely affect the general appearance of the neighborhood due to the location of the proposed use on the parcel of ground or due to the materials used in the construction of any proposed buildings being greatly dissimilar to surrounding appearances of buildings or due to the architecture of any proposed building being of such nature as to create visual disharmony within the neighborhood;

3 >> The proposed veterinary clinic will bring a use back to a vacant building that is highly visible along the Clayton Road corridor. As previously described, the building renovation will be compatible with surrounding buildings and sites. 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the neighborhood in terms of water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation due to significant amount of hard surfaced areas for buildings, sidewalk, drives, parking and service areas; >> The proposed use will introduce animals to the area. As stated in the applicant’s letter, the proposed facility provides emergency and specialty veterinary services and not animal boarding or daycare type services. Animals will only be at the facility for an extended stay necessary due to a medical condition. A small dog yard is proposed along the rear of the building. This yard is not proposed for long-term housing of animals or for an exercise area. Due to the size of the dog yard and the treatments provided at the facility, the use of the dog yard is not likely to result in any more noise in the residential neighborhood than produced by dogs in a private yard of a residential neighborhood. >> The proposed use is not likely to adversely affect the neighborhood in terms of water runoff or heat generation. The site modifications do not increase the existing impervious coverage. 5) The frequency and duration of various indoor and outdoor activities and special events associated with the proposed use will not have a deleterious impact on the surrounding area; >> As discussed above, the introduction of animals may lead to various outdoor activities that differ from a traditional service or retail use. However, the proposed use will provide service for animals with medical issues as opposed to an animal boarding or daycare facility. The outdoor activities associated with the proposed use are not likely to have a negative impact on surrounding property. 6) The proposed use is likely to remain in existence for a reasonable length of time and not become vacant or unused and whether such use involves the presence of unusual, single-purpose structures or components of a temporary nature; >> The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing business from Chesterfield. The business is part of a national organization. The use is likely to remain in this location for a reasonable use of time and does not involve single-purpose or temporary structures. 7) The proposed use complies with the standards of the Zoning Code and good planning practices; >> Staff believes the location of the proposed facility on the subject property is good planning practice and will be compatible with the surrounding area. The location provides easy regional access, which is important for specialty facilities such as this use that draw visitors from further distances. The application proposes a viable re-use of a vacant building that is highly visible along the boundary of the City. Landscaping 8) The landscape plan for premises to be occupied by the proposed use is adequate in regard to the creation and maintenance of landscaped areas and the use of buffers for screening of the use; >> The proposed plan includes reviving the existing landscape areas and does not include the addition of any new landscaped areas. Based on the existing site layout and circulation, additional landscaping is not necessary and would likely impact the circulation of vehicles.

4 Traffic & Parking 1) The impact of projected vehicular traffic volumes and site access is not detrimental with regard to the surrounding traffic flow, pedestrian safety and accessibility of emergency vehicles and equipment; 2) The number of transit movements on abutting streets and on minor streets in the neighborhood to be generated by or associated with the proposed use will not cause significant increases in hourly or daily traffic levels; >> The proposed facility will use the existing parking lot layout and vehicle circulation pattern. A veterinary clinic use will likely generate a similar number of visits to a doctor’s office, that are typically spread throughout the day. The density of trips is likely less than that of a retail use. The site can be accessed from two points on Clayton Road and an exit on Clayshire Drive leading to the lighted intersection with Clayton Road. Adequate and safe access for vehicles, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles is provided. 3) The proposed use complies with the parking requirements as set forth in the Zoning Code and does not add parking demand that cannot adequately be handled by on-site off-street parking; >> The Zoning Code requires that one onsite parking space is provided for every 300 square feet. Based on the proposed size of the clinic, 39 onsite parking spaces are required. The existing surface parking lot is shared by the subject building and the additional retail space to the east. There are 55 parking spaces on the site. Staff is of the opinion that the onsite parking provided is sufficient to meet demand. 4) The proposed use will not significantly increase demands on fire and Police protection services in excess of the individual demands of adjacent land uses and whether the proposed use will not present any real or potential fire or public safety hazard; >> Staff does not anticipate an increase in demand for fire and police protection services. Noise, Lighting & Odors 5) Added noise levels generated by activities associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact the ambient noise level of the surrounding area and neighborhood; >> Staff does not believe that the noise associated with this use will be disruptive to the surrounding properties. As previously reviewed, the potential outdoor activities associated with the use are limited. 6) The activities associated with the proposed use will not generate obnoxious odors to the detriment of the surrounding area; >> Staff does not anticipate that the use will generate obnoxious odors. 7) The intensity, duration or frequency of lighting associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact adjacent properties or significantly increase the ambient level of night light in the neighborhood; >> There are no lights proposed for the parking lot. Mitigation of Potential Impacts 8) Where a proposed use has the potential for adverse impacts, sufficient measures have been or will be taken by the applicant that would negate, to an acceptable level, such potentially adverse impacts.

5 >> At this time, there does not appear to be adverse impacts associated with the proposed use. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed veterinary facility meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. Staff does not believe that this use will be disruptive to the surrounding properties.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No animals shall be boarded or sheltered outside. 2. Animals may only be boarded overnight as necessary for medical procedures. 3. The vinyl fence proposed for the dog enclosure shall be revised to use a wood or composite fence material as preferred by the Architectural Review Board. 4. Shall provide verification dog yard shall not interfere with the use of tow parking

HANNAH RICHARDSON – MD ARCHITECTS ARCHITECT (HR) HEATHER BOTHA – BLUE PEARL VET – REAL ESTATE (HB) GINA TURNER – AT CURRENT LOCATION IN CHESTERFIELD ANNE BEYER – AT CURRENT LOCATION IN CHESTERFIELD

HR – Gives presentation. Notes that fencing will be changed and will look into the traffic flow to ensure dog yard doesn’t impede traffic flow.

STEVE LICHTENFELD – QUESTIONED 24 HOUR OPERATION – QUESTION REGARDING AMOUNT OF LIGHTING IN BACK OF STRUCTURE. HR – N O ADDITIONAL LIGHTING IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED; PLAN TO REPLACE FIXTURES AS THEY EXIST STEVE LICHTENFELD – WHERE WILL EMERGENCY VEHICLES GO? HR – OWNER BRINGS ANIMALS TO FRONT DOOR AND USES INTERCOM SYSTEM AFTER REGULAR HOURS TO BE BUZZED IN. CURRENT PLAN FOR PARKING: IN THE BACK WILL BE FOR STAFF ONLY. ALL PUBLIC PARKING UP FRONT. STEVE LICHTENFELD – ANY EMERGENCY VEHICLES? HR – NO. OWNER BRINGS ANIMAL IN. STEVE LICHTENFELD – PROCESS FOR REMOVAL OF DECEASED ANIMALS? HR – THROUGH THE REAR VIA A CONTRACTED SERVICE TO PICK UP DECEASED ANIMALS.

RICH LINTZ – NO COMMENTS. CAROLYN GAIDIS – NO COMMENTS. QUESTION ON REMOVAL SERVICE. BOB DENLOW – NO COMMENTS. GEORGE HETTICH – NO COMMENTS. HELEN DIFATE – NO COMMENTS. CONCERN WITH NOISE BUT YARD IS SMALL ENOUGH AND DESCRIPTION WRITTEN IN APPLICATION HAS ADDRESSED HER CONCERN. DAVID GIPSON – QUESTIONED FENCE – IS IT SITE PROOF? HR – YES, SITE PROOF FENCE.

AUDIENCE: KEN ASTON 747 MIDDLE POLO DRIVE: OFFERED HIS VERBAL SUPPORT TO THE PROJECT. STAFF QUESTIONED THE SPECIALTY SERVICES OFFERED. HR: OPHTHALMOLOGY, ONCOLOGY, EXOTICS, HOPE TO BRING SURGEON, EXPAND SPECIALTIES.

6

CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE FOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. RICHARD LINTZ - SECOND THE MOTION.

BOARD VOTES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH ALL 4 STAFF CONDITIONS, 7-0.

7701 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE 7733 FORSYTH BOULEVARD-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - SIGNAGE

Contract Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report (The staff reports for both applications were combined into one report however the ARB will have to take two separate votes, one on each item: “The subject properties are located at the northwest corner of the intersection between Forsyth Boulevard and South Hanley Road. The eastern building is addressed 7701 Forsyth Boulevard and the western building is addressed 7733 Forsyth Boulevard. The buildings are known as the Pierre Laclede Center. Both properties are currently split- zoned with the northern portion, parking lots, zoned R-4 Low-Density Multiple Family Dwelling District and the southern portion, two multi-tenant office buildings, zoned HDC High-Density Commercial District. The applicant is requesting to replace three monument signs with new designs in the same locations.

A separate application has been submitted for each address. The Planning and Zoning Commission should make a recommendation for each application; however, the analysis of the two requests is included in one memo due to the connection of the properties and similarity of the requests.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

There are two existing ground signs on the eastern property, 7701 Forsyth Boulevard. One sign, measuring 30 square feet and depicting the name of the building and logo, is located at the southwest corner of the property. A second ground sign, measuring 10 square feet, is located in front of the building along Forsyth Boulevard and depicts the building name and multiple tenant names. The larger sign is located in a raised water feature, while the smaller sign is located in the front plaza. Both existing signs are uplit. There is one existing ground sign located on the western property, 7733 Forsyth Boulevard. The existing sign measures approximately 20 square feet and depicts the building logo and multiple tenant names. The sign is located in a landscaped area along the front of the building.

The applicant is proposing to replace the sign at the southwest corner with a new 35.9 square foot sign depicting the name of the building and logo. The proposed sign is backlit with internal LEDs as opposed to the existing uplighting. The proposed sign measures 9.3 feet tall (with the base included). The existing sign measures approximately 10 feet tall (with the base included).

The applicant is proposing to replace the (middle) sign along Forsyth Boulevard with a new 40 square foot sign depicting the building name and list of building tenants. The proposed sign is backlit with internal LEDs. The proposed sign measures approximately 9 feet tall. The existing sign measures 6.5 feet in height (including the base).

The applicant is proposing to replace the western sign with a new 40 square foot sign depicting the building name and list of building tenants. The proposed sign is backlit with internal LEDs. The proposed sign is the same height as the existing sign, 9 feet. The two tenant panel monument signs proposed, middle and western signs, will be the same design.

CRITERIA FOR REVIEW

7

Both the existing ground signs and the proposed ground signs exceed the size permitted. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a sign modification per Section 425.190 Modifications. The criteria for review of a ground sign and a sign modification are listed below:

Section 424.060 Alternate Ground Signs. A ground sign not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in area depicting the name of the building or names of not more than five (5) major tenants, each of which occupies a significant portion of the building, may be erected in lieu of any permitted wall sign, provided the ground sign is designed as a compatible and integral part of a landscaped area or plaza and the size, location, design and construction materials are approved by the Architectural Review Board.

Section 425.180 Modifications. Where practical difficulties exist in the application of these provisions in regard to the determination of the permitted sign area or locations of permitted signs due to unusual conditions, such as facades that are angled or curved to the front street or streets or land uses which involve substantial accessory uses both inside and outside of buildings and requiring identification or substantial open space or street frontage or a similar unusual condition, the Architectural Review Board shall have the authority to determine the appropriate location, size or number of signs, provided the intent of these regulations is met. No individual sign shall be approved that exceeds the area limits normally permitted a single tenant or building. The Architectural Review Board shall also have authority to allow signs for ground floor tenants to be located above the first (1st) floor ceiling level when such ground floor tenant space is obstructed from view by a transit shelter erected on a public right-of-way.

The applicant is requesting approval of a sign modification, as referenced above, to allow for two ground signs and a larger size of ground signs on the eastern property, 7701 Forsyth Boulevard. The applicant is requesting approval of a sign modification to allow for one ground sign of a larger size on the western property, 7733 Forsyth Boulevard. The proposed building name sign at the southeast corner is very similar in size to the existing sign. The proposed sign at the southwest corner is larger than the existing sign. The subject buildings are two of the larger office buildings in the City, with many different tenants. The current sign on the eastern property only has four tenant name plates, while the existing sign on the western property features seven name plates. The proposed sign would allow for ten tenant name plates on each sign. Based on the size of the buildings and the number of tenants, the requested signs are appropriate. Other office buildings of similar size along Forsyth Boulevard have the taller monument signs, as proposed here. The building façade only features one wall sign for a tenant.

The size, location, and orientation of the proposed monuments signs are pedestrian oriented. The signs provide some information, including the address number, that will be more visible to vehicular traffic. The proposed signs are constructed of metal, aluminum, and concrete and feature a modern design. The two signs proposed on 7701 Forsyth Boulevard and the one sign proposed on 7733 Forsyth Boulevard represent a cohesive design that will further strengthen the link between the buildings and provide more tenant information.

The proposed signs are compatible with the property and surrounding area. The signs provide a modern design style and will display additional information that is relevant and helpful for visitors and the businesses. The use of larger monument signs in a pedestrian oriented design is a common practice in more urban settings and complimentary of the area, when coupled with a reduction in wall signage.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVE THE REQUESTED SIGNAGE FOR BOTH 7711 AND 7733 FORSYTH BOULEVARD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: No additional wall signs shall be permitted for the buildings

8

LENA GUNN – APPLICANT/PROPERTY MANAGER (LG) JOE PHILIPS – CONTRACTOR, PIROS SIGNS INC. (JP) KEVIN HOWELL –LCP FORSYTH BLVD,LLC, OWNER (KH)

JP – GIVES PRESENTATION.

STEVE LICHTENFELD – SIGNS APPEAR TO BE LARGER AND TALLER THAN EXISTING, BUT ARE SCALED PROPERLY DUE TO LOCATION ON SITE AND SCALE OF BUILDING RICH LINTZ – LIKES INTERNAL LED LIGHTING – WILL ENHANCE – SIZE SEEMS APPROPRIATE CAROLYN GAIDIS – CONCURS WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SAID SO FAR BOB DUNLOW – CONCURS WITH OTHER COMMENTS GEORGE HETTICH – QUESTIONED EXISTING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS INTO PARKING GARAGE, SPECIFICALLY THEIR APPEARANCE JP – NOTES THE PLANS TO IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE IN THE FUTURE HELEN DIFATE – LIKES SIGNAGE AND APPRECIATES DESIGN FROM VISIBILITY PERSPECTIVE DAVID GIPSON – NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

7701 FORSYTH BOULEVARD CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF CONDITIONS.

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND

BOARD VOTES TO APPROVE WITH STAFF CONDITIONS, 7-0.

7733 FORSYTH BOULEVARD CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND

BOARD VOTES TO APPROVE WITH STAFF CONDITIONS – 7-0

137 CARONDELET PLAZA – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – AWNING/SIGNAGE EXTERIOR ALTERATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: This application is consideration of a request by 801 Restaurant Group LLC/Rafco Properties, for review of the design and materials associated with exterior alterations, including the installation of awnings and signage for the existing restaurant, 801 Chophouse.

The applicant has already removed the previously existing stained wood scrim shutters (shown in the photograph below) and proposes to install new black fabric awnings on the exterior of all windows. The existing entrance canopy will remain. The awnings are 16 feet 7 inches in width and 12 feet 3/16th inches in length. The smaller window on the east side will be covered with a 7 foot wide awning (same length). The awnings will project out a maximum of 3 feet from the windows at the base. The windows themselves are approximately 16 feet 7 and ½ inches long. Approximately 4 feet of the length of the windows and 16 feet 7 inches of the total width, will be exposed at the lower level. The drawings provided by the applicant appear to conflict with the elevations provided. The drawings

9 cite 6 windows will be covered with the new awnings, but 7 windows exist in total; 6 on the south and 1 on the east facing facades

The applicant’s plans suggest that 11 new signs are proposed to be installed on the center, lower level of the proposed awnings. The signs are comprised of 20 inch x 12 inch oval sign cabinets that are 2 inches thick, painted black on all sides, with router cut faces and push-through translucent white acrylic logos with gold metallic on the face of the logo. The signs will be lighted with low-voltage power which enters the back of the sign. The elevations provided indicate that one sign will be centered on and located at the lower base of each proposed awning. A total of 6 signs will be installed for each awning per the attached drawing. Therefore, it is unclear where the applicant’s proposed additional 5 signs will be located. Existing signs on site (described below) are proposed to remain.

VISUAL IMPACT Exterior Signage The restaurant has the following signage that was approved approximately 7 years ago prior to its opening:

1. One 17.8-square-foot sign on drop-off canopy; faces of letters painted metallic silver, illuminated by a strip light bar. 2. One 11.7-square-foot sign on concrete planter adjacent to the sidewalk; aluminum raised letters painted black. 3. One hollow, cast bronze bull statue on top of a pedestal in the outdoor dining area. The dimensions of the statue are approximately 7.5 feet long, 5.5 feet tall, and 3 feet wide.

The replacement of the wood shutters with the black awnings replicates, to some extent, the previous appearance of the south facing façade. The proposed awnings are generally of the same shape, location, and size of the previous window coverings. However, the previously installed wood shutters created the appearance of more depth and a natural feel to the space, while the black awnings create a dark, uninviting appearance. Awning fabric, especially dark colors, does not age well and tends to fade, creating an unkept appearance rather quickly over time, as opposed to wood.

The applicant’s elevation drawings suggest that the window area at the main entrance will retain the wood shutters. Field verification notes that they have been removed. The window design in that area is different from that of the other windows, so it is unclear how the proposed awnings will appear visually at that window. The applicant should provide a detailed explanation of the proposed appearance and dimensions of the awning in this location.

Signage Signage for first-floor tenants of The Crescent building is regulated by the signage sub-district that was approved by the Architectural Review Board in 2007. The standards designate sign specifications for each tenant space. The proposed signage and exterior alterations deviate slightly from the signage sub-district standards as follows:

Signage Sub-District Requirement Proposed Issue Impact Storefront ID signs are restricted to the area above the main entrance below the fabric awning. The faces of letters shall be painted metallic silver. 11 (?) 20 inch x 12 inch oval lit signs centered on and placed at the base of each window awning. Faces of letters painted metallic silver. Sign location Nominal impact. The logo signage breaks up the monotonous appearance of the black awnings and draws the eye to the window area below.

10 The Crescent signage sub-district encourages tenants to “respond with creative and expressive signs that communicate clearly and add to the vitality of the development,” and permits a change in the permitted sign location upon approval by the landlord and the City. Although the landlord has not submitted a letter of support for the installation of the additional signage, staff assumes they are aware of and support the request because their representative, has submitted and signed off on this application on their behalf. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has come up with a creative design solution and that the proposed signage complies with the intent of the signage sub-district.

NO ONE FROM THE APPLICANT’S TEAM WAS PRESENT AT THE MEETING.

THE BOARD HAD THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS:

RICHARD LINTZ – COMMENTED ON LIGHTING. HOW DOES IT WORK -EXACTLY? NEEDS CLARIFICATION. WILL THE LIGHTS SHOW ON INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF AWNING? STEVE LICHTENFELD – BLACK AWNING OF THIS SIZE OVER THOSE LARGE WINDOWS WILL MAKE IT DARK AND UNAPPEALING FROM THE INSIDE OF BUILDING. SHUTTERS ALLOWED DIFFUSED LIGHTING CAROLYN GAIDIS – FELT SIGNAGE IS TOO MUCH- EXCESSIVE – BOB DENLOW– NO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. OWNER/REP NEEDS TO BE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. GEORGE HETTICH– NO COMMENTS. HELEN DIFATE – SOLID DARK COLOR – CONCERNED OVER CONSTANT MAINTENANCE BECAUSE DIRT SHOWS A LOT ON BLACK AWNINGS. SIGN WILL HANG ABOVE AND BELOW AWNING BY AN INCH. WILL LOOK AWKWARD. WILL ATTRACT DEBRIS. SIGN AND AWNINGS ARE NOT COORDINATED ON DIMENSIONS. WHEN THERE IS A 10 INCH BAND FOR THE SIGN AREA, THE SIGN SHOULD BE9 INCHES SO YOU WILL HAVE WORKING ROOM IN CASE DIMENSIONS ARE OFF. 11 SIGNS NOTED, QUESTIONED THEIR LOCATION AS ONLY 6 ARE SHOWN. DAVID GIPSON– NO FURTHER COMMENTS.

MOTION TO TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING MADE BY CAROLYN GAIDIS. RICH LINTZ – SECOND THE MOTION VOTE 7-0 TO TABLE TO NEXT MEETING OF THE 19TH OF APRIL.

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 19:31 (6:31 P.M.).

_______________________________ Recording Secretary