HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/06/10 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 10, 1968
The fifth public hearing on the proposed comprehensive zoning ordinance was
held at 7 p.m. on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center,
276 Guava Avenue, with the followi, ng members present: Stewart, York, Hyde,
Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: Member Gregson (with previous notification).
Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee and City
Attorney Lindberg.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Adams-Guyer) The minutes of the meeting of May 13, 1968 be approved, as
mailed.
Chairman Stewart asked Director Warren to review the matter before them tonight.
Director of Planning Warren stated that the Commission has passed through the
residential zones and approved them. The staff was directed to come back with
a recommendation for lot sizes in the R-1 zones at a later date. The Commission
has approved the C-O zone, with modification. At the last meeting, the Commission
began the discussions on the commercial zones; as a result of that meeting the
staff was requested to meet with the Building Contractors' Association and the
sign people to review several matters that were under discussion. The staff did
conduct these meetings and the memo to the Commission dated June 6, 1968 is a
result of those meetings.
Director Warren cited the different people with whom he met and commented that
they did reach some conclusions; there are still some minor changes the staff
wishes to make.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Section 33.5.7 - C-B Central Business District
Director of Planning Warren discussed the changes made as delineated in his
memo to the Commission dated June 6. In reference to the height limitation,
(page 45, paragraph F) the San Diego Building Contractors' Association asked that
elimination be made of any reference to height restrictions. The staff concurred
at the time, but upon further discussion, felt that some height regulation would
be necessary when adjacent to a residential or C-O zone.
Member York discussed #5 on page 44 indicating he was not sure what was meant
by plumbing and heating shops. He felt these should be eliminated; it could be
a shop whereby only a certain percentage of the business would be sales and the
rest of it would be contractors working out of the store.
-2-
Director Warren commented that in a zone such as this all sales or storage
would be restricted to within the building.
Member York remarked these used should be retail-oriented.
Chairman Stewart felt the wording could be such that it would state that the
sales must be the principal use.
City Attorney Lindberg felt this could best be handled in the description of the
"Purpose" in the beginning of the Section--whether or not the permitted use
should be strictly commercial in character.
Mr. Robert Miles, 392 E Street, commented that when thinking generally of
plumbing and heating shops, one tends to think of businesses such as Logans
plumbing shop, etc., where the sales are only 50% of their business and the rest
would constitute a purely industrial use. As to the height limitation, he
maintained that this would seek its own level.
Director Warren cited a shopping center, as an example the one at Third and
Palomar, where the rear of the shopping center abuts a residential zone. A
high rise should not be permitted on the residential side of the Center; however,
if one is oriented toward the center, there would be no problem.
On page 46, paragraph 4, Mr. Warren suggested the condition be imposed that no
parking be permitted between building front and sidewalk--what they are attempting
to do here is to develop an uninterrupted pedestrian area. There should be little
problem with this inl]the downtown area since this area is in a parking district.
Director Warren commented that the Commission has been working on this proposed
ordinance for two years. In that time, there has been very little active
interest in the community; however, recently, there has been more interest and
more concentrated effort is being made especially on the sign restrictions. The
staff and Commission have redrafted this proposed ordinance many times to a
point where it has become more equitable, but the regulation of signs remains the
greatest obstacles.
At this point, the staff would ask the Commission to recommend to the City
Council that they adopt the residential zones and the commercial zones and
related sections and exclude any sign provisions--this can be brought back to
the Commission in one package and adopted at a later date. The time has come
to move ahead with this ordinance. Mr. Warren declared that in the last month,
the Council has twice asked about the zoning ordinance. It probably should be
recognized that whatever is sent to the Council will, in all probability, be
referred back to the Commission. For this reason, the staff has no recommendation
to make on the question of signs.
Chairman Stewart agreed, adding that the ordinance has been long drawn out and should
not be forwarded to the City Council, without the sign provisions, as suggested
by the Planning Director. He added that they are a long way off from reaching
any area of agreement with the people involved, but he felt there is a ground
some place where they can reach an understanding.
-3-
Director Warren asked that, with the exception of the R, C-O and C-N zones,
sign provisions be eliminated from the ordinance at this time.
MSUC (York-Hyde) Section 33.5.7 C-B Central Business District be approved with
the amendments delineated in the synopsis of the fourth draft dated April 10,
1968 and as modified tonight, June 6, 1968.
Section 33.5.8 C-N Neighborhood Commercial Zone
Director of Planning Warren referred to No. 1 under the uses subject to
conditional use permit and stated the staff concurs with the recommendation of
the Building Contractors' Association that service stations be moved to the
permitted use section with standards, provided one station only is permitted
for each center. He discussed neighborhood shopping centers noting that generally,
service stations are located on the corner. There may be cases where they may
want more than one service station in a center, or where they may want to locate
on the site other than on the corner--in such cases it should be subject to a
conditional use permit.
City Attomney Lindberg commented that such a procedure would be legal.
Chairman Stewart felt a service station should be subject to a conditional use
permit as well as all drive-ins. If, in time, the Commission feels there has
been no problem with these uses, then they can be moved into the permitted use
section.
Member York disagreed, stating that all drive-ins should be a permitted use in
any zone subject to certai.n standards.
Director Warren claimed the staff will try to have standards developed before
it goes to the City Council.
Member Hyde felt the Commission should "play it safe" and list all drive-ins
subject to conditional use permit at this time; then, when proper standards are
set up for them, they can be moved to the permitted use section.
Mr. Robert Miles declared that in th~sC-N zone, a service station is a necessary
item and should be a permitted~u~e.
Member Adams contended that any service station located anywhere other than a
heavy con~ercial zone should be subject to a conditional use permit. He felt
they would never be able to develop a set of guidelines to take care of this
situation, and added that it was no great hardship for the service station
people to submit their plans to the Planning Commission--they have never
encountered any g~eat controversy in the past on this.
Mr. Miles stated they recommended this change (that service stations be listed
as a permitted use) because they wanted to simplify the matter, but if the
Commission feels justified in leaving it subject to conditional use permit, they
will not object.
-4-
Member York declared that if the Commission would go back a number of years and
list the conditions imposed on all service stations, they would find them almost
identical. He added that the Commission could come up with a set of guidelines
from this. It could be limited to one site on the corner; if the applicant
wants another site, then he should file with a conditional use permit--the same
applies if the applicant proposes to have more than one service station on the
site.
Member Rice felt the choice locations would then be taken up by the service
stations.
Member York remarked that if this were true, then the shopping center would not
be properly designed or zoned. He added that any time a conditional use permit
is required, you unnecessarily delay the people involved in developing the
facilities by making them come before the Planning Commission and possibly the
City Council, if appealed. It is also a waste of Planning Commission time to
consider these applications, since in practically all cases, the Commission
approves them with conditions.
Chairman Stewart agreed, but:maintained that he still felt it should be left
where it is for the time being. If at some future date the Commission determines
that it doesn't need any controls, then they can be taken out of the conditional
use permit section.
Member Hyde suggested that all drive-ins be added to the conditional use permit
section.
Mr. Joseph Stransky, Western Oil and Gas Association, stated their main objec-
tions were that service stations were the only use listed under the conditional
use permit section that is also subjected to a set of criteria. He felt there
are actually two sets of criteria: the applicant's and the Planning Commission's.
He then discussed the findings the applicant has to meet (page 142). The first
one--that a service station must be clearly required by public convenience and
necessity--is objectionable since there is no criteria for this; it is not a
utility that can be defined as such.
Mr. Stransky then discussed items 3, 4, and 6 indicated that all four of these
findings should be eliminated since the law is so vague here that it cannot be
interpreted. A set of criteria could easily be set up, using the same criteria
passed by the Commission in the past, such as: two accesses--35 foot wide
driveways, 25 feet between driveways, landscaping, etc. These conditions
should be reasonable and set up in the zoning ordinance so that the conditions
would be definite and there would be no question about them, and especially'
set up in a way that it cannot become an emotional issue.
Mr. Eugene Cook, representing the San Diego Building Contractors' Association,
referred to page 53, item No. 3, concerning the condition for site plan and
architectural approval. He originally recommended that these uses should be
permitted uses because the ordinance, as set up, provides the Commission with
all the control they need--these are delineated on page 196 on the zoning
ordinance. On page 198, paragraphs e, f. and g--with all these conditions, it
would be easier for the people in developing a shopping center if these uses,
such as service stations, be permitted uses. Mr. Cook felt this was a very
important section in the ordinance.
-5-
Mr. Lindberg, City Attorney, stated he does not completely agree with the
statements made that the standards as set forth in this ordinance are vague.
He does concur that, because of the nature of the operation of some of these
uses, it could best be handled as a permitted use subject to certain standards.
There are uses which simply by their nature cannot be easily placed in any
particular zone; therefore, a conditional use permit should be imposed. What
the Commission is talking about here are permitted in one section, and in another
subject to a conditional use permit; standards can be adopted for these and very
well should be. It would be perfectly proper to permit one service station
in a C-N zone and then have the second one subject to a conditional use permit.
Mr. Lindberg added that he feels the Commission should steer away from conditional
use permit and allow them as permitted uses subject to certain standards.
Director Warren indicated that all the work they have done in the past year has
been toward this goal--to eliminate as many uses as possible under the conditional
use permit. He added that he agrees with the City Attorney that proper guide-
lines should be set up--if this can be done, then the staff would be in favor
of it.
The Commission discussed the proposal of setting up a set of standards for
service stations and of permitting only one kind e~cb,~of a business to go into
a neighborhood shopping center.
Director Warren then read the amendments to the sign provisions in this zone.
He commented that they may seem restrictive but that this is a restrictive zone,
since it is situated in a residential area.
The Co~nission briefly discussed the changes. Member York asked if it was
proper to approve this since the sign people have already left, having been told
that the Commission would not be consideringprovisions for signs.
Director Warren answered that they qualified this by stating that they would be
considering the signs in the C-N zone.
Chairman Stewart further added that the Council will be holding additional
hearings at which these people can be heard.
Member Rice asked if the Commission cared to consider restricting the types of
businesses to one for each center.
Member York felt this would be an unnecessary restriction to the developer. He
cited several stores where there would be an overlapping of the same merchandise
(liquor sales from a liquor store and from a supermarket, snack bar in a super-
market and a restaurant) and added that economics alone would restrict the uses.
City Attorney Lindberg stated that such an elimination comes very close to the
whole point of objection of placing conditions upon zoning, in telling people
they must limit their operation to a certain type of store. It would be placing
upon this zone an unnecessary type of restriction; in fact, it would clearly tend
to preserve a monopoly in this zone, and the zoning laws should not do that.
-6-
Director Warren stated they are concerned with the shopping centers to serve
the needs of the community. The staff would be hard-pressed to take any retail
use and restr~ct it to one.
Chairman Stewart asked for a vote, the result of which was that the Commission
did not favor such a restriction.
Member York moved and Member Rice seconded the motion that Section 33.5.8 -
C-N Neighborhood Commercial Zone be recommended to the City Council for approval
with the amendments as proposed in the synopsis of the fourth draft dated
April 10, 1968 and June 6, 1968, with the following changes: (1) that the
service stations be taken out of the conditional use permit section and put into
the permitted use classification, and (2) appropriate standards be developed
governing the construction of these service stations in each center and limiting
it to one service station in each center; also appropriate standards be developed
for the development of any type of drive-in use.
Member Guyer suggested that another condition be added to the motion: if another
service station is requested, it be subject to a conditional use permit.
Member Adams stated he is not in agreement with eliminating service stations from
the conditional use permit section.
Member Hyde remarked that he agreed with the intent of York's motion provided
they have the particular conditions established; however, at this time these
guidelines have not been established and therefore he, too, is not in favor of
taking the service stations out of the conditional use permit section.
Mr. Miles commented that he has been present at numerous meetings whereby the
Commission has approved applications for conditional use permit for service
stations and the number of conditions imposed by the Commission can be condensed
to five or six: these would cover landscaping, traffic control, design of the
building, etc.
Director Warren indicated the staff would have to set up the guidelines according
to the criteria spelled out in the motions and the conditions that have consis-
tently been imposed.
Member York clarified his motion to state that the service stations be placed in
the permitted use section subject to the adoption of criteria; in the absence of
the adoption of appropriate criteria, the stations would continue to be subject
to a conditional use permit. He added it was up to the Commission and staff to
set up this criteria and that such should be undertaken before submission of the
ordinance to the Council.
Member Rice seconded the clarification of the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Section 33.5.9 C-C Central Commercial District
Director Warren continued with the review of the proposed amendments. On page
59, item #3, referring to cleaning establishment, Member York commented that this
should remain a permitted use; however, the wholesale cleaning establishments
should not be permitted in the retail zones. He remarked that there are a good
many retail cleaning places that have their own cleaning places on the site and
these are not objectionable.
Director Warren stated that the staff concurs with the recommendation of the
Building Contractors' Association to move bowling alleys and billiard parlors
to the permitted use section and leave the skating rink under the conditional
use permit section.
Member York suggested they add the Tire-Battery Accessory store to item #5 on
page 58: "Retail auto accessory and/or Tire-Battery-Accessory stores including ....
The Commission and the Director again discussed the height regulation. Director
Warren felt this paragraph should be the same as in the previous sections--
restrict it to 3-1/2 stories when adjacent to a residential or C-O zone or make
it subject to a conditional use permit.
Mr. Cook suggested a graduated setback be set up. Chairman Stewart remarked that
he would not like to see a specific setback stipulated. With a conditional use
permit, flexibility on building location would be possible.
Mr. Warren commented that this is another situation whereby guidelines should
be set up. Some will feel the building should be no further than 25' and
others will place it 50' away.
Mr. Cook said he would like to see the standards include side, front and rear
setbacks as this would be very appropriate.
The Commission discussed this provision, concurring that this provision for high
rises be subject to conditional use permit until such time as guidelines are
developed, at which time they should be moved to the permitted section.
MSUC (Guyer-York) Section 33.5.9 C-C Central Commercial District be recommended
for approval and forwarded to the City Council subject to the condition that the
high rise provision be subject to conditional use permit pending the adoption of
appropriate guidelines, and then it becomes a permitted use.
Section 33.5.10 C-V Visitor Commercial District
Director of Planning Warren explained that their own comment here concerns the
paragraph on the Purpose of the zone. This is a very limited zone and provides
for the needs of tourists. The staff would recommend that the purpose be
rewritten to make some reference to its relationship with the general commercial
facilities, something interdependent with other retail commercial facilities.
In this case, the staff would recommend the elimination of the word "commercial"
in two places in this paragraph. This is one zone whereby both the Commission
and the Council have to be firm--they have to be careful where they impose it, and
if the list of permitted uses is expanded any further than what it is now, the
Commission should eliminate it altogether because it will have lost its purpose.
-8-
Mr. Miles stated that they are generally in agreement with the Director's
comments; this will give them something to work on. This will be a traffic-
oriented business and they would not like to see it too restrictive but
generally oriented to the types of businesses that a tourist would be likely
to require.
Director Warren asked that #6 be eliminated, "keeping of horses for hire."
He also recommends that the service stations be left subject to conditional
use permit; otherwise, these areas will have nothing but service stations.
MSUC (Adams-Hyde) Section 33.5.10 C-V Visitor Commercial District be
recommended for approval and forwarded to the City Council with the changes
as delineated by the Planning Director and those of the synopsis of the fourth
draft dated April 10, 1968 and June 6, 1968.
Section 33.5.11 C-T Thoroughfare Commercial District
Director of Planning reviewed the proposed changes for this section. He
asked that the height limitation be worded as in the previous sections. He
added that this would be one zone in which it would be very difficult to
accommodate a high rise.
MSUC (Rice-Guyer) Section 33.5.11 C-T Thoroughfare Commercial District be
recommended for approval with the changes as proposed in the synopsis of the
fourth draft dated April 10, 1968 and June 6, 1968 and excluding the sign
provisions.
Mr. Robert Miles informed the Commission that his official capacity representing
the Building Contractors' Association comes to a close with tonight's meeting.
He thanked the Commission, the staff, and Mr. Eugene Cook for the time and help
extended this Committee.
Director Warren commented that they may still call upon Mr. Miles to work with
the staff on the parking provisions.
Mr. Miles declared he will be happy to meet with the staff on this.
Director Warren indicated that because of the particular interest of those present,
he would prefer to skip over the industrial zones and go into the discussion of
landscaping and parking requirements.
Referring to page 9 of the synopsis concerning the C-N zone, Section F -
Landscaping, Mr. Warren remarked that they are preparing a Landscape Manual
which will soon be submitted to the Commission; however, he wished to resolve
one part of it. This is in connection with #1 on page 51, indicating an area of
not less than l0 per cent of the parking lots shall be devoted to landscaping.
He noted that this is one area where they want to be particularly restrictive--
whether or not it should be lO per cent is subject to debate.
-9-
Mr. Kenneth Lee, Assistant Planner, showed some typical plans and their landscaping:
Sears, Broadway Shopping Center, Big Apple, and the shopping center at Third and
Quintard. Where most of these centers have fallen down is in the landscaping for
their perimeters. He noted that Broadway and Sears have approximately 3 per-cent
landscaping, Quintard and Third has 5-1/2 per cent and the Big Apple has approxi-
mately 9 per cent. In many of these centers, the space set aside for landscaping
the perimeters is so small that it is virtually useless. Mr. Lee then submitted
a sketch showing a proposal of 10 per cent of the parking lot for landscaping.
He remarked that this is something appropriate for the C-N areas, but that the
Commission may not want to consider it for the larger shopping centers.
Mr. Lothar Schipanski, Landscape Planner, discussed the landscaping for the Big
Apple Discount store. He noted the different types of trees they propose to plant
and the perimeter landscaping which will be used as a screening for the parking
lot. He indicated that the larger the shopping center, the less percentage of
landscaping should be required. Ten per cent may prove too much; the Commission
may want 5 per cent or even 4 per cent, it depends on the square footage of the
building, the parking area, etc. He added that it does not matter what percent-
age of landscaping is provided, as long as it is done right. Four per cent of
landscaping can be done in wuch a way that it looks like a lot more.
Member Hyde suggested they leave it at "lO per cent or less, subject to staff
approval." With a Landscape Planner on the staff, this should be done.
Mr. Warren stated that the Landscape Manual will be out before the zoning ordinance
is adopted.
Mr. Cook discussed this percentage for landscaping. He felt that requiring less
landscaping for the bigger centers would take care of it. He would propose the
use of trees, say one every 20 feet or so, would be more appropriate for these
centers. As the area gets smaller, you will find the area to be landscaped can
go up to 10 per cent--this takes care of itself.
Member York agreed and added that if they get too rigid in their requirements for
landscaping in the parking area, it will be self-defeating. He, too, agreed that
trees were the best solution for the interior, plus some small ground cover. Trees
tend to have a screening effect and are the best to maintain.
Chairman Stewart suggested they set up a standard of 10 per cent for the C-N
area and 5 per cent for all others in accordance with the Eandscape Manual.
Member York felt a minimum width should be spelled out for the perimeter strip.
Director Warren reiterated that the Landscape Manual is drafted and will be sent
to the City Council along with the draft of the zoning ordinance.
Member York discussed the stipulation that landscaping plans must be approved
prior to the issuance of a building permit. He commented that in approving the
last two apartment projects, approval of landscape plans was required only prior
to final inspection.
-10-
Director Warren stated that they want some deadline that will assure them of
getting the landscaping. Once final inspection is given, it is very difficult
to get landscaping properly done.
Mr. Schipanski remarked that the best plan was to design the development around
the landscaping.
The Commission discussed this subject with Mr. Cook and the staff. Member York
declared that it takes from two to two and one-half years to draw up plans for
a major shopping center, and it is necessary to have the flexibility to decide
when you are going to landscape. The same people who draw up the landscaping
plans generally do the planting, too. It is a good idea if it ties in but not
before a building permit can be issued.
Chairman Stewart claimed the Commission should require landscaping to be put in
before the building is occupied.
Director Warren indicated that the ideal situation for the staff would be to
leave it at the way it is now worded. The staff must agree, however, that
landscaping plans are not needed before a building permit is granted; preliminary
plans should show schematic landscaping on the plot plan.
Mr. Cook noted that this could be done since you develop a plot plan at the
on-set of the development--the detailed p~&ns come later.
MSUC (York-Hyde) Landscaping plans: preliminary plans shall be submitted for
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; final plans shall be
submitted before final inspection of the development. Ten per cent of the parking
lot area shall be required for landscaping in the C-N zones and less than
10 per cent shall be required in all other zones subject to staff approval and
in accordance with the Landscape Manual.
Section 33.8.1 Off-Street Parking and Loading Procedures
Director of Planning Warren reviewed the "sliding scale" proposed as an amendment
to the required parking for multiple dwellings. He discussed the provision
which allows one-half of the required guest parking to be on the street. This
was discussed with the City Engineer and they are not happy with any type of
provision that allows any development to use the public streets for part of the
parking requirement; however, if this must be done, it would be restricted to
the local streets and not the major thoroughfares.
Member Adams felt that the Commission couldn't guarantee that anyone can have the
use of the public street for parking. The City may pass an ordinance prohibiting
parking on the streets after 2 a.m.
Director Warren explained the survey that was made by the staff which revealed the
need for 1-1/4 spaces per apartment unit. It would be the staff's opinion that
the 1-1/2 spaces per unit presently required be changed to 1-1/4 and the 1/2
guest parking space be changed to 1/4.
-11-
Assistant Planner Lee discussed the survey he made and reviewed the proposals
commenting on the correlation between the number of bedrooms and the required
spaces. What is required here, he added, is adequate and will take care of the
situation.
The Commission again discussed the proposal of allowing part of the guest parking
to be offsite. Member York felt that people are going to be parking on the
street if there is room to park there, and providing overnight parking is allowed.
He said he takes exception to the guest parking for 20 or less, people that live
in smaller apartments do not have any more guests than those that live in the
large apartments. He declared that this should be changed to 1/4 space up
to 20 units.
Member Adams stated he is not in favor of this--that this ratio was established
as a result of a survey made by the staff.
Chairman Stewart asked if anyone was opposed to having the 1/4 space per unit
for guest parking; no one opposed. Mr. Stewart then asked for a show of hands
of those opposing the proposal that part of the guest parking would be provided
on the street. Four members indicated they were in favor of opposing this
requirement, with Member York indicating he was not.
Mr. Cook declared that in building any project, the builder is required to
provide an 8' strip for parking; now the Commission is telling them they cannot
use it. Mr. Cook added that the Commission should look at guest parking as a
temporary situation.
Mr. Warren commented that in discussing this with the City Engineer, he felt
there should be no provision to allow private use of the street right-of-way.
However, after discussing the theory of guest parking--that this is essentially
guest parking--he felt there was some logic there if it was a local street and
not a major thoroughfare.
Chairman Stewart stated it should not be part of the parking requirement--that
five of the Commissioners voted not to accommodate parking on the street. They
have to bear in mind that they will be getting more cars per family.
MSUC (Adams-Rice) Acceptance of the Offstreet Parking and Loading Section,
Section 33.8.1 with the amendments as delineated in the synopsis of the fourth
draft, changing the 1/2 space per unit for guest parking to 1/4 space per unit
and eliminating any reference to on-street parking.
MSUC (York-Hyde) The residential, Parking and Landscaping Sections are hereby
approved and should be forwarded to the City Council.
Access to Loma Verde Park
Director of Planning Warren submitted four alternatives noting different accesses
to the Park. He stated that this park is being developed as a community recreation
area with a swimming pool and with neighborhood facilities. The staff has
discussed this and have studied it for the past two years; they have also been
-12-
trying to discuss it with Mr. Henry Rienstra, the owner of part of this
property, to avoid any condemnation. Mr. Warren then reviewed and discussed
each alternative indicating that Plan "E" is the one recommended by the Parks
& Recreation Commission and by the staff.
The Commission discussed briefly the common parking usage by the school and the
park. Mr. Warren indicated that the school would have to give this permission.
MSUC (Stewart-York) Recommend that Alternate "E" be approved as the access to
the Loma Verde Park from Orange Avenue since it will provide the most functional
access to the park; would provide for a good relationship between the parking
areas of the park and the elementary school site, and would facilitate
subdivision development to the east in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Rice-Adams) Meeting be adjourned at 10:30. Director of Planning Warren
stated that a date has not been set up for another public hearing on this
zoning ordinance; that the staff will notify the Commissioners and interested
parties when this is done.
Respectfully submitted,
~Jennie M. Fulasz '~
Secretary