Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 2003 �J 1] Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 13 file://H:\Planconirn\2003PC\1204.htm 01/13/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL ommissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - II present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, November 26, 2003. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of November 20, 2003. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the edited minutes Approved f November 20, 2003. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS file://H:\Planconirn\2003PC\1204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 2 of 13 SUBJECT: Cefalia residence (PA2003 -201) ITEM NO.2 . 206 E. Balboa Blvd. PA2003 -201 he applicant proposes to demolish a nonconforming 6 -unit apartmeni Approved uilding located at 206 E. Balboa Boulevard and plans to construct three Ingle family residences. The site is comprised of 3 lots that are zoned R -2, o the development of three single family homes or three duplexes is ossible. The demolition of more than 3 units within a single building equires the approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) ursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code. ;nior Planner, James Campbell noted the basis upon which staff sugc e in -lieu fee be collected for the demolition of four affordable uni :)vemment Code Section 65590. After review of that Code Section, �lieves that the opportunity to collect the in -lieu fee is there and if we illect the fee the applicant would be required to replace four afford fusing units, either on site, which pursuant to the Feasibility Study ive is not feasible, or within the Coastal Zone, or within three miles c )astal Zone. The applicant would be required to replace those imewhere else within the City. The opportunity to avoid that requires through the collection of the in lieu fees. Commissioner Selich noted that looking at page 2 of the Feasibility Si that was prepared by Keyser Marston, their conclusion says if it is ultima determined that it is not financially feasible to develop the replacement u on site the City has the right, but not the obligation to impose an in lieu • on the proposed development. Your research shows that we have obligation to impose the in lieu fees if we do not require replacement u Campbell answered correct; the only other option would be to not demolition and hence the units would stay. nissioner Selich then asked for an explanation of the $13,500 lable unit and how that fee was established. My understanding on ante that has been in place since 1989, this is the first situation wt one wants to get a Coastal Development Permit where we actu to collect the fees on it. im Campbell answered that the in -lie fee is based on negotiations with th pplicant. Staff evaluated a 1997 study prepared by the same consultant ft ie City in conjunction with preparation of an affordable housing in -lieu fe rdinance. At that time, the fees being suggested ranged from $12,000 an 15,000 per unit. The fee would fluctuate depending on what income levy ,as being targeted. We started with those numbers, and the other numb( ,e considered was the City's contribution to the Bay View Landing Seni( ffordable Housing project that the City is participating with. Throug egotiations with the applicant, we arrived at the $13,500 figure. Ms. Temple noted that we did have a CRDP on the Cannery Lofts pr and we did charge an in -lieu fee, but not for replacement of units. We .of had this kind of demolition within the coastal zone where there ocumented affordable occupancies. ommissioner Selich noted his concern on the equity and the way the file: //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 re applied. I know the City is working on an in -lieu fee ordinance, so rope we get that done and have the chance to look at it and discuss it so hat we are applying these fees equitably for all properties. Commission inquiry, staff noted that in order to determine affordable its, staff requests from the applicant information on the household size d income of all households. Those two pieces of information are mpared to the state income guidelines to determine if the household falls :hin a low or moderate income category or not. We rely upon the Drmation provided by the applicant and follow up with the tenants for rification. In this case, we deemed that four of the six units are ordable. State Law has provisions that address evictions (within the prior month period) for the purposes of evading this particular code section. evictions occurred at this site for the purpose of evading the CRDP iairperson McDaniel noted this appears to be driven by State statute, not .wport Beach. Jim Cefalia, applicant, noted he has read and agrees to the conditions approval. iblic comment was opened. iblic comment was closed. •Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Coastal residential Development Permit No. 2003 -002 subject to the findings and conditions of pproval contained in the resolution. nes Campbell noted that section 4 contains the payment of the in -lieu condition. He asked that the payment be made prior to the issuance the demolition permit. maker of the motion agreed. Selich noted he will abstain from this motion citing law and application of in -lieu fees. None None Chevron Service Station (PA2003 -073) 301 East Coast Highway Request to demolish an existing service station and construct a new ser station with a food mart (with off -site beer and wine sales) and quick ser food outlet. The applicant also requests approval of modifications to service station development regulations pertaining to gross strut square footage, number of parking spaces, accessory structure sett Page 3 of 13 ITEM NO.3 PA2003 -073 Approved file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 landscaping. Additionally, the approval of a Modification Permit program is requested. Ramirez noted the following: Condition 13 - hours of operation for Food Mart/Quick Service Outlet should read 5:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. Monument sign - height shown as 13 feet and 1/2 inch in the the actual height is 15 feet and 112 inch. Selich asked about the availability of color and for the adjacent project. Ramirez answered that some are available. However, some of th( hed paints and materials were changed after that plan was approved. :e that plan was permitted by right, the owner did not need to come in t( ige the specifications or color types used. A couple do match, one of food mart building itself, the number presented in the color renderinc match the bulk of the building paint next door. The other item tha -1hes is the foam cornice at the top of the building that matches a simila ire on the building next door. There are discrepancies in the windov ungs and trellis. The paint numbers differ for those; however, upon sit( ection the window framing color looks exact to me. The proposed trellis r looks close and the architect has been contacted for more information ommissioner Selich asked for a condition that states that they id be as close as possible, leaving it up to staff to determine w is feasible ornot. He was answered, yes. Continuing, he asked: Size of the proposed food mart signs as they relate to the Boat signs in the adjacent shopping center. Mr. Ramirez answered that Boat US signs upper case letters are two feet tall. The proposed f mart sign upper case letters are 1 foot 7 inches; the Subway upper case letters are proposed to be 1 foot 10 1/2 inches high. Are the Subway and Food Mart signs going to be similar type construction as the Boat US signs are? Mr. Ramirez answered yes. On the canopy design, how do the existing dimensions compare to proposed ones, particularly the roof and fascia/tile elements? Ramirez answered that the fascia is approximately a foot. The sl itself from the ridge down the sides is about twelve feet; whereas proposed canopy as about 4 and 1/2 feet. nmissioner Cole asked if the change in the height of the sign cl' square footage as depicted in the plans. He was answered no, tt remains the same. The portion that was omitted was the 2 feet e of the sign, the square footage of the sign is 48.6 square feet. file : //H:1Plancomm12003PC11204.htm Page 4 of 13 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 5 of 13 Commissioner Tucker suggested that a condition that the .construction and illumination match the shopping center project door so that it looks like it was installed as one sign program. purpose is to take two properties and have them look like they were pla oaether. He then noted: . Referencing condition 43 - Point of Service signs (No. 6 on the plan are not permitted... what plan does that refer to? Sign 6 on tl signage plan appears to be the Food Mart sign. Are you referring to different plan? Ramirez answered: . Clarified (No. 6 refers) to the last set of plans. Condition 43 shou read, The Point of Service signs are not permitted and shall t removed from all plans. Commissioner Tucker noted the following changes and asked the applica if they agreed with them: • Signage matching the shopping center. • Condition 1 - delete substantial but allow staff to determine substar conformance in order to allow project to move forward. Follow discussion, it was determined to leave substantial in the condition, : add, all painted exterior surfaces shall be repainted periodically needed with the same colors to retain a first class appearance dui the operation of this property under this use permit. Ms. Temple noted she had drafted two additional conditions as reques nd this verbiage is best contained in the first one as it relates to ainting and color of the buildings. ing, Commissioner Tucker noted: . Condition 3 - delete the word major as it pertains to operati characteristics, hours of operation, expansion in area and add words, or any substantial modification to the floor plan. . Condition 18 - add to the sentence, 'trash receptacles shall emptied before they overflow....' so we don't have trash on ground. . Condition 31 - following discussion, it was determined to leave drafted. Nick Noduos, applicant, agreed to the changes to the conditions. Chairperson McDaniel noted that an email had been received from Benvenutis regarding lighting issue. f ile : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 u Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Temple stated the additional conditions as requested: . Condition 75 - The colors of the buildings and trim treatment match the project at 353 East Coast Highway as determined b Planning Director and all painted exterior surfaces shall be repE periodically as needed with the same colors to retain a first appearance during the operation of this property under this use p, r. Ramirez noted that Conditions 27 and 28 deal with site lighting. - )plicant will be required to submit lighting plans, which will be reviev id subject to a night inspection once constructed. The Planning Direi is the authority to order the dimming of light if the site is found to ;cessively lit. missioner Selich suggested the following changes to the regarding size of the landscape material: . Three tree species be 36 inch boxed trees with the exception of Queen palms that are in the two planting areas adjacent on each of the building. • There are three Queen palms shown on the plan, two on Cc Highway side and one on the Bayside Drive side. • Replace the crepe myrtle tree with another Queen palm on Bayside Drive side. • The size of the Queen palms are to be 48 inch boxed trees. Mark Rodriguez, architect for the proposed project, noted: • The 24 inch box size is called out as a 12 foot brown trunk height r to the Queen palms as a requirement of the Planning staff. • The two crepe myrtle trees also have two Queen palms as well. • In front of the store there are two small planters' and I don't believe can get palms any larger than 24 inch box. imissioner Selich noted that the brown trunk height is acceptable :d if the ones adjacent to the buildings could be 15 foot brown ti ht? You could use that in any box size. Do two on each side of ling. I read the plan as two trees on the Coast Highway side and on the Bayside side. Rodriguez agreed to two palms on Bayside Drive side and two on st Highway side and they will be 15 feet high in whatever box size 1 e in. file://H:\Plancomtn\2003PC\1204.htm Page 6 of 13 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 ommissioner Tucker referencing the paint color and design of the proje .sked where the blue Chevron band fits into that paint scheme. Half of t anopy is painted off -white and half is painted blue. I prefer to see painted all off - white, the blue doesn't fit with the rest of the canopy colors. 0 Rodriguez answered the blue is - the top of the blue. The gray emark colors that are required. i Chevron to change that. also bordered by a gray, 6 inch plus the blue is part of the C1 I would have to get a major exc :ommissioner Tucker noted that in this particular case, the blue does no I. This project looks a lot different than most Chevron stations look it arms of color. It probably is not part of the Chevron standard color palette. am concerned about the width of the fascia, the plain band versus the the )of element. It looks better than the original plan, however, the band coulc e narrower by two feet and the seven inches added to the tile roo lement. The band is primarily the place to hang the signs. With the ignage right there next to Coast Highway, you don't really need that bic tittering to be visible. People will know you are there. Rodriguez stated that with the minimum gray eyebrow and blue iemark fascia Chevron has, in order to get the smallest Chevron sige t is manufactured, that is the minimum height of the fascia. The evron sign that is on there is 16 inches, which is the smallest. The V hes drives the height of the fascia as it is represented between the sigi ng on the blue and the 6 inch gray eyebrow trademark goes with the e; that is how you end up with the minimal height that Chevron designs. go smaller than that, Chevron would have to make some kind of change their trademark image. I would recommend looking at the other twc es of the canopy as an area where the building color could be appliee J perhaps leave the blue alone. The height again is based on the tensional standards for the minimal size of the Chevron sign. Vakili, owner of the station noted: • There are only two gas stations on that side of Coast Highway f Seal Beach to Laguna Beach. • People traveling during the summer do not know the location of gas station so we have to make the station visible. • If it is not visible, there will be a safety issue with not seeing station until they are right on it. • It is important to have those sizes of signs, especially since we h lowered the pole sign. • Commissioner Selich noted that the gas station is open and visible anc oes not need that size of signage. He noted he would like to see monument sign and not the pole sign with the bulk on it that is proposed. file : //H:1Plancomm12003PC11204.htm Page 7 of 13 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 8 of 13 Monument signs on gas stations are low profile signs that are typically 4 - P feet in height and are commonly designed. We have one on the Shel station with a shell symbol on it. Most other cities with new service station: have the low profile monument signs and I would prefer to see one that is parallel with the face of the building facing the intersection or possibly two one at each angle on the intersecting streets of Coast Highway an( 13ayside Drive. I think they would be just as visible and would look muct better. Looking at quality service stations done in other areas, they ar( virtually all using these low profile signs and not these tall signs. I don't se( here the tall sign does any good and as far as approaching from the west I don't see where you would lose any visibility going to a monument sign. This is a triangular shape piece of property and that nose of the property is really visible. I think this site is ideal for this type of sign. ssioner Eaton noted that the monument sign seems off balance. H if the applicant would like additional footage for width so the ston it could be used on both sides of the sign without reducing the Sig Vakili answered yes. As long as the requirements are met for would like to accommodate the City. Mr. Rodriguez answered that there would not be a problem with the additional stone element; however, he would not recommend it. Physicalll on the street it would be a monolithic view blocker. The pole sign withou architecture is the leanest thing you can put in the sky, but it is ugly. Reducing the height of the sign and putting architecture on it would conver he pole sign into something palatable. To make it wider would impose more view restriction on the area. :)mmissioner Eaton asked what sign elements would be kept if there low profile monument sign. imissioner Selich answered that it would be up to the applicant gn the sign and come up with a low profile sign (4 -5 feet) that could signs, or a wrap around sign. There are enumerable ways to arrar e elements. Vakili answered that the pricing would not be visible to the custc are putting one sign for both streets, with two it would add one n which would not be architecturally pleasing. on followed on how other stations do their signage of sites, visibility of signage, and safety for customers. ommissioner Tucker noted he was not suggesting that the 16 inch sign or he canopy fascias be reduced, he is suggesting that the band be reduced. hey can still figure out how to mount the 16 inch sign on a smaller band. ouId like to not see it be blue and I would like to see it at 2 feet and ad( nother 7 inches to the tile element; but the 16 inch sign I am okay with. file : //H:1Plancomm12003PC11204.htm 01/13/2004 0 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 y say it needs to be 2 feet 7 inches to mount the 2 foot sign, I am exactly, they can figure out how to mount the 16 inch sign on a Rodriguez added that when we were discussing with staff this concert t came up at the last Planning Commission meeting, we did submit plan, Chevron with a shortened fascia, I believe it was about 16 inches. evron rejected it and told the applicant that no gas station would be buil h that kind of design. He continued, noting: . The two long sides of the canopy are not blue, they have the bu color on them. . The size of the characters that you can have on a five foot sign are small, about 5 1/2 inches. . You can not read that pricing from a 50 mile an hour street. . Agreed that in most cities the sign heights are restricted to the average. . At Commission inquiry noted that he could get it down to a little 8 feet. mmissioner Kiser stated that if someone is looking for a gas station ast Highway they will be in the right -hand lane. Coming over the Ba y bridge they can obviously see the new station that is much more visih n the old station with the Food Mart and the new roof element that H more visible. The triangular location makes it easier to see. Every oth ieloped gas station in an attractive city that cares about what the c ks like, all the monument signs are low, about 4 to 5 feet high. I am su re are ways to figure this out and Chevron can make this work.if it w; decision of the Commission to make it a more attractive signal comment was opened. Linda Roscoe, 20 year resident and property owner in Newport Beal imented that she appreciates and thanks the process that I nmissioners go through, the time, the detail, the conscientiousness r consideration of a use permit. arge Austin, resident of the City, noted her concern of the signage ai lhting. She asked that as many signs as possible be unlit and sedate; )ssible. There is a lighted logo above each pump and we all know this Chevron gas station. There are no signs on the canopies now, yet peof the stopped there since 1967 without lighted signs. I ask that you get tl tnopy quiet. Less is more, particularly when it comes to lighted signs. ;ogle need gas they will stop and get the gas regardless of the bran its neighborhood is not the beginning of Mariner's Mile and I believe c file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1204.htm Page 9 of 13 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 10 of 13 should be as understated as possible. 0 (Public comment was closed. ommissioner Kiser stated he would like to see a monument sign eithe )uble faced, triangular; or two separate ones on the two streets that are a -5 feet high. I can't imagine that wouldn't be adequate for the station an ake for a more attractive development. If someone is looking for gas, the e traveling slowly and as soon as they spot the gas station the consume :comes less price conscious if they are running on empty and you ca irtainly turn into a gas station and if the prices are outrageous, they ca on down the road. As far as the signage on the canopies, if th )plicant were able to do something like Commissioner Tucker suggests, ive no problem with another identifying name on the top as long as it ;ot to a reasonable size. )mmissioner Eaton noted that there is an uphill grade on that bridge s u don't see the station until you are over it if you are a new driver i Nn. I would approve the 13 foot sign, but not a 15 foot sign. I would h Iling to go with a 6 - 8 foot monument sign if it was limited to the Chevrc :ment. I would like to see what the monument sign would look like as n hearing a wider monument sign. As far as the signs on the bands in't have a problem, I agree that it would be better if they were not lit. ichairperson McDaniel affirmed with staff that the signs on the canopies be lit. nmissioner Selich noted that if we want to go with the monument could always approve the project with the condition that the mono i come back to the Planning Commissioner for final review. imissioner Cole stated that he agrees with Commissioner Eaton' ments. The meeting at which the applicant originally presented thi osal, we gave the applicant direction along the lines of what they hav e back with, so I believe we are a little remiss by coming back to thel a completely different idea. The original proposal was a 20 foot pol which is there now and following a straw pole we asked them to com c with what they have tonight around 10 to 13 feet high. I am okay will original proposed 13 foot sign. I believe staff properly has approve this sign is acceptable because it is one sign versus two, which the a right to. I agree that 15 feet is too high. As far as the band signs, �e with Commissioner Tucker to reduce the width of the ban itself bi allowing the size sign they would like to have; and I have no problei the blue color. ommissioner Toerge stated with regard to the monument sign or stand t ign, I prefer a monument sign. I don't think a monument sign of 6 feet is onument sign, it becomes more of a placard and is a view obstruction. m more supportive of a 4 foot tall monument sign or multiple signs pposed to a 15 foot sign. Regarding the banding or fascia, I agree wi file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 11 of 13 ommissioner Tucker in terms of removing the blue. If the blue band i, •removed, then I am not so concerned with the width of the fascia or the height, but I do think the blue conflicts with the colors somewhat. Looking a he exhibit for the canopies, you don't list the northwest elevations, so presume it is the same as the southeast elevation. I think it should all be an (building color) instead of blue. With regard to the illumination, condition 8 has a provision that allows the Planning Director to order the dimming c light sources and review unacceptable negative impact on surrounding Ian( uses. I would like to add that language to condition 11 that deals with nois( as that would make it more discretionary for the Planning Director review. hat way, if a member of the public complains about noise, the Planning Director can make a determination. • imissioner Selich noted his agreement about the width of the fascia a color issue, a 4 -5 foot high monument sign and the applicant can bri k some further designs for it. The people here promoting the higt , that is what they get paid to do. These monument signs are state art and the oil industry lives with them in the cities that require them. s like ours that allow discretion, they will always go with the higher a ler sign. Virtually every oil company has monument signs in some citi iewhere and seem to do just fine with them. Commissioner Tucker concurred, with Commissioner Cole. We sent the applicant back to the drawing board in terms of the pole sign to have more architecture associated with it and told them to bring the thing down. agree to 13 feet; I would like to see the band painted out to a non -blue colo and in terms of the noise, I think we need to stay with what is in the Code. The people who live next to a commercial district really shouldn't N hocked when it is operated like a commercial district. If the majority of the Commission want a monument sign, I believe 4 -5 feet is not really much o monument sign. There needs to be a certain level of visibility. M, suggestion on moving the canopy band width down to 2 feet was also t( add 7 inches more to the canopy tile element. iairperson McDaniel noted that it appears to be 100% vote with the t ith and tile, and 4 votes for the single monument at 13 feet. I would reduce this as much as possible, but we did tell them to come back mething and this was the direction we told them. They have done I smaller monument is one you would get in a residential area. Cor wn from a 55 mph thoroughfare one sign resolves all of the visil ues. If this is approved, it will be approved at 13 feet total and plicant will have to make it so. Temple stated the additional condition related to how the signs Aructed and fabricated similar to the property next door. The iition would read, 'The construction type of the signs shall n project at 353 East Cost Highway, as determined by the Plat Kiser stated that he heard the four votes for the file: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 ign at 13 feet 1 inch; the project is a good one and the applicant has goi • long way to respond to our comments. Motion was made I ommissioner Kiser to approve Use Permit No. 2003 -012 and Modificatii Permit No. 2003 -008 (PA2003 -073) with all of the revisions made tonig • the revisions to conditions 13, and 43; and, • in the resolution, section 7 remove duplicate phrase, 'requiring this`, • condition 3, the word major would be deleted and the word a inserted before substantial; • condition 13 permitted hours of operation changed to 5:00 a.m. fort Food Mart; • condition 18, add, Trash receptacles shall be emptied before th overflow; • condition 23, remove, 'maximum number of code' and read, to enSL that required trees specified in the planting plan as modifi tonight ; • condition 24, add, '..submit a landscaping plan approved • modified.....; • condition 29, remove as it is a duplicate of condition 28; • condition 43, delete (No. 6 on the plans); • condition 65, replace the word, 'as' with and and insert the word, w the approved......; • additional two conditions prepared by staff; • revisions to the landscape plan regarding tree heights and number trees - three tree types at Winch boxes, two Queen palms on Baysi Drive side and two on the Coast Highway side and they will be 15 fe brown trunk height in whatever box size they come in; • thinning the band around the canopy from the 2 feet 7 inches down 2 feet and adding the 7 inches to the tile mansard above; • eliminate the blue color on the band and be the same color as t other two sides; and, . the monument sign shall be maximum 13 feet 1 inch in height. • condition 75 - The colors of the buildings and trim treatment sh Page 12 of 13 file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2003 Page 13 of 13 match the project at 353 East Coast Highway as determined I • the Planning Director and all painted exterior surfaces shall I repainted periodically as needed with the same colors to retain first class appearance during the operation of this proper under this use permit. 0 and Tucker Noes:1 None Absent:1 None Abstain:1 None BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Cou considered amendments to the Zoning Code to change the stands of review for the Modifications Permits, and decided they wanted expanded analysis related to how the applications might have b, dealt with under the revised standards and want 4 months additional information; the clean up mapping amendment for 3450 Oporto was approved; and there was the 2nd reading and adoptioi the Ordinance establishing the procedure for the Spe Circumstance Variance b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the Gen Plan Update Committee - the meeting will be on December 8th. Commission request a schedule will be provided to Commissioners. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Loy Coastal Plan Update Committee - the next meeting is December 10 e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report at a subsequent meeting - none. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. h. Project status - none. COMMISSION file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1204.htm 01/13/2004