PC MINS 19780912MINUTES (IZ�
City of Rancho Palos Verdes \
Planning Commission
Regular Adjourned Meeting
September 12, 1978
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Hughes.
PRESENT: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
ABSENT: McTaggart
Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower and Assistant Plan-
ners Keith Turner and Charlie Jencks.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded
by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously
-carried, the minutes of the meeting of
August 22, 1978, were approved with the following amendments: page 3, para-
graph 8, line 1, should read "Walter Barnes, neighbor, said..."; page 3,
paragraph 9, line 1, should read "Merlene Kovacs, neighbor, suggested...";
and page 5, paragraph 5, line 4, -should read "...vertical..."
RESOLUTION NO. 78-39
Dr.
Brown proposed a
motion, seconded
Parcel Map No. 6548
by
Mr. Hinchliffe, to
adopt Resolution
No.
78-39, subject to
the conditions
as
listed in Exhibit
"A" of the reso-
lution. The vote was
held over to allow
for input from the
audience, as
requested.
Paul Barron, son of the proposed developer of the senior citizens facility,
requested that the Commission postpone action on condition #19 of the reso-
lution for two weeks, so that additional information may be submitted. He
explained that two-thirds of the proposed structure would lie over the
existing structure referred to in condition #19 and that they wish to use
that structure as a basement.
Director Hightower advised the Commission that if they wished to continue
condition #19, they would have to continue adoption of the whole resolution.'
Mrs. Bacharach said based on the information received this evening, she
would be willing to continue the item. She said if the structure was to be
used as part of the proposed facility, perhaps they could make a condition
to ensure that the existing structure would be secured until construction
for safety purposes.
Mr. Hinchliffe expressed concern about whether the structure would adequately
meet the requirements of Building and Safety. He also wondered if there
would be any complications from continuing the item.
Director Hightower said there should be no problem with continuing adoption
of the resolution for two weeks. She also said adequate data for staff to
analyze must be provided by next week in order to be on the next agenda.
The above motion and second were withdrawn.
On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
adoption of Resolution No. 78-39 was tabled until the next meeting.
RESOLUTION NO. 78-40 Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion,
Variance No. 28 seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to adopt
Resolution No. 78-40, approving Vari-
ance No. 28, subject to the conditions
as listed in Exhibit "A", as submitted by staff.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 10721 Mr. Turner explained that the request
30936 & 30940 Cartier Drive was for the adjustment of the common
Applicants/Landowners: Joseph King lot line between existing lots 130
and David Schinnerer and 131 of Tract 25313, and that no
grading or construction was proposed.
He reviewed the location, zoning,
average lot sizes in the area, and said, if approved, the lot line adjust-
ment would transfer 16,448 square feet from lot 131 to lot 130. He reviewed
the project considerations, referring to the table in the staff report, and
said the project would be consistent with City devel-opment.standards. Staff
recommended that the Commission approve the lot line adjustment subject to
the conditions in Exhibit "A" of the draft resolution.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Turner said it was indicated to
him that the owner of lot 130 was interested in using the area as a buffer
for view protection.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to adopt Resolution
No. 78-41, thereby approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 10721 for a lot line
adjustment subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" of the resolution, as
submitted by staff.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
SIGN PERMIT NO. 47 Mr. Jencks said the request was for
31186 Hawthorne Boulevard three permanent signs for the adver-
Applicant: Gulf Oil Company tisement of cigarette sales, employ-
ment opportunities, and producotin-
formation. He said the proposed
signs violated the location and permitted posting periods of Section 9675
of the Development Code. He reviewed the related sections of the Code, as
shown in the staff report. Staff was of the opinion that both the cigarette
sale sign and the employment sign could be accommodated either on the struc-
ture or in the windows of the main structure, and the product sign was un-
necessary in that a previous sign permit (#41) approved a permanent price
and product sign. Staff recommended denial of the application and removal
of the signs. Mr. Jencks noted that this evening the Commission received
a revision to the proposal which was submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Hughes asked if the sign granted under Sign Permit No. 41 would be re-
moved.
Mr. Jencks said it would not, that the applicant wished to retain that sign
and add the additional signing.
Jim Cochrane, supervisor, Gulf Oil Company, 4907 Rockvalley Road, distributed
copies of his remarks to the Commission and staff. He said the revision was
to install the two 4 x 4 foot signs on the canopy support column instead of
in the parkway. He said they still wish to install the 4 x 8 foot product
sign at the southwest corner of the property, but would keep it off the park-
way. He showed photos to the Commission of signing at other stations on the
Peninsula. He said the sign advertising for cashier would only be put out
when needed, and explained that they just did not want to have to pay $20
for a temporary sign every time they needed employees. He said they wished
to hire local people which would benefit the City. He said the additional
product sign was necessary for visibility purposes.
9/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2-
Mrs. Bacharach referred to a letter received re the painting of the building.
She felt that the color and effect of the paint job did a lot to draw atten-
tion to the station.
Mr. Cochrane said the reason for advertising cigarettes was to attract cus-
tomers. He felt in advertising the low price, they would do better business.
In response to a question by Dr. Brown, Director Hightower explained that
the Code allows for temporary signs of this type, but not permanent signs.
She said temporary signs were usually approved over the counter, that there
was not a lengthy waiting period.
Mrs. Bacharach felt from its appearance it was obviously a discount station
and would attract anyone interested without additional signing.
Mr. Hughes suggested if the applicant was interested in hiring local people
that he place ads in local papers, etc. He said the sign advertises to
everyone, not just residents. He also felt one sign was more than adequate
for advertising and was visible. He said if other stations were violating
the ordinance, staff should review them.
Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach, to deny Sign Permit
No. 47.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
Mr. Hughes advised the applicant of the right to appeal this decision to the
City Council within fifteen days.
VARIANCE NO. 32 Director Hightower explained that the
30725 Cartier Drive variance was for a partially existing
Applicant: Yair Holtzman cantilevered tennis court which ex-
tends into the rear setback and west
side setback and exceeds the twelve -
foot height limit for accessory structures. She noted that although the
variance application mentions lights, that was not considered part of the
variance as it would require a conditional use permit. She reviewed the
background of the request and referred to an additional memo which was dis-
tributed tonight. She reviewed the applicant's Burden of Proof Statements
and noted that although the applicant had applied primarily the Administra-
tive Error provision, he had also included the other statements. Staff
recommendation was for denial of the variance because all of the findings
could not be made to support the Burden of Proof Statements and it does
not meet the Purpose of a variance as stated in Section 9730.
Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the applicant had previously requested a variance
to construct the tennis court.
Director Hightower said the applicant previously requested no approvals
from the City for construction of the tennis court.
Mr. Hughes explained public hearing procedures, and public hearing was
opened.
Bruce Smiley, attorney representing the applicant, said there was an ad-
ministrative error, that the County issued a building permit, and the appli-
cant was acting in good faith. He said it has been indicated that no one
has a copy of the approved plans, and he contended that valid plans, approved
under Environmental Assessment (EA) No. 90, show the tennis court. He said
the City requirements re setbacks, etc., were not applicable at the time of
approval and the requirements of 1974 are not known. He said the construc-
tion of the court commenced on February 3 of this year and construction
stopped on April 14 when the permit was revoked. He said the document in
the agenda from Ivan Bullum conflicts with what Mr. Bullum told him on
July 15, ..He said tearing down what has been constructed would be expensive.
9/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3-
Mr. Smiley reviewed the Burden of Proof Statements, as submitted by the
applicant as part of Exhibit "A", attached to the application. Re finding
B., he referred to a previously approved court shared by two homes on
Avenida Celestial:. He said his client would be willing to share the court
on an equal basis and has already discussed this with his neighbor.
Re the document (dated May 11, 1978) which was handed out this evening, Mr.
Smiley made the following comments: (1) re the statement by Lata Thaker
of the Building Department, the County is extremely careful when approving
projects and does not issue permits based on oral authorization from appli-
cants; and (2) re when the work was done, the applicant stopped work when
the building permit was revoked and although stop work orders were received,
the applicant was confused because of the verbal comments he received along
with those notices. He also questioned the fact that verbal stop work orders
were given in May after formal written notices were issued.
Mr. Hinchliffe said there was physical evidence on the property that a tennis
court had been constructed earlier, and that the applicant indicated to him
the court was started in 1974, that a temporary fence was installed at that
time, and that the applicant planned to complete its construction and -extend
the court at a later date. He suggested that perhaps the approval was for
that court at that point in time.
Yair Holtzman, applicant, 30725 Cartier Drive, said the approval was for a
tennis court and the standard size of a tennis court was 55 x 120 feet.
What was constructed at that time was just a portion of the court.
Mr. Hinchliffe said it seemed strange to him that the applicant would sur-
face, stripe, and fence the court when he planned to extend it.
Mr. Holtzman presented plans of the original EA #90 approval and then re-
ferred to the revised plans.
Mr. Hughes noted there appeared to be a conflict of dates on the plans and
that there were no detailed structural drawings for the tennis court al-
though there were detailed plans for the residential structure.
Mrs. Bacharach asked about the conflicting verbal comments which the appli-
cant said he received when the formal stop work orders were issued.
Mr. Smiley said the applicant was told each time he was issued a stop work
order that he did not have to adhere to the stop work orders.
Mrs. Bacharach said the text of the approval of EA #90 which was -in the
City's file refers only to a house and says nothing about a tennis court.
Mr. Holtzman said the plans indicated construction of a tennis court. He
said at that time there was no restriction on heights and one could build
a tennis court from property line to property line.
Mr. Hughes asked if the file was available to the attorney and if it had
been reviewed by the attorney.
Director Hightower said the document was in the file, the file was available
to the attorney, and was reviewed by the attorney in her office.
Mr. Smiley said he never saw the file.
RECESS
At 9:10 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting. reconvened at 9:17 p.m.
with the same members present.
Mr. Hughes asked for a description of the temporary fence and if the existing
surface was to become part of the future tennis court.
Mr. Holtzman said it was a six-foot high fence and there were no concrete
blocks then. He said the original construction was part of the tennis court.
Mr. Hughes said the steel beams were above the court surface and, therefore,
the existing court would be underneath the proposed tennis court.
9/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4-
•
•
Mr. Holtzman said the slab sunk down because of the rain, and that he planned
to level it.
James R. Moss, president of the Palos Verdes Monaco Homeowners Association,
said with him was a quorum of the Board of Directors as well as a number of
concerned residents. He said the structure was erected in violation of the
CC&Rs. He said he has correspondence dating back to 1974 which shows the
applicant was aware of the regulations of the CC&Rs, requiring plans and
any revisions to be submitted to: the Architectural Committee. He said he
contacted several peoplb who were on the Committee in 1974, and that they
recalled discussing a tennis court, that considerable argument and a great
deal of correspondence transpired about the grading, but that there was
never any discussion about a cantilevered tennis court. He felt there was'
not adequate space on the lot to accommodate a tennis court and that it was
too close to Hawthorne Boulevard. He said if lights were installed they
would glare into the homes facing that direction and may disturb motorists
on Hawthorne Boulevard. He felt a high fence, as proposed, would also
present visibility problems. He pointed out that the project juts out and
felt it was an extreme hazard. He also felt that the project was not in
keeping with the general motif and the beauty the Monaco homeowners try to
maintain. Re the petition with fourteen supporting signatures, he said the
introduction does not mention a high fence or lights.
Dr. Brown pointed out that the Commission was not considering lights at the
present time. He asked if Mr. Moss felt the tennis court itself presented
a hazard.
Mr. Moss said the impact when driving down Hawthorne Boulevard was substan-
tial. He felt it was a serious distraction.
Dr. Brown noted that only thirteen of the names contained in the petition
lived in the Monaco area. He asked if the CC&Rs restrict tennis courts.
Mr. Moss said no, but that the Committee would have to review and approve
any such plans.
Mr. Hinchliffe asked if the Architectural Committee in 1974 approved plans
for a tennis court.
Mr. Moss said records indicate that the Committee never approved the tennis
court because of the grading problems. He said correspondence indicates
that a small court was constructed and was being used.
Donald Shearer, 6467 Sattes Drive, chairman of the Architectural Committee
now, said the Committee was opposed to the tennis court, as proposed, be-
cause of the aesthetic impact on the neighborhood and because the potential
view obstruction would be detrimental. He said the applicant did not sub-
mit plans fora cantilevered tennis court to the Committee for review and
approval as required by the CC&Rs. He felt if lights were installed they
would present a nuisance to the neighbors and a hazard to motorists. He
also questioned whether the wall would withstand the structure. He said
at first glance it appears that the structure goes out over the wall. He
also said if a tennis ball is hit over the fence it would go out onto Haw-
thorne Boulevard and present an additional hazard. He said this lot is of
normal size and is in no way exceptional of other lots in the area. He
said the Association did not take legal action against the applicant for
violating the CC&Rs because the City had already taken action.
Rita Bang, 31005 Marne Drive, was concerned about the stability of the slope,
as the applicant said his property lowered due to the rain. She said the
original tennis court had been played upon.
Robert Popeney, 6480 Chartres Drive, member of the Architectural Committee,
said the structure was a distraction to anyone driving down Hawthorne Boule-
vard, particularly because of the curve at that location. He said zoning
codes vary from year to year and one cannot rely on what was legal four
years ago for construction today. He said the applicant did not go through
all of the required procedures for approval of the tennis court.
Selma Silverman, 30915 Marne Drive, expressed concern about the appearance
of the structure.
9/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 -5-
Mr. Smiley said they planned landscaping after completion of the court.
Mr. Moss said the rear of the tennis court could not be effectively camou-
flaged with landscaping because of the position of the court. He said a
tree would have to grow thirty feet to reach to top of the fence and there
was only four feet clearance between the property line and the structure.
He pointed out that whether or not the applicant pays the Association dues,
he is still, by virtue of signing documents for possession of the property,
obligated to abide by the rules in the CC&Rs.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion ensued.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, that an administra-
tive error was not proper grounds for approving the variance based on the
testimony and information received, as reasonable doubt exists as to the
circumstances of an administrative error and the building permit was revoked
and stop work orders were issued in a timely manner prior to the completion
of the work done to date.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
There was considerable Commission discussion on the four findings which must
be made in order to grant a variance.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mrs. Bacharach to deny Variance
No. 32 based on the fact that the Commission could not make the required
findings. The Commission found as follows:
A. That there are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property, or to -the intended use of
the property, which do not apply generally to other property in
the same zoning district because the lot is adequate in size,
within required setbacks, for the primary use of the lot as well
as some existing recreational facilities. There is no economic
hardship to the applicant based on the fact that he failed to
obey stop work orders and, therefore, his hardship was self-
imposed; and the applicant laid out the existing structures and
pool in such a way that makes it a self-imposed hardship.
B. That the variance is not necessary for the preservation and en-
joyment of a substantial property right of the applicant which
is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in
the same zoning districts because owners of other lots of similar
size and configuration are required to meet required setbacks
unless there are exceptional circumstances. Any other variances
are not precedent setting.
C. That the granting of the variance may be materially detrimental
to the public welfare and injurious to property and improvements
in the area because of the location of the proposed structure
immediately adjacent to Hawthorne Boulevard, as the project
represents a serious traffic hazard and would distract motorists.
There is partial view obstruction from adjoining properties and
indication of potential geologic instability.
D. That the intended use is contrary to certain objectives of the
General Plan in that the proposed project is located directly
adjacent to a major arterial and has the potential for creating
situations which may be injurious to the public welfare.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
9/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6-
Dr. Brown proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolution
No. 78-42, as amended tonight.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
Mt. Hughes advised the applicant of the right to appeal this decision to
the City Council within fifteen days.
At 11:30 p.m. a brief recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 11:37 p.m.
with the same -members present.
VARIANCE NO. 33 Mr. Turner said a Height Variation has
3577 Bendigo Drive already been granted for the structure
Landowner: Dr. & Mrs. Frank Brow to be built to thirty feet maximum.
Applicant: Phelps, Morris & Assoc. He said the project involves a two-
story house with a third level loft
which proposes to use a clerestory
window to gain needed ventilation and natural light. He explained that it
is the use of the clerestory window which causes the conflict as it rises
three feet three inches above the thirty-foot height limit. He reviewed
staff's evaluation and discussion of the required variance findings as
shown in the staff report. Staff recommendation was for denial of the
variance based on the inability to make all necessary findings. He pointed
out that the Commission was to consider only the height as it relates to
the variance request, not the grading or the Height Variation.
Mr. Hughes explained the public hearing procedures, and public hearing was
opened.
James Phelps, 666 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, architect, representing
Dr. Brow, discussed the project. He felt it -was -an unusual lot and said in
order to accommodate parking, it was necessary for the house to be pushed
way back on the lot. He said there is a very small footprint and only 1630
square feet of buildable area. He said they are concerned with energy and
are looking for natural ventilation. He said there would be no air condi-
tioning and they are using solar heating panels. He said the solar panels
were primarily for water heating, although they would be the supplemental
rather than primary source of water heating. He explained the air flow of
the house and said the biggest problem is heat gain.
Frank Brow, 3200 West La Rotonda, discussed the solar aspects -and said the
panels would face due south at 45 -degree angles.
John Ashmore, 3573 Bendigo, said the structure would destroy some of his
view and that any increase in height would further decrease his view. He
said a structure of sixteen feet in height would impact his view, but that
he would still be able to see over the top of the structure to view the
tops of the hills.
Linda Kim, 3574 Bendigo, said she was concerned about the loss of privacy
and showed photos. She said her neighbor, George Plankos, was also opposed
but was unable to attend this meeting. She said she was also opposed to
the existence of this lot and wondered how it could have been subdivided
last year. She expressed concern about the lack of parking in the area
and possible slippage.
Director Hightower said the lot was subdivided in 1967. She explained that
it never came before the City and that the whole situation, including the
lack of parking, was done under the jurisdiction of the County.
Dr. Brow said they were equally concerned about possible slippage and that
was the reason the geologistXa---�
1poi2'°-/rte 7'
9/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7-
Mr. Phelps said on the side of the house which would concern Mrs. Kim,
there was only one window. He pointed out that the applicant was also
concerned about privacy and did not wish to situate his home so that he
was looking out at other homes. He also felt the concerns expressed this
evening do not relate to the height requested in the variance.
Ino-te-
Shelly Ashf-tr&, 3573 Bendigo, said the height of the structure was important
to her as she spends a great deal of time in her kitchen, from which she
now has a view of the hills.
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Bacharach asked about the height variation approval.
Director Hightower said it was granted on the basis that there was not sub-
stantial obstruction of view. It was noted that the appeal period on the
Height Variation had not yet expired. Director Hightower advised the Com-
mission that, if desired, the variance could be tabled until after the
appeal period and if there is an appeal, both items could be considered
at the same time.
There was some discussion about tabling the matter, as there was concern
that if the Commission granted the variance they would have, in effect,
granted a structure of 33 feet in height and, therefore, set a precedence
for decision on the Height Variation should it be appealed.
Mrs. Bacharach proposed a motion to table this item to the next meeting.
The motion died for lack of a second. There was more Commission discussion.
Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Brown, to deny Variance
No. 33 on the basis of its inability to make the necessary findings, as
required by law.- The Commission found as follows:
A. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances which
would allow the Planning Commission to grant the variance.
B. That the Planning Commission could not identify any property rights
possessed by others under like conditions, which right the applicant
would be denied, because the same footprint and square footage was
available with or without the clerestory.
C. That approval of the variance may have an adverse effect due to the
loss of privacy to one neighbor and the loss of view to another.
D. That there would be no violation of any policy or objective of the
General Plan should the variance be granted.
Roll call vote was as follows:
AYES: Bacharach, Brown, Hinchliffe, Hughes
NOES: None
ABSENT: McTaggart
On motion of Mrs. Bacharach, seconded by Dr. Brown, and unanimously carried,
the Commission adopted Resolution No. 78-43, denying the variance.
Mr. Hughes advised theapplicant of the right to appeal this decision to
the City Council within fifteen calendar days. He also advised the audience
of the right to appeal the Height Variation decision to the Planning Commis-
sion before the appeal period expires.
COMMISSION REPORTS The Commission discussed the Height
Height Variation Revisions Variation revisions to the Code. Dr.
Brown and Mrs. Bacharach proposed two
alternatives which include eliminating
the "cumulative effect" section, possibly eliminating the "100" and replacing
it with "significant view obstruction", or retaining the "10%" and rewording
the section. It was also suggested that they add "neighborhood view and
vista as defined in the General Plan" to #3.
9/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8-
Dr. Brown said the ordinance must reflect somewhere that the City is pro-
tecting not only the individual but the community at large. He requested
staff ask the City Attorney if the section re public views was enough to
satisfy this requirement.
Mr. Hughes said the Attorney was of the opinion that in order for the
ordinance to work it must be tied together with protection of the public
welfare or for some community benefit.
The Commission scheduled this item for its next regular meeting of Septem-
ber 26, 1978.
Iacono Project Re Mr. Iacono's tennis court lighting
project, the Commission discussed
scheduling a meeting on the site to
view the impact of the lights, which would be turned on for that meeting.
They scheduled this meeting for September 28 at 8:00 p.m. and directed staff
to notify the neighbors so they have the opportunity to observe the effect
of the lights from their homes.
Mr. Hughes felt it should be made clear that the Commission would be there
only to see the lights, that there would be no public testimony, and that
people should view the lights from their own properties to determine the
impact.
The Commission also requested staff to arrange with specific neighbors for
the Commission to view the lights from their properties also.
Geology Field Trip Mrs. Bacharach reminded the Commission
of the geology field trip of the Penin-
sula at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, Septem-
ber 30. The Commission requested staff to extend an invitation to the City
Council to join the Commission and staff on this tour.
Change of Meeting Date The Commission agreed to change the
date of its first regular scheduled
meeting in October to Thursday, Octo-
ber 12, because Tuesday is a religious holiday observed by some of the
Commissioners.
Porto Verde Project Mrs. Bacharach asked the status of
the Porto Verde project related to
the time limits set forth by the State.
Director Hightower said the City has until the first of the year to make a
decision on the project. She indicated that she has advised John Tretheway
that if staff does not hear from him by October concerning this matter, the
item would be placed on the agenda for action.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:20 a.m. it was moved, seconded,
and carried, to adjourn to Tuesday,
September 26, 1978, at 7:30 p.m.
9/12/78 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9-