Loading...
PC MINS 19800708M I'N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting July 8, 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: Hinchliffe Also present were Acting Director of Planning Gary Weber and Assistant Planners Sandra Lavitt and John Emeterio. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the minutes of the meeting of June 24, 1980 were approved with the following amendments: page 1, paragraph 1, should read "PRESENT: Baer, ..."; page 4, paragraph 9, add "Dr. Baer felt the merits of private roads depended on specific conditions of the develop- ment."; and page 5, 6th complete paragraph, last line, should read .,.was unanimously elected to that office." CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 61 Ms. Lavitt said at the meeting of 27990 Palos Verdes Drive East May 27 the Commission tabled action Applicant/Landowner: Mr. & Mrs. on this item to allow for review of Jack'Atkinson photographs of related Conditional Use Permit No. 36 for the Frank Iacono residence. She said a display which included pertinent photographs of the Iacono court and photographs of the Atkinson project was available on the board for the Commission's review. Staff recommended approval of the tennis court lights subject to the conditions of the draft resolution. Mrs. Jack Atkinson, 27990 Palos Verdes Drive East, said theirs was a private residence somewhat hidden by trees and landscaping. She said the neighbors were not opposed and that the lights wouldnotbe used on a con- stant basis. She said they wanted the lights primarily for her husband and that they would be used mostly during the winter months. She said Herb Bieber, the lighting contractor, said the City approved the lighting for the Palos Verdes Marymount Racquet Club and that there were a total of 12 lighted courts there. Mr. Hughes and Mr. McTaggart both said there was a great deal of con- cern with the Marymount tennis court lighting. Dr. Brown said it was his understanding that Dr. Baer would not be able to vote on this item since he was not present at the previous meeting. Mr. Weber said that was correct. Mr. McTaggart said condition #4 required windscreens.. He said at the last meeting the neighbors testified they did not object to the lighting or noise impact. He said he did not wish to place unnecessary conditions on a project and suggested eliminating that condition. He said he was con- cerned with 1000 -watt lighting and the potential halo effect. Mr. Hughes said the difference between the effects of 1000 and 400 watt lighting was startling, but noted that the Commission received testimony that 400 -watt lighting was not adequate for nighttime play. He said whatever lighting was approved, he felt there should be conditions to make sure that everything is sized so that in the future a larger watt bulb could not be installed, thus increasing the intensity of the approved light fixtures. Dr. Baer said there were houses above the 9 which may be affected by the lighting. He suggested a test so the Commission could see the effects of the lighting and determine if there would be any adverse effects. Re the windscreens, he felt it was better to buffer with trees and landscaping, which serves the same purpose and looks better. He noted the site was in a recessed area. Mr. Hughes said windscreens combined with planting would provide an even_better buffer. Dr. Baer felt the windscreens were unsightly and should not be used unless necessary. Dr. Baer said he was uncomfortable, particularly in view of the Iacono and Marymount tennis court lighting. He said in this case the neighbors have testified that they were not opposed to the lighting or noise. He felt landscaping in lieu of windscreens was a feasible alternative. He was concerned that the residents may not be fully aware of the effects. He wondered if a test was reasonable to see the effect of 400 vs. 1000 watts as he understood that would be expensive. Mr. McTaggart said it sounded like the consensus of the Commission was to at least allow 400 watt bulbs and, therefore, he did not feel testing 1000 watt bulbs without windscreens was unreasonable. He felt the condi- tions should include surface treatment as a mitigating measure in the event of a halo effect, and should also state the height limit of the structures. Dr. Brown agreed that a test may be the only solution. He pointed out that the Iacono court was in a canyon, that this was a different situa- tion. He asked how the applicant felt about 400 vs. 1000 watt lighting in terms of testing and ability to play. Mr. Atkinson said he has never played on a court with 400 watt light- ing but from everything he has heard it would not be acceptable to play tennis, that it provides marginal lighting: Re the Marymount lighting, he pointed out that the lighting there was for 12 courts with constant use and that this was a single court with only occasional"use. Mr. Hughes suggested that the applicant check out the 400 watt light- ing on the Iacono court to see if it was acceptable. Mr. Weber said Mr. Iacono has been very cooperative in the past and staff - could check with him to see if he would be agreeable to that. Dr. Brown felt the Commission as well as the applicant should look at that lighting. Mr. McTaggart agreed if it was understood that this would provide the applicant with the necessary input to make a decision about whether he would want to pursue 400 watt lighting. Mr. Atkinson felt if 400 watt lighting was adequate the tennis clubs would use it instead to save money: _�5Ad 'C Mr. McTaggart surd if the contractor was so sure that there would be no problem, perhaps he would be willing to install the 1000 watt lighting for the test without charging the applicant. Mr. Atkinson asked if the Commission would include that as an option in the motion in case the contractor was willing to install the lighting on his court for the Commission to view. He suggested temporary wiring for a temporary situation. July 8, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- Mr. Weber suggested that it be made very clear that if the applicant does that, it be temporary and in no way be construed as approval of any kind. He said the idea -of a test bothered him unless it was very temporary. Mr. Hughes said he was not in favor of a test but would agree to one if it was the pleasure of the rest of the Commission and the desire of the applicant. On motion of Mr. McTaggart, seconded by Dr. Brown, and carried, with Dr. Baer abstaining, Conditional use Permit No. 61 was continued until such time as the applicant has come back with another proposal or a test has been set up on the applicant's court withitemporary 1000 watt lighting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14 REVISIONS Mme. LaVitt said the if -em was continued Tract 32614, Villa Verde, Crest & from the June 24 meeting and that the Crenshaw applicant has revised the swimming pool Applicant: Roger C. Werbel, Inc. to an alternate location in the most Landowner: Valley Crest Co. northeastern corner of the site. She said the applicant indicated that the location can also accommodate solar panels for heating the pool, but that there may be a problem with the site -because of the shading of the sun on the structures. She said the restroom facility was shown along the pathway half -way between the pool and the tennis courts. Staff suggested relocating the restroom facility closer to the pool for both aesthetic and safety purposes. She said incorporation of the -panels with the restroom and moving it closer to the pool area was possible and should be included in a detailed landscaping plan. She said a pool cover should also be required. Staff found no difficulty in the location of the pathway except that a 36 -inch rail or hedge should be required on the east side of the walkway because of its close proximity to the slope. Staff recommended that the project be approved in concept and that the applicant supply the staff with a grading plan that minimizes the area to be graded, with elevations and landscaping plans to be approved by the Director of Planning. Carl Von Badinski, 605 Hillside Terrace, Vista, said they intend to put enough solar panels in to make it work. He said they did not want to move the restroom because of the sewer line problem, that if it was moved they may not be able to get the flow. He said he would move it as far north as possible to still be able to use the sewer. Mr. Hughes said when he visited the site he noticed the tennis courts have been clearly marked for stancheons. He said tennis court lighting was prohibited as a condition of project approval. He suggested that the applicant meet with staff and resolve that question, and noted that a lighting plan was to be approved by the City. Dr. Baer said the restrooms should be for the swimming pool rather than the tennis court and felt using the structure to hold the solar panels was a good solution. Mr. McTaggart said it was not unreasonable to move the restrooms to where staff was suggesting. Mr. Von Bandinski said he would look into it. Mr. Hughes felt the railing was appropriate along the walkway. He felt the pool was located in a better location. He added that he would like to see the wiring corrected. Dr. Brown was in favor of having the restroom, facility moved closer to the pool as suggested by staff. He agreed that the railing should be installed as a safety factor. He suggested incorporating in the condi- tions similar language to what was used in the project recently approved on Seawolf with regards to a pool cover, back-up system, etc. He felt July 8, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- the pool location was fine and agreed with Mr. Hughes' comments on the wiring. Mr. Von Badinski said he would pull the wiring out first thing in the morning. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to give conceptual approval to the project presented this evening, subject to the following: relocation of the restroom facility towards the swimming pool, as indicated; removal of the wiring from the tennis courts; require railing along the pathway between the tennis courts and the pool; and staff was directed to prepare the proper resolution to include conditions concern- ing the pool cover, back-up system, etc. Mr. Weber said in order to prepare a resolution there would have to be a formal public hearing. He said all the Commission was doing was amending the site plan which did not require revision to the original resolution. Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to amend the previous motion to revise the site plan concept as presented this evening with the changes indicated above. The motion carried unanimously. RECESS At 8:55 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with the same members present. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 151 APPEAL Mr. Emeterio said the request was to 28741 Blythewood Drive construct a second story addition with Appellant/Landowner: E. Lawrence a maximum height of 22 feet. He said during the comment period ten letters of concern were received from neighboring residents. Following site insepctions, staff denied the project based on the following: 1) the proposed structure was not designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction, and 2) that portion of the project over 16 feet high does significantly impair the primary view from at least three neighboring properties. He reviewed the definition of principal view as identified in the Development Code and.said it was staff's opinion that the proposed addition would obstruct views as described in that definition. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal and thereby deny the proposed project for the reasons stated above. Earl Lawrence, 28741 Blythwood Drive, said they originally planned a full second story but reduced the size of the addition, thereby minimizing view obstruction. He said they were very surprised upon learning of staff's denial. He said he hired a professional photographer to take photographs, and that the contractor erected two flag poles on each end of the roof to indicate the proposed roof line. He said he obtained permission from each of the affected neighbors to take photographs from their properties, but that Dr. Rowley was unable to keep his appointment. However, he presented the photographs taken from the other two properites. He described the compass directions, location on the lot, etc. He said his photographs showed the complete scope of all'the view. He did not feel that the view would be obstructed and submitted letters from neighbors supporting the addition. In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Lawrence said he felt the staff photographs were inadequate and that was why they hired a professional photographer. July 8, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- Dr. Rowley, 28725 Trailrider Drive, strongly disapproved of this re- quest because of the loss of his primary ocean view. He said this would depreciate the value of his home and that of his neighbors. He said horizontal development was possible and would not interfere with any views. He said he was located directly behind the Lawrence's. Ed Stembridge, 28731 Trailrider� Drive, said he would lose view from inside the house from two bedrooms and the living -dining area. He said from outside they would still find a view, but it would be totally de- stroyed from inside the home. Dr. Brown noted that the support letters received tonight were from residents on Blythewood or Purpleridge.only. Dr. Baer said from his observations on the property, the situation was as shown in the staff photographs. He felt it was not the best design to mitigate view impacts. Mr. Hughes said he understood that the Director of Planning was re- quired to identify the principal view from each residence in question. He wondered if that had been done. Mr. Weber said generally staff tried to take the photographs and establish the location at the point which would be the most impacted. Mr. Hughes said in each staff photograph the applicant's house was in the center of the picture. He asked if it was established that the principal view from each of the affected residences was over the applicant's house. He did not see how the Commission could take any action until the. principal view had been established. Mr. Weber said the view was everything that was defined in the Code and includes ocean, City lights, etc. He said the view from these particular homes does include a very broad -view, but -in staff's opinion the view being obstructed was significant. Dr. Brown expressed concern with the problem of cumulative effect. He was not opposed to the suggestion that staff determine specifically what the primary view was, but felt there was a significant impairment. Mr. Hughes said staff made a judgement, but there was no documentation to reflect how that judgement was made. He said he would like to see more supportive data. - Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Dr. Baer, to continue the item until the next meeting at which time staff will present additional photographs and/or drawings that show the principal views and identify the principal views from the affected properties. Mr. Weber requested that it not be continued specifically to the next meeting as he would like to pick a very clear day to take the photographs. Mr. Hughes and Dr. Baer amended the motion to reflect the above changes as suggested by Mr. Weber and Dr. Baer. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Brown said there would be no further notification and advised the audience to check with the staff re when this item will be scheduled to return to the Commission. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 12715 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 62 West side of Nantasket Drive, ex- tending north of Beachview and south of Seacove Drives Applicant: CFPV Associates, LTD Landowner: Hanna -Barbera Marine - land Mr. Emeterio said the request was to subdivide an 8.77 acre site into two lots; parcel #1 to be improved as a 125 space parking lot for the Porto Verde Apartment complex, and parcel #2 would remain under cultivation for agricultural purposes. He explained the subdivision procedure and the July 8, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- required findings for granting the conditional use permit. He said the site was located in the Coastal Specific Plan district, was zoned Agricultural, and was currently under cultivation. He described the ad3acent land uses and said in staff's opinion the proposed parking lot would be compatible with the surrounding area. He reviewed the policies of the General Plan concerning agricultural activities and said the Coastal Specific Plan also makes a primary effort to maintain the agricultural activity on the site. It was staff's opinion that the bene- fits of the proposed project would substantially outweigh the use of 1.41 acres of agricultural land. He said the project would not generate addi- tional traffic but would provide additional off-street parking for traffic generated by the Porto Verde Apartments, therefore- �iml'pro_v'ing the traffic circulation in the coastal area. He said the reasons for the conditional use permit were 1) for the creation of a lot less than 5 acres in the Agricultural District; 2) for control of the type and intensity of proposed lighting for the parking lot; and 3) for a 20 percent>';,reduction of required front -setback. It was staff's opinion that lot #1 would be of adequate size and shape to accomodate the proposed parking lot; therefore, the 5 -acre minimum lot size requirement should be waived. He said lot #2 exceeds the minimum standards. He said a condition of the conditional use permit should be to provide low level landscape -type lighting, and that a specific lighting plan would be reviewed prior to final approval. Staff recommended that the Commission grant the 20 percent reduction of the 25 -foot required front setback which was needed for two reasons: 1) to increase the width of the driveway from the proposed 23.33 feet to a more desirable 25 feet for better interior circulation, and 2) to increase the length of the parking stalls along the westerly property line from the proposed 18.5 feet to 20 feet while maintaining adequate landscaping surrounding the site. It was staff's recommendation that the applicant submit revised parking lot plans reflecting the above mentioned changes. Another requirement would be approval by the Director of Planning of a landscape and irrigation plan with landscaping and berming of the entire front setback area, along with a 42 -inch masonry wall separating the parking area from the landscaped front setback area to supplement landscape screening and to reduce the glare of automobile headlights. Staff recommended that the public hearing be opened, that the Commission discuss the issues and instruct the applicant to revise the parking lot plan to reflect the changes proposed by staff and, if possible, grant conceptual approval. Following revisions of the plans, staff will draft the appropriate resolutions. Public hearing was opened. Steven Sloka, attorney, representing CFPV Associates (owners of the Porto Verdes Apartments), said the applicant is in the process of purchasing the parcel, contingent upon the approval of the subject applications. He said they would meet the modifications suggested by staff. Mr. Hughes said since the Porto Verde complex was in the process of converting to cooperative housing, he was concerned about the long term maintenance of the parking lot. Mr. Sloka said it would be corporate ownership and that a cooperative assesses it membership a fee to cover the common area maintenance. He said before the time of the sale of the first unit the budget has to satisfy the Department of Real Estate re maintenance, etc. He said they currently have tentative approval from that Department. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Brown noted that the applicant indicated his willingness to go along with staff's recommendations. Mr. McTaggart said he was also concerned about daily maintenance of the parking lot. July 8, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Mr. Hughes asked if it would be gated in any way. Mr. Sloka said no. He added that the only people really using that street were people going to or from the apartments. In response to a question by Dr. Baer, Mr. Weber said the traffic could be improved by relocating Nantasket, but he did not feel the ad vantages would outweigh the costs involved. Dr. Baer expressed concern about the types of trees to be planted, that they not cause view problems. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Hughes, and unanimously carried, the Commission conceptually approved the project subject to the conditions recommended by staff this evening as well as addressing the issue of daily and long term maintenance. RECESS At 10:33 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:37 p.m. with the same members present. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 58 Mr. Weber said the request was to (Tentative Tract Map No. 39673) develop a 13.15 acre parcel into a 53 - Southwest of Beach -view & Coastsite unit residential planned development. Drives He said in a departure from the City's Applicant/Landowner: Tumanjan & normal procedure the conditional use Tumanjan Investments, Inc. permit application for tYie>.proposed project (upland parcel) was submitted separately from the tentative map so only the design can be considered at this time, not the subdivision. He said an environmental impact report (#17) was prepared and finalized on December 12, 1979, and proper public notice has been published and mailed. He reviewed the plans which were on display. He reviewed the zoning and usage of the adjacent properties. He said the common recrea- tional facilities include two tennis courts, two pools, and a recreation building that contains recquetball courts. He said primary vehicular access is proposed from Beachview and Seacove Drive. He said the interior streets were proposed as a 32 -foot wide private drive with the possibility of card -actuated gates. He said an evaluation of the conceptual design shows some fundamental conflicts with the designated land use, policies, and goals of the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan; the major conflicts being density, designation of private roads, and possible view obstruction. He said there were some areas of conflict with the Development Code and zoning map, and he referred to the comparison chart in the staff report. He said mitigation in the form of project revisions or conditions or approval will be required for the following environmental issues: land use, paleontology, geology/soils, hydrology, and view/visual character. He said there were no major physical design constraints on the site; therefore, the entire site is considered buildable. From a design point of view staff felt that the design creates too much pavement, that in many cases the orientation of the structures is such that long driveways prevail over the site. Staff recommends that the Commission require that the roads be designated as public and designed to City standards. He reviewed the internal and external trail systems and grading. He said a detailed view analysis has not been prepared. Staff was not comfortable with the configuration of the lot lines and recommended that the applicant consider a redesign of the lot lines or justify the need for the -proposed configuration. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, discuss the concept, direct the applicant to revise the plans pursuant to the major concerns, and continue the matter to a time when the tract map has been thoroughly reviewed. Mr. Hughes asked why they were not also considering the bluff parcel at this _time . July 8, 1980 PLANNING C014MISSION MINUTES -7- Mr. Weber said they were two different projects, that the bluff parcel would be developed as regular single family lots. Mr. Hughes said one of the possibilities was consideration of a density transfer from the bluff parcel to this parcel in order to preserve the open space on the bluff side. He said other things such as relocation of the road right-of-way were also excluded from consideration if this parcel is considered separately. Public hearing was opened. Keith Palmer, Neil Stanton Palmer, Architects, Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, reviewed the zoning on the site and the adjacent densities. He said the development would not affect pedestrian access, that the proposed private streets would comply with the intent of the Coastal Plan. He said a park was proposed to allow public access. He said they have tried to minimize grading and have done studies on existing views. He said the buildings were set back to preserve views from the Bay Club, there were sideyards to allow view corridors between the units, and the units step with the natural slope of the land. He said the applicant was willing to have the landscaping controlled by the City and to minimize any impacts on views. He said they proposed to enter the units from the sides and the homes would be oriented to the sides. He said the developer would make the improvements necessary to provide for the bike path. Ross Bolton, South Bay Engineering, Malaga Cove Plaza, engineer for the project, said they tried to lay out the project in a reasonable manner and attempted to minimize grading. He said they proposed installing the roads per City standards but keeping them private. He reviewed the sewer and storm drain. Louis Rudin, president of the Palos Verdes Bay Club, said there were 240 families in 10 buildings. He asked for a show of hands of residents from the Bay Club. He asked why the entire project was not being handled at one time. He said they were concerned about traffic problems., that there were 460 cars at the Bay Club using that street, 100 from Porto Verde, and an estimated 50 cars for park use. He said St. Peter's By The Sea was instructing people to park on Seacove Drive to solve their parking problems. He also expressed concern about the bike path and re- sulting congestion and suggested relocation to another area. He felt a view analysis was important. Mr. Lasher, Bay Club, said he lived in one of the lower units and expressed concern about view obstruction. C Bob Lusian, Bay Club, said the Palos Verdes Drive bike path would give adequate transportation for bikes. He also felt the 80 -foot strip would provide adequate public access and, therefore, did not see any reason for the park. Peter Delgado, Tuman3an & Tumanjan Investments, 22939 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, said concerning relocation of the roadway, in addition to economics, the relocated roadway would be near the hazard line which would allow only 25 feet of flat area before the cliff. He said they would be required to secure the area to prevent cars from going over the cliff. He said if they developed everything at the same time they would want to continue the same line. He felt single family homes would be less impactive. He felt they came up with a plan which will maximize the views for not only the parcel but also from adjacent homeowners. Mrs. Rhodus, Bay Club, said she lived on the first floor in building 7. She asked if there,was any way the developer could bring all the traffic through the proposed development off Beachview instead of having additional traffic come down Coastsite. She was in favor of the development but very concerned about traffic. Doris La Motte, Bay Club, recommended that the Commission consider the entire area as one development. She wanted the City to protect the coastline. July 8, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- Jack Anstine, Bay Club, said he lived on the second floor and was concerned about the height of the structures. He suggested lowering the grade to bring the building down or restricting the structures to a single story in the lower piece. He asked if the bike path would restrict parking on the street. Mr. Weber said that portion of the bike path would probably be a bike route rather than a path. He said there would probably be a sign on Palos Verdes Drive South pointing to a -path. He did not think there would be any identified marking on the road. Alan Freedman, Coastsite Drive, in one of the lower units, wondered why the builder was even considering developing the lower portion. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hughes said there appeared to be concern about the�approach of two separate tentative tracts and suggested that the Commission direct staff to explore with the City Attorney precisely what the options and alternatives were re density transfer, relocation of the bluff road, etc. Dr. Brown agreed. Mr. McTaggart did not feel private streets were appropriate in that area. Re lot lines, he agreed with staff. He felt the City should control all landscaping and everything in the coastal zone, rather than let individual owners of the condominiums do what they choose. Mr. Hughes and Dr. Brown concurred. Re density, Mr. McTaggart said the City never rounds off the density to a higher number. He said the issue sheet mentioned swimming pool fencing and noted the City's policy of not having recreational facilities next to other developments, but rather keeping it within the pro3ect. Mr. Hughes agreed that recreational facilities should be confined within the perimeters of the subject project. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the item was continued until the Commission could address the questions of what the specific options were for total use of the site, per staff's upcoming discussing with the City Attorney. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Weber reminded the Commission about the information sent to them on mixed use development. He said he would like a consensus from the Commission. He said he would be willing, since he had a good feeling of what the Commission's concerns were, to draft a memo to the City Council from the Commission discussing those issues and have the Chairman review it prior to sending it. He said the memo would basically say that in general the mixed land use concept appeared to the Commission to be a viable use of the land, yet there were some philosophical differences as to its use for low and moderate income housing. The Commission agreed that it should be looked at but with the constraint that it not be used as a method of providing low and moderat6 income housing. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown reported on the meeting with Mayor Hein, Bob Gibson and Russ Maguire. (1) He said they all felt July 8, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9.;. there was a need for flow sheet patterns so the public would know how projects were moving along. He said this would be discussed by the City Council. (2) Dr. Brown said they also discussed the need to more easily forward things to the Traffic Committee for review. (3) Re the -- trails study, he said he was told that the Commission had access through the Parks and Recreation Department to many documents related to trails. (4) He said Mayor Hein said that any time an item comes before the City Council from a Commission/Committee, the representative of that specific Commission/Committee will be asked to make any comments. ADJOURNMENT At 12:45 a.m. it was moved, seconded, -d-h-d caxi-idff-to a &J-ourn -to- Tuie s -d a y, -July-'22-, 1980 at 7:30 p July 8, 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -10-