Loading...
PC MINS 19810127M I N U T E S City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Meeting January 27, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 30942 Hawthorne Boulevard, by Chairman Brown. PRESENT: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown ABSENT: None Also present were Director of Planning Sharon Hightower, Associate Planners Gary Weber and Richard Thompson, Assistant Planner Sandra Massa Lavitt, and Code Inspector Alice Bergquist Angus. CONSENT CALENDAR On request by the Commission, Dr. Brown pulled from the Consent Calendar the minutes of the meeting of January 13, 1981 (the only item), to be considered following New Business. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 20 Mr. Thompson said the public hearing Northwest corner Crenshaw Blvd. & for this item was opened at the last Silver Spur Road meeting, at which time the Commission Landowner/Applicant: A. Levitt received public testimony. He said that testimony and concerns raised by the Commission have been responded to by the consultant in a letter which was attached to the staff report. Staff was of the opinion that the draft environmental impact report (EIR) with its responses adequately covered all environmental issues regarding the subject project and, therefore, recommended that the Commission finalize the document. Mr. McTaggart said he was concerned about all additional costs, not 3ust for sheriff cars. He said the information did not present a clear view of this project versus no project at all. Greg Broughton, Planning Consultants Research, 141 Hart Avenue, Santa Monica, said fiscal impact was not one of the issues identified by the City. He felt it would be a very small impact and that cities are set up with a fis- cal capacity to handle it. Mr. McTaggart said everytime someone is arrested .in Rancho Palos Verdes or taken to prosecution, the City receives a bill. He said different uses will result in different impacts. He felt the City was in a position where any fiscal impact is significant, and he felt they should look closer at costs, that without the information they had no way of knowing whether or not it was significant. Mr. Broughton said he was not sure what kind of information could be gener- ated. He said it would be impossible to obtain really hard data because police departments did not collect it, but that their experience is a good indicator. Dr. Baer said the Commission could request the additional data or perhaps simply a statement listing what elements have been left out of the cost figures shown. Mr. McTaggart felt that the sheriff's interior auditors would have the infor- mation computerized. Mr. Hinchliffe said the person in the City that writes the checks should have a record of what each bill is for. He felt if the costs could be identified, the information should be included in the report. Director Hightower noted that the fiscal impact was not required. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion to finalize Environmental Impact Report No. 20 subject to a mitigation measure requesting additional information on fiscal impact. Director Hightower requested that the motion be more specific concerning the mitigation measure. Mr. Hinchliffe said staff should evaluate the information received from the Sheriff's Department and determine whether it provides a basis on which to see whether or not all of the costs have been accounted for. Dr. Brown asked if staff could generate some answers to the questions raised and present the information to the Commission in the staff report on the project itself. Director Hightower said that could be done. Mr. Hinchliffe withdrew the above motion and proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to finalize Environmental Impact Report No. 20 with the minutes of the meetings of January 13 and January 27, 1981 and all of the additional information attached. The motion was unanimously carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 60 Mr. Thompson said the item was continued VARIANCE NO. 48 at the meeting of November 25, 1980, at North side of Silver Spur Road at which time the Commission recommended Crossfield Road revisions to the vehicular circulation, Landowners/Applicants: R. Quigley, height of structures and the overall M. Bruning, J. Moss (Devco) massive appearance of the project. He pointed out the basic revisions to the project and referred to the revised plans which were on display. He said included with the staff report was a letter from the geologist concerning the stability of the restricted use area. He said staff was in favor of the overall project and recommended that the Commission express a consensus of approval of the concept and direct the applicant to prepare more detailed plans specifying setbacks, structure heights and retaining walls, etc. He said the applicant has men- tioned the possibility of phasing the project, doing all of the grading at once and then phasing the buildings one at a time. Dr. Brown said the geology letter mentioned failure during substantial work on the site. He asked about stabilizing the whole piece of property which had been discussed before. Mr. Thompson said it was his understanding that stabilizing the whole site depended on the location of one of the buildings. Mr. McTaggart was concerned about the City's liability if slippage occurred in that area. He requested staff's opinion on whether the City was trading open space for security of the property owners above. He said if the City required the development to take place in that area they could require stabilization. Dr. Brown said in the course of previous discussions, the Commission ex- pressed concern about mass and came to the conclusion that they would be willing to do something about the height in exchange for a reduction in the mass. Raymond Quigley, 304 Tejon Place, Palos Verdes Estates, said the geologist was attending another meeting but would be here as soon as possible. He said the study shows that as it now stands the area is in the acceptable range of a 1.5 safety factor. He said on the seismic factor it was 1.27 and the County minimum was 1.25. He said if they were to excavate to put in a buttress the safety factor could decrease to 1.04 during excavation. He said the same soils engineer and the same geologist did both jobs (the 1/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- corner project and this one) in conjunction with each other. He said in his opinion the corner lot would have been stable had it never been cut in the past. He said if they were to put a buttress across the entire site, it would have to be done in conjunction with the corner lot and be one Piece. He said the reason they were not proposing a buttress for the whole site is because the area is as stable now as it would be after the buttress- ing. He said if they did that they would be taking on liability, and the City would also, in the event of a failure during construction. He noted that all of the computations in the report were on the conservative side. He said the County would be reviewing the report and that both the County and the project consultant would be observing as the grading is going on. He said the data was obtained from 14 test pits and 3 test holes 50 feet deep. Dr. Brown asked if the City could have hold harmless agreements, which he felt would afford a certain amount of protection for the City. Mr. Thompson said he would check that with the City Attorney. Dr. Brown asked if the Commission was comfortable with the staff's sugges- tions and was in agreement with the basic design of the project. Dr. Baer asked what type of landscaping would be provided. Mr. Thompson said that one of the considerations of the landscaping plan would be that it be designed for slope stability. Mr. Hughes noted that draft condition #1 would have to be changed if there was to be phasing. Matt Bruning, 727 Silver Spur Road, said proposed phase #1 would include all of the grading and the first building. He noted that the County Building Department would require all of the grading to be done before the first building is constructed. He said phasing of the buildings would have no bearing on the stability issue. Mr. Thompson noted that the phasing issue came up after the draft conditions were prepared. Mr. Hughes requested clarification on conditions #11 and #16 which he felt were in possible conflict. Dr. Brown said it was his understanding that condition #11 pertained to the project submitted and #16 referred to the remainder of the site. He felt #17 should state "...that the developer shall replace, repair and maintain the existing drainage system..." It was the consensus of the Commission that the conceptual design was accept- able. The item was continued until later in the evening, however, to await the arrival of the geologist for further discussion on the geology issue. VARIANCE NO. 61 Ms. Angus said the request was to per - 3931 Palos Verdes Drive South mit a 47 -inch high solid wooden fence Applicant/Landowner: V. Yen which was constructed in the front set- back within 1 foot 11 inches of an existing retaining wall located 6 inches inside the front property line. She said the existing retaining wall varied in height from 2 feet 7 inches to 4 feet 2 inches. Per the Code the exist- ing retaining wall and recently constructed wooden fence are measured as a single unit and, as such, the combination exceeds the Code permitted height. She said the applicant felt the variance was necessary to provide security, deter loiterers and solicitors, and reduce the noise from the Drive. She reviewed the four required findings and staff's responses to each as stated in the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the variance based on the lack of justifiable evidence for findings A and B and further recommended that the Commission require that the 47 -inch solid wood fence be removed or 1/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- moved further into the lot so that it is not within 3 feet of the existing retaining wall and be cut to a maximum of 42 inches. Mr. Hinchliffe asked about the minor exception permit'which was issued in November. Ms. Angus referred to the plans and said at that time the Fence Ordinance was undergoing revision and it was determined that they would hold off on the variance application until a decision was made on the Fence Code. She noted that under the old Code the fence would still have exceeded the height limit in the front setback. Public hearing was opened. Vincent Yen, 3931 Palos Verdes Drive South, said there was no objection to having the front yard enclosed, that the question was that the fence was over -height because the fence and wall combination was determined as one unit rather than two. He said the 3 -foot setback had never been clearly defined. He said the plans called for an additional 5 inches of top soil, removal of existing planting, and putting the soil both behind and in front of the fence. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. Mr. McTaggart agreed with staff and said he was unable to make finding A. He said the idea behind the 42 -inch fence height in the front setback was not to prevent the obstruction of someone's view but rather to allow for an open concept. He did not feel it would be an extreme hardship to alter this fence and felt that the applicant was fully aware of the City's Code, having applied for a minor exception permit prior to building the fence. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Director Hightower said to meet the Code the applicant must either remove the fence or move it back and cut it down in height. Mr. Hughes said the Fence Ordinance now allows for decorative wrought iron fencing and he was bothered about requiring removal of a grapestake fence. He said this fence would be permitted if this was the rear property line instead, if the house was turned the other way. Mr. Hinchliffe noted that he was a near neighbor of the applicant. He said he concurred with Mr. Hughes. Dr. Baer proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, to adopt Resolution No. 81-31, thereby denying Variance No. 61, per the staff recommendation. It was felt that the fence was out of character with the other front yards on the street. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, McTaggart NOES: Hinchliffe, Hughes, Brown ABSENT: None Mr. Hughes proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, to adopt Resolution No. 81-31, thereby approving Variance No. 61 based on the following findings: A) That this piece of property has the same degree of exceptional circumstances relative to the location of the property and the fence as the Hachikidn fence at Monero and Granvia Altamira related to parking and pedestrian traffic creating a nuisance and disrupting the lifestyle of the applicant. B) That this applicant at a minimum requires the same degree of security that exists in other properties under similar condi- tions such as the Hachikian property. 1/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- C & D) As per the staff report. Mr. McTaggart felt that referencing another specific variance that was over- turned and approved by the City Council was creating a precedence and was inappropriate in the motion. He noted that this was an applciant with full knowledge of the Code at the time the fence was constructed. Mr. Hinchliffe said the Code was different when the applicant applied for the minor exception permit, that there was an ambiguity. He said now there is a new rule requiring a 3 -foot separation which was flexible or non- existent under the old Code. The above motion and second were withdrawn. Dr. Baer felt it would not be too difficult to change the fence to meet the Code and that it might be a good chance to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Hughes said staff made the finding in the staff report to the extent that people themselves in other like zoning districts walking along proper- ties have created a nuisance that could be mitigated by the presence of a wall. Mr. Hinchliffe said there were extraordinary circumstances because of the general conditions with respect to the security in the area and further that there was an ambiguity in the Code applicable to fencing in the front setback. Dr. Brown said finding A could be met because of the security and noise con- straints placing unusual burdens on the site and because of the Code ambigu- ity relative to separation of the wall and fence at the time of construction. Ms. Angus noted that both were constructed during the time that the Code amendment was being considered. Mr. Hinchliffe proposed a motion, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to adopt Resolution No. 81-31, thereby granting Variance No. 61 based on the following -findings: A) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions: applicable to this property, or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district since conformance to the fencing regulations within the front setback will not allow for adequate screening since security and noise con- straints place an extra burden on the need for screening. Also, there was some ambiguity in the Code regarding the necessary separation of walls and/or fences at the time this fence was constructed. B) That this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant which is possessed by other property owners under like con- ditions in the same zoning district, that noise reduction and security are the basis for this finding. C) That the granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located since the fence does not obstruct anyone's view and it does not impact anyone's traffic safety. D) That the granting of such'a variance will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the General Plan. Roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Baer, Hinchliffe, Hughes, McTaggart, Brown NOES: None ABSENT: None 1/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- 0 Dr. Brown advised of the right to appeal this decision to the City Council within fifteen calendar days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 60 VARIANCE NO. 48 Dr. Brown noted that this item had been continued from earlier in the meeting and said the geologist was now present. He asked if the City was putting itself in jeopardy if these two projects go through because of the stability issue. Bruce Lockwood, geologist, said a 1.5'factor of safety was the accepted standard throughout the profession. He said it was referred to as accept- able, not as a minimum. He said the factor of safety had to do with strength of the materials under stress which is determined by taking samples of drill holes in the field and testing them in the laboratory. He said the materials are tested under extreme conditions of saturation to determine the lowest strength. He said there were 19 individual configurations of the slope and potential surfaces to consider. He said a buttress had been de- signed and could be constructed in the area left as a green belt but that during construction of the buttress the factor of safety would drop down to the critical point of 1.04 or possibly a little higher if the work is done during the summer. In his opinion it was more prudent to leave the land as is in a restricted use area rather than open it up and run any risks. He said construction of the two projects would not affect the stability of the area under discussion, that the slope as it exists is adequately stable. He said if they built a buttress they would have the same factor of safety following its construction as exists now. He said the whole slope currently has a factor of safety in excess of 1.5. Mr. McTaggart said the Commission was concerned about whether development of the corner parcel would affect this slope. Mr. Hinchliffe said another issue he was concerned with was the time span of construction and what effect that may have. On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. RECESS At 9:56 p.m. a brief recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:06 p.m. with the same members present. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37205 Mr. Weber said the request was to sub - Southeast of Armaga Spring Road & divide a former 10 -acre school site Indian Valley Road into 34 single family residential lots. Landowner: Richard Dyer He said lot sizes would range from the Applicant: Lanco Engineering minimum allowable (10,000 square feet) to approximately 18,000 square feet. He said the net density was 3.9 dwelling units per acre while the gross density was about 3.4 dwelling units per acre. He said proposed improvements include a public road, required infrastructure, remedial grading and creation of building pads, that no residential struc- tures were proposed at this time. He reviewed the design concept and said in general, staff felt that the proposed subdivision would be compatible with the surrounding uses and would function adequately on a long-term basis. There were some design issues, however, that staff felt should be reviewed and possibly revised. Staff was concerned with the proposed street, and Mr. Weber discussed the issues of concern. In staff's opinion there were at least two other possible approaches to grading/developing this site while not significantly modifying the overall concept. He said the view analysis showed that the homes which currently view over the site would lose most of the view. However, in staff's opinion, none of these homes had a reasonable expectation of the view which they now enjoy. Staff recommended that the 1/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- Commission open the public hearing on the tract map and that the concept be discussed. It was further recommended that the Commission direct the appli- cant to revise the grading on the alternative concept (study #2) and submit said revision to staff for further review. In response to a question by Dr. Baer, antenna farm which consisted of 25 to na poles providing for radio needs. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Weber said Mr. Wallace owned the 30 acres and contained 20 to 30 anten- Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, 17430 South Prairie Avenue, Torrance, said his client planned to construct the homes. He said 90 percent of the site was disturbed, including the drain which was man-made. He said they have worked out a basic agreement with the Stoneridge Homeowners Associa- tion whkch'-lik4s study_f2. Re the street, he said they preferred the type with the sidewalks next to the curb because the strip generally is not maintained and does not look good after a few years. Re grading, he said they would like to have pads, that there would be less retaining walls. He felt they could modify the grades and eliminate most of the 2:1 slopes. He said they would like to grade during the summer and have the drains set up by winter. He requested direction so that he could make the necessary revisions and return to the next meeting. Dr. Brown said he did not feel that staff was opposed to the pads, but rather was asking for the separations to be reduced. He said staff was talking about a terracing effect. Clark Leonard said people liked to make full use of their lots and with a flat pad they would be able to do so. Richard Leonard, 17422 South Prairie Avenue, Torrance, said they met with the Homeowners Association and the outcome of that meeting was the alternate plan that was up on the board. He said they also discussed the grading and that it would probably be a six-month process just taking out the rock, since the property was a dumping ground during development of the surround- ing area. Re the sidewalk being next to the curb, he said in the past they have placed street trees on private property, that they would be staggered but that each lot would have a tree. On motion of Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McTaggart, and unanimously carried, the public hearing was continued. Re the sidewalk and curb issue, Dr. Brown felt that the staff recommended case A was better. Dr. Baer asked about having the sidewalk only on one side of the street. He objected to having the sidewalk next to the street because it results in a wide slab of solid concrete. Dr. Brown felt there should be a species requirement in order to help with view preservation. In response to a question by Mr. Hinchliffe concerning the magnitude of grading, Mr. Weber said if they went with the staff recommendation to gentle out the slopes the overall yardage would not change much. Clark Leonard said there would be 125,000 cubic yards of cut, that the rock must be removed regardless. He said the site looked fairly flat but originally was a gully. Mr. Hinchliffe agreed with the staff recommendations and the other Commis- sioners concurred. Clark Leonard said when he brought back the new study it would look basic- ally the same except the slopes would be smoother. He said he was hoping staff could prepare the conditions for the next meeting. 1/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -7- Dr. Brown said they want to see the grading first. He said altering the grading may alter the view analysis. Mr. Weber said staff's recommendation was that the concept was workable if they could do something with how the pads are separated by the created slopes, how the slopes flow together. Clark Leonard said he would meet with Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber said he would not come back with conditions unless he was fully satisfied with the project. In response to a question by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Weber said he intended to write a condition to control the grading and ensure that the project is graded per plan. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37060 Ms. Lavitt said the request was for Avenida Classica/Avenida Esplendida the subdivision of a 10.5 acre former Landowner: G. F. Goeden school site into 29 residential lots Applicant: Lanco Engineering with no structures proposed at this time. She said a new public street was proposed to serve 18 of the lots. She said evaluation of the design showed some fundamental conflicts with the policies and goals of the General Plan, primarily with the grading con- cept and possible obstruction of public view. She said the project was generally consistent with the land use map of the General Plan and the zoning designation of the Development Code and map, other than some incon- sistencies with lot size and dimensions which would be corrected during the map plan check procedure. She said the environmental assessment identified potential impacts and discussed possible mitigation measures. She said the issues which will require mitigation in the form of project revisions or conditions of approval are archaeology, view and noise. She referred to the plans and reviewed the design concept. She said the public view along Haw- thorne Boulevard is now partially obscured by a row of myoporum which should be removed in order to enhance the public view. She said a height limit should also be placed on the project to ensure no landscaping or structure will obstruct views from the public right-of-way. She said this could be done by requiring a scenic easement over the critical areas and/or a restric- tion in the CC&Rs. She said there would be views from some of the proposed lots. She said residences surrounding the development would not have their views affected since they were at -a lower elevation. She said the tract conditions and/or CC&Rs should reflect the 16 -foot height limit. She said portions of the site would experience a considerable amount of noise from traffic along Hawthorne Boulevard and also intermittent noises generated from Hughes Market. She said mitigation measures required to be incorpor- ated into the final plan are sound attenuation techniques such as sound- proofing, landscaping, berms, etc. She reviewed the circulation/traffic aspects and said including parkway and sidewalk the minimum width for the right-of-way would be 48 feet. She said the grading was estimated at 150,000 cubic yards and that extensive use of 13-2:1 slopes was proposed in order to terrace the site for building pads. Staff felt the creation of those slopes was excessive and not in keeping with the intent of the grading criteria. She said lot 11 possessed unique problems, specifically the 20 - foot retaining wall of Hughes Market. She said in order to mitigate the effect a condition of approval should be that landscaping be placed adja- cent to the wall to soften the visual impact of the wall. She referred to the alternative plans. Staff recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, discuss the designs, and consider study #3. In response to Commission questions, Ms. Lavitt said no sidewalks were pro- posed for consistency with the outlying area. She said study #3 required considerably less grading and would be a more natural appearing area. She said the developer had indicated that they would like to build the homes themselves. Public hearing was opened. 1/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8- Clark Leonard, Lanco Engineering, said the developer did desire to build the homes. He wanted to discuss the treatment of Hawthorne Boulevard before getting into the design of the lots. He said people would want landscaping or something that would protect their privacy. He said to protect the view the grade adjacent to Hawthorne Boulevard should be lower- ed. He felt this would also help the noise problem. He said the only grading in study #3 was for the road, that there would be more grading when development of the lots took place. He said the homeowners association for the surrounding tract was opposed to clustered development. Mr. Hinchliffe said in all three plans they created lots basically in con- flict with the City's objectives. He felt some of the odd pieces would be better off as open space rather than single family lots. He agreed with the concern about the treatment along Hawthorne Boulevard. Dr. Brown asked if staff explored the concept of a residential planned development (RPD). Ms. Lavitt said they did not explore it, that the issue never came up. It was the consensus of the Commission that an RPD concept be explored. Mr. Hughes suggested the site be graded down rather than have decorative walls along Hawthorne Boulevard and that security fencing be put in out of sight, which could then be treated with landscaping on the downhill side. He said he would rather not see walls built up along the sidewalk. Dr. Brown said the Commission would like a concept that does the job of view preservation along Hawthorne Boulevard. He said the RPD concept should be looked at as a way to solve the problems. He said the Commission was not suggesting attached units. On motion of Dr. Baer, seconded by Mr. Hinchliffe, the public hearing was continued. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Mr. Hinchliffe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, the Consent Calendar was unanimously passed, thereby ap- proving the minutes of the meeting of January 13, 1981, with the following amendments: page 3, paragraph 6, line 3, should read "...site plan review ..."; page 5, second line, should read "...trips per day. He..."; page 6, add as second paragraph, "Mr. Owen said the Traffic Committee recommended at 'a minimum there be emergency access at Crest Road."; page 8, add as last sentence to paragraph 4, "He said it would be acceptable to use Crest Road as emergency access only."; page 10, paragraph 13, line 1, should read "... etc., at Long's parking lot should..."; and page 11, paragraph 8, line 3, should read "...associated costs should be..." STAFF REPORTS Director Hightower said the City Coun- cil at its next meeting would be acting on an amendment to the Moratorium Or- dinance relating to part of the Seaview area. She said at this time they did not have the boundaries established yet. Dr. Brown said after further investigation, Dr. Ehlig discovered the slide was more extensive than previously thought. COMMISSION REPORTS Dr. Brown discussed the Mayor's meet- ing. He said they talked about the flow diagram for use by the public, the traffic problems on Palos Verdes Drive East and the Traffic Committee's pro- posal to present a program to high school students concerning accidents. He said the Mayor and the Traffic Committee Chairperson were to coordinate with the other Peninsula cities on an earthquake and disaster plan. He 1/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -9- said there may be a problem with the grant for the study on Palos Verdes Drive East. He said the drawings on the Point Vicente Park were due in June and that --the Hesse Park drawings were due on the 23rd of this month. He said they discussed the final report on the civic center, an addendum looking at lease options. Director Hightower said Council was asking for a feasibility study using the existing buildings. Dr. Brown said he and the Mayor were to develop some way to communicate to the homeowners some of the problems of the Commission. He said the Council approved the new Associate Planner position to work on the Housing Element primarily. Director Hightower said the new State law which passed last year requires the completion of Housing Elements by October 1 of this year. Dr. Brown said they needed to set up a work session for recreational vehi- cle parking. He noted that the grading ordinance was still in the sub- committee's hands. He suggested February 5 for the work session. Director Hightower reminded the Commission of the 3oint meeting with Rolling Hills Estates' Planning Commission on the 4th of February and that the Council meeting was February 3. The work session was scheduled for February 17 to discuss both issues. Dr. Brown noted that the appeal to Special Animal Permit No. 13 was continued by Council to March 3. ADJOURNMENT At 12:06 a.m. it was moved, seconded, and carried to adjourn to Tuesday, February 10, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. 1/27/81 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -10-