Loading...
PC MINS 19920310Cfigs�SiSz�.�� MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Chairman Katherman, Commissioners Alberio, Hayes, Byrd Clark, Lorenzen, and Mowlds. ABSENT None. Also present were Acting Director of Environmental Services Carolynn Petru, Planning Consultant Nancy Hutar, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planners Fabio de Freitas, Donna Jerex, Paul,Espe, and Kim Klopfenstesn. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Acting Director Petru advised the Commissioners of a regular meeting of Recreation and Parks March 25 at 7 p.m. at Ladera Linda with Barbara Dye giving a presentation on the Conceptual Trials Plan. Ms. Petru also advised that Commissioners Byrd, Clark, Mowlds, Hayes, Alberto and Lorenzen had been registered up to attend the Planners Institute being held April 9-11, 1992 at the Marriott Hotel in Anaheim. Commissioner Clark asked if the Commission wanted to discuss the conceptual proposal on the Procedures and Rules which had been drafted up by the Subcommittee. Chairman Katherman-recommended discussing this item at the Planning Commission meeting of March 19, 1992. Ms. Petru requested that the order of the agenda be changed with Continued Business item VI. B. being heard after Public Hearing V. B. and Continued Business VI. A. following VI. B. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of January 14, 1992 - Commissioner Clark added wording on page 5 of the minutes. B. Minutes of January 28, 1992 - Commissioner Clark added wording on page 2 of the minutes and Commissioner Byrd made corrections on page 6. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 6899 MISC. HEARING, Marymount College, 30800 PVDE. Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1992 Commissioner Alberio moved to approve the consent calendar with suggested corrections to the minutes of January 14, 1992 and January 28, 1992. Commissioner Byrd seconded the motion, and the motion passed 6-0, with Chairman Ratherman abstaining on the minutes of January 28, 1992 due to his absence at that meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 318 Associate Planner Silverman presented 6 Ave, de Camelia the staff report with the applicant requesting after -the -fact approval of a deck located 6' from the rear property line, with a maximum height of 7'6". Staff's recommendation is to approve the project with the condition that the level portion of the deck that is located within the 15' rear yard setback be no more than 30" in height as measured from finished grade; with a handrail above of no more than 36" as measured from the surface of the deck, for a maximum total of 5.5' as measured from adjacent finished grade and recommended conditions of approval requiring the owner to the City a Covenant to Protect Views prior to issuance of building permits. Commissioner Byrd asked Staff why a Covenant to Protect Views is required as there is no view impairment. Ms. Petru responded that this covenant is required on all discretionary applications as set forth in Proposition "M". Matt Petrasich, 6 Avenida de Camelia, applicant, requested that the Planning Commission approve the Variance as submitted. He stated that he had the support from the Homeowners Association as well as neighbors, and that no objections had been voiced with the deck as requested. Commissioner Mowlds moved to close the Public Hearing. Commission Alberio seconded the motion. Commissioners Byrd, Alberio and Clark were in favor of granting the Variance as requested. Commissioner Lorenzen was in favor of the Variance as submitted as it would gain more city view and give additional space. Commissioner Hayes stated her opposition of the project and sQ+d that she was in favor of supporting Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Mowlds was in favor of granting the Variance as submitted as there would be no view impairment and no objections on the project had been expressed. Page 2 P Planning Commissioftinutes March 10, 1992 Commissioner Byrd moved to approve the Variance as requested with a railing design proposed materials and colors to be submitted to the City for conformity with neighborhood and also requiring a Covenant to Protect Views prior to building permit issuance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio, and the motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Hayes dissenting. Staff will bring back is to present a Resolution on this project at the March 19, 1992 adjourned meeting. B. VARIANCE NO. 320 Associate Planner Terry Silverman 6405 Corsini Place presented the staff report with the applicant requesting approval of an after -the -fact deck which extends 8' over an extreme slope. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. Joseph Johnson, 6405 Corsini Place, applicant, requested the Planning Commission to approve the application as it would give him a better ocean view, as his view is restricted due to surrounding development and trees. He stated that the deck would not impair views of adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Clark asked Mr. Johnson why he did not consult with the City prior to beginning construction on the deck. Mr. Johnson responded that the deck extended further than he anticipated. Commissioner Hayes inquired if the spa was part of the plan. Ms. Silverman responded that the spa is not part of the application. Commissioner Lorenzen asked Mr. Johnson if he had discussed with the neighbors the type of wail being used and the issue of privacy. Mr. Johnson responded that there would be no wall but an open rail and this had not been discussed with the neighbors. Ms. Silverman stated that she had received a call from an adjacent neighbor who was concerned that any covering on the deck would cause view impairment from their property. Mr. Johnson stated that no plans have been made for a covered deck. Commissioner Mowlds moved to close the Public Hearing. Commissioner Byrd seconded the motion. Commissioner Alberio moved to grant the Variance with conditions. Commissioner Byrd seconded the motion, with the motion being passed unanimously. Page 3 _ 1� Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1992 VI. CONTINUED BUSINESS B. HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT CITY OF RPV the comments from the Community Development proposed amendment to Planning Consultant Hutar presented the staff report recommending that the Planning Commission proceed with the public hearing while considering State Department of Housing and and provide direction to Staff for the the Housing Element. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Rd., stated that she had spent the day reviewing the prepared amendment at the Environmental Services Department offices and would submit her written comments to the staff. Commissioner Mowlds moved to continue the public hearing to the Adjourned Meeting scheduled for April 23, 1992 at Hesse Park Community Center beginning at 7 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hayes, and the motion passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. VARIANCE NO. 321, Assistant Planner Donna Jerex CP NO. 110 presented the staff report with the 4125 Maritime applicant requesting the Planning Commission to allow a second 250 s.f. addition to an existing residence located partially within the coastal setback zone. Staff's recommendation is to conditionally approve the request. Ronald Maricich, 4125 Maritime, applicant, requests the Planning Commission to grant the Variance as all requirements have been fulfilled. He also stated he had no objections with the conditions as set forth. Commissioner Byrd moved to close the Public Hearing, with the motion being seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. Commissioner Hayes moved to approve the project with conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio, and the motion passed unanimously. VI. CONTINUED BUSINESS GRADING NO. 854 -APPEAL Assistant Planner Fablo de Freitas 1941 Upland presented the staff report with the applicant requesting for the Planning Commission to overturn the Director's denial of a proposed combination retaining/free-standing wall. Staff's recommendation is to approve the appellant's (landowner's) request thereby approving the modified wall, with conditions. Mr. de Freitas indicated that the applicant has modified the Page 4 Planning CommissioTMinutes March 101, 1992 wall to 8' (5' retaining, 3' free-standing) with the wail to an overall height of meeting Development Code standards. The grading would be balanced done on-site and would cause no adverse effect to the neighbors. Larry Anderson, 1941 upland, (appellant) landowner, testified that he was in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Mowlds asked applicant if he would agree to use slump stone in order to be compatible with neighbors garden wall. Mr. Anderson responded that he would prefer to use cinderblock with stucco coating instead of using the slump stone. Another alternative would be using plants over the retaining wall to provide landscape screening. Commissioner Byrd asked if wrought iron railing on top of wall would be acceptable. He also asked Mr. Anderson why the need for a retaining wall to extend from rear of property to sidewalk. Mr. Anderson responded that the reason was concern in regards to erosion, that it would provide permanent boundary, it will create an additional useable 1000 s.f. of yard area, would improve the lot aesthetically, and seclude his trailer from being seen from the front. Elaine Furman, 1933 upland St., is an adjacent neighbor and has laved at this address for 23 years. She has concerns regarding when the landscaping was removed it caused a great deal of erosion. She also stated concern about the fill, runoff from rain and the swimming pool. She felt the wall would damage the fence between the two properties and requested that the Planning Commission require that the 3' free-standing fence not be solid, but kept open. She stated that she objects to stucco being used on the retaining wall and the recommendation for a clinging vine, as it would break down the stucco. She requested that the Commission require the wall to be of the same stone as her wall. She wanted reassurance that the R.V. would not be permitted to be parked an the side yard even of the area is not permitted to be paved. Commissioner Alberao was concerned that the parking of the R.V. in,Csideyard would become an issue an the future. t9. Mr. de Freitas advised the Commission that the R.V. must be parked on a paved surface, as the Development Code requires. If in the future the R.V. is parked on an unpaved surface, then the neighbor could file a Code Enforcement complaint with the Environmental Services Department. He stated that it would be inappropriate to condition the parking issue. Page 5 Planning Commissio inutes March 10, 1992 Ms. Petru also stated that it would be inappropriate to condition this item because it would be in direct conflict with the Development Code. Commissioner Lorenzen stated that using slump stone should be a condition for the wall. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the runoff should be controlled so the draining goes to the street, that the wall return should be shown on the approved plans and that the back side of wall should be waterproof. Ms. Petru stated that flexibility should be left in the height of the retaining and freestanding portions of the wall to give Staff an opportunity to confirm guardrail height conformance with the building code. Commissioner Hayes moved to approve the application with conditions to require slump stone to be used on retaining wall to match the neighbors wall, to control runoff draining to street, to show return of wall, to waterproof backside of retaining wall and obtain appropriate building permits. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, and the motion passed 6-1, with Commissioner Byrd dissenting. Commissioner Byrd stated that he did not feel there was any need to have the retaining wall run from back yard to side walk, and that he was also concerned with height of wall; that the wrought iron at the front should be ground level. Commissioner Katherman stated that the wall in the front yard is not part of the application request.. Ms. Petru responded that a 42" high freestanding wall is allowed in the front yard setback without a planning or building permit approval.. Meeting was recessed at 9:03 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:36 p.m. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE NQ. 315, Assistant Planner Paul Espe presented GRADING NO. 1620 the staff report with the applicant 11 Saddle requesting the Planning Commission to allow after -the -fact 31'x 6'trellis and portable spa with a 22' x 14' gazebo. Staff is recommending denial of the Variance and approval for the Grading application. Commissioner Hayes asked if the stairs were in the sideyard setback. TU . Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1992 Mr. Espe responded that they were. Commissioner Mowlds asked Staff to explain why the two walls were non -conforming. He had spoken with Senior Building Inspector Winston Ward, and Mr. Ward stated that the building department would not require a building permit since the walls were more than 3' apart. Mr. Espe responded that if the walls are more than 3' apart they are considered as two separate walls and that the Development Code allows 1 upslope retaining wall not to exceed 8 feet in height. Ms. Petru also added that because the retaining walls were located in the extreme slope that would require Planning Commission approval. Phillip Rubaloff, 11 Saddle Rd., applicant, is requesting Variance approval for trellis and gazebo. He complained that the original Variance application was not in the Staff Report. He further stated that the report was incomplete as it did not give the entire picture of what is being requested, because much of the information they had submitted to the City had been omitted. Mr. Rubaloff explained that there were exceptional circumstances involved with the location of the trellis because it houses orchids which require certain light conditions. The gazebo location was chosen for privacy. The location of the jacuzzi and trellis were also chosen for privacy, neighbor's view protection, light requirement for plant collection, location of sewage disposal system, and safety. Mr. Rubaloff testified that he had notified all the neighbors and had received no complaints until 1/18/92 at which time he tried to resolve any problems that the neighbor had at that time. Karen Rubaloff, 11 Saddle Rd., applicant, questioned the validity of complaint from neighbor as listed on page 5, #1 in staff report. She did not understand how plants could infringe on the privacy of others. She also responded to #2 on same page that orchids could not devalue the property. Mr. Rubaloff also added that the structure was not high visibility, due to its location. Mr. Alberio asked the applicants how many times were they up the trellis maintaining the orchids. Mrs. Rubaloff responded that the most would be 2 hours per month. Mr. Rubaloff stated that he dial not understand how a decision could be made on this project because so much of the information they had previously submitted as evidence had been omitted. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1992 Ms. Petru responded that the original Variance application was inadertantly omitted from the Staff Report, but that the supplemental materials submitted by the applicants appeared to re -state all of their points. Hilene Denot, 15 Saddle Rd., neighbor of applicant, expressed her opposition to the project because the structure is built right next to their property instead of the required side yard setback of 5' and next to the rear property line immediately behind instead of the regulation 15'. She stated that she also opposed the project because the applicant had not gotten proper approval from the Art Jury of the Lower Rockinghorse HOA in accordance with their CC&R's. Ms. Denot also is opposed because the trellis infringes on their privacy and would interfere with future remodeling plans for their property. Commissioner Clark asked Ms. Denot if the CC&R's of the HOA are enforceable. Ms. Denot responded that they are enforceable. She also stated that they were unable to complain about the project because it was already completed. Shahram Naghshineh, 15 Saddle Rd., neighbor, testified that he was opposed to the project because of the closeness of the structure to their property line, that it devalues his property because it infringes of their property. He stated that he asked Staff for status of the project and he was told that they were still awaiting further information from the applicant. Then before he was informed, the structure was finished. He stated that he was never approached by Mr. Rubaloff or shown plans. He is also concerned that the structure will effect any future remodeling he wishes to do. Mr. Naghshineh stated Mr. Rubaloff had assured him that the appropriate permits had been applied for and that the trellis would bot be visible from his property. Commissioner Alberio moved to close the Public Hearing, and Commissioner Lorenzen seconded the motion. Commissioner Clark suggested that the gazebo, spa and trellis be placed in a different location. Chairman Katherman stated the issue being that of privacy, which results from access of the trellis. The best solution would be to move the trellis and stairs. Commissioner Byrd also agreed the issue was that of privacy. Chairman Mowlds suggested putting in stepping stones in place of the trellis and that the trellis itself does not invade privacy. OOT, Planning Commissio*inutes March 10, 1992 Chairman Katherman suggested the stairs be moved to the south side, and the trellis be moved from 5' setback, and provide adequate screening by means of a physical barrier or landscaping. Commission Alberio did not feel it was an issue of privacy. Commissioner Hayes also agreed that the stairs and trellis be moved. Commissioner Byrd stated the location of stairway was too close to the wall. Commissioner Lorenzen moved that the trellis should be reduced in length at the north end of the trellis in order to respect the side yard setback and provide adequate screening parallel with common wall to ensure the neighbor's privacy and to leave gazebo and spa as located, and grant the grading permit. The motion was seconded by Commission Byrd, and the motion passed unanimously. A resolution with conditions should be placed on the Consent Calendar of the March 19, 1992 special meeting. E. VARIANCE N4. 327, Assistant Planner Paul Espe presented CP N4. 109 the staff report with the applicant 108 Spindrift requesting 112.7 s.f. of additional building footprint to an existing structure and a 695 s.f. basement conversion located within the landslide moratorium and Coastal Setback Zone which exceeds the 250 s.f. code allotment and encroaches 2' into the rear yard setback. Staff's recommendation is to require the applicant to redesign the project. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he had spoken with the City Attorney and was advised that he vote on this item with no conflict of interest. He had worked on this project two years previously and was paid for the work. Commissioner Mowlds asked the 250 s.f. requirement established by the Development Code for a Coastal Permit. He gave instances of other homes in the area which had exceeded this limitation and been approved by the Planning Commission. He stated that the 250 s.f. limitation needs to be addressed in the future. Commissioner Mowlds also asked why the existing 100 s.f. laundry room was included in the calculations. Ms. Petru responded that while the Planning Commission has approved 400rbeer-additions to homes in this neighborhood, a standard of 250 s.f. limitation was set through the Development Code for minor additions. 0 # Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1992 Mr. Espe responded that the original building permits did not contain the square footage represented by the laundry room and therefore needed to be addressed in the Staff Report to be legalized. Chairman Katherman stated that he felt this issue regarding the 250 square foot limitation should be addressed with the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Gene Summers, 108 Spindrift, applicant, testified that he wanted to upgrade and improve his home and was requesting approval to add 112 s.f. to the existing footprint. He stated that the new addition follows the lines of the house and maintains the same distance from the lot lines as the rest of the house. The 112 s.f. addition would be used to enlarge and update the two bathrooms and provide closet and linen storage. There will be no increase in water usage. He is requesting to finish the storage area located under the house into a hobby/gym room and make the laundry room and storage area which are also located under the house more useable. He stated that the geological report supports the excavation of these areas is considered beneficial to the stability of the hillside, as it reduces weight and driving force. Gary Wynn, representing David Breiholz, Inc., 1852 Lomita Blvd, Ste. 210, Lomita 90717, testified that the geology report done by A.G. Keene states the site is safe and the minor removal of dirt would remove driving force and help the landslide. Mr. Wynn is requesting approval of the Variance to allow the proposed 112.7 s.f. for the bathroom addition, and the 285 s.f. for the storage room conversion to a hobby room. He is also requesting the 260 s.f. storage area with a 6' ceiling which would be non -habitable space. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the geology report submitted by Mr. Wynn was not a certified geology report, and he had never heard of excavation within the landslide area without a complete geology report being analyzed. He recommended a complete geology report be submitted and analyzed by the city geologist before the Commission approves the project. Noel Summers, 108 Spindrift, applicant, testified that the existing storage area can not be used due to dampness and mildew. She asked the Commission to approve the applications because it was necessary for her to have an area for herself to work in or use as a hobby room. She reassured the Commission that this would not be used for sleeping quarters. She also stated that she wanted a house which is livable with adquate storage area. Commissioner Mowlds asked how Mrs. Summers differentiated between habitable and non -habitable space. She stated that he had no problem calling the hobby room area habitable area. Page 10 Planning Commissicoinutes , March 10, 1992 Commissioner Clark stated that it was a reasonable request to improve the property and that it would add quality to the house and their lifestyle. He voiced concern with not having a complete geology report before considering the project for approval. Commissioner Alberio also stated that he would like to see a geology report before making a decision on the project. Commissioner Hayes was also in favor of a geology report before making a decision. Gary Wynn stated that it was not feasible to require all geology prior to approval of the application due to exorbitant cost to the applicant without assurance the project will be approved. Ms. Petru explained to the Commission that it had not been the practice of the Citylehave geology done prior to approval of an application as this could be quite costly to the applicant with no assurance the applications will be approved. She also explained that the geology is required prior to building permit final and is requested by the building department as part of their plan check process. Commissioner Clark moved to continue this project at which time a conceptually approved geology report had been submitted for review by the Staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hayes. F. VARIANCE NO. 313, Assistant Planner Fabio de Freitas GRADING NO. 1591- presented the staff report with the APPEAL, MEP NO. 431- applicant requesting the Planning APPEAL Commission to approve Variance No. 313 6000 Woodfern and overturn the Acting Director's decision to deny Grading No. 1591 and Minor Exception Permit No. 431, thereby approving the project as requested. Staff's recommendation is to approve Variance No. 313, uphold the Acting Director's decision to require the applicant to submit a reduced scope grading request and uphold the Acting Director's decision to deny Minor Exception Permit No. 431 subject to conditions. Russ Barto, 3 Malaga Cove Plaza, PVE, architect, testified that the grading was not excessive beyond what is necessary to accommodate the uses requested; raising the addition to reduce the grading is not practical, due to the existing driveway, nor would the resulting increased bulk be desirable; and nature of grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours. Mr. Barto explained there was a difference between grading and excavation, and that grading was artificially altering the land. He said that they would be excavating, removing the dirt only under the building footprint. Mr. Barto stated the grading ordinance was used inappropriateli to Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1992 limit the design of the house, and the location of the existing satellite dish will remain in its current place. Mr. Barto requested that the Commission approve the applications as no objections had been raised by the neighbors. Chairman Katherman stated that compatibility was the issue in questions, and asked if the Commission had the ability to regulate the size of homes in the area. Ms. Petru responded that neighborhood compatibility is taken into account when reviewing a project through the variance request. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the south elevation was of concern, as it would appear to be higher. He also added that the retaining wall at the back could be landscaped to act as a buffer. He said the neighbors objected to the rock roof and asked the architect if a more appealing roof material could be used. Mr. Barto responded that the choice of the rock roof was to conform with existing roof material on existing house. Bruce Pevney, M.D., 6011 Woodfern Dr., submitted a letter with photographs to the Commission. Dr. Pevney outlined his opposition as: 1) excessive grading and soil transport would damage the road; 2) 1280 s.f. garage more than twice the size required for a garage; 3) total square footage of house would be in excess of 9,000 s.f., not compatible with neighborhood; 4)impairment of views on Via Sonoma and would be visible from Woodfern Dr.; 5)layout lends itself to being a separate residence by the addition of a doorway which would produce 2 separate residences which is in violation of the single family zoning designation; and 6)construction of a gate and pilasters at the curb or close proximity would be unsightly and not compatible with the homes in the area. Dr. Pevney gave several solutions to the problems addressed above: 1)garage to be 600 s.f.; 2) increase in home square footage to be limited to the area immediately above the garage; 3) ridge height to remain at existing ridge height; 4) gates or pilasters to be set back a minimum of 25' from the street; 5) owners of the property to pay for private property damage exacerbated by the improvements; 6) owners of 6000 Woodfern to pay for any damage to the streets related to the construction; and 7) due to occurrence of heavy rains this winter, a reasonable time period should pass before determining the actual condition of the street, and private properties prior to granting any substantial improvements. Mike Pickett, 6015 Via Sonoma, testified that he was not opposed to the project itself but was concerned with the scope of the project and aesthetics. He stated that he was also concerned with future stability and the pool in his rear yard. Mr. Picket said his biggest concern was that of looking down Page 12 Planning Commissiolainutes March 10, 1992 on the applicant's roof which is a rock roof and has solar panels and pipes on top of the roof. He stated that the roof is very unsightly. Mr. Pickett suggested that on the south facing roof and new roof the solar panels be removed and relocated and the roof be covered with tile instead of the rock. He stated that he no problem with the size of the home. Chairman Katherman asked Mr. Barto if the could be placed on the existing structure. Mr. Barto responded that there are light weight tiles available which can be used without changing the structure. Commissioner Alberio asked Mr. Barto if the solar panels could be relocated. Mr. Barto responded that he was not prepared to answer to this question and had no information on feasibility of relocating the satellite dish. Commissioner Hayes asked Mr. de Freitas what the range of house sizes were in the area. Mr. de Freitas responded between 3500 - 4500 s.f. Commissioner Mowlds stated that he did not agree with Staff's position on the grading. That as long as it is excavated and taken off-site he saw no problem. He also stated that the weight of the haul trucks damaging the street was not an issue, as pavement fails due to construction, not weight. That a garbage truck weights more than haul trucks. Chairman Katherman asked Staff if there were bonds to repair damage to streets for additions and remodels. Ms. Petru responded that bonds for street repair are required for new tracts, but not for individual remodeling projects. Dr. Pevney stated that he would like to see geology proving the stability of the land before the project is allowed to proceed. Staff is to provide the Planning Commission with a copy of the geology reports which have already been approved. Commissioner Mowlds said that he does not agree that the garage size should be reduced, that in doing so this would require redesign of the entire house. Commissioner Clark requested that Staff provide the Commission with input on neighborhood compatibility. Chairman Katherman suggested continuing this item on the Public Hearing portion of the agenda at the April 15, 1992 Page 13 Planning Commissiolkinutes March 10, 1992 meeting, and that the roof material, solar system relocation, staking two front corners of the home and redesign to reduce the square footage be presented at that meeting. Commissioner Alberio moved to continue this project as the first item on the Public Hearing portion of the April 15, 1992 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark, and the motion passed unanimously. VII. NEW BUSINESS. There was no new business* VIII.QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Rd., invited the Planning Commission to attend the March 18, 1992 meeting of the Geotechnical Panel of Experts to be held in the Community Room at City Hall. She will notify the Commission of the time. IX. ADJOURNMENT - the meeting was adjourned at 12:52 p.m to a Adjourned Meeting to be held at Hesse Park Community Center on March 19, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. Page 14