Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-08-04Approved September 1, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey Kenefick, Winchell Commissioner Paone requested that Consent Item A-1 be pulled from the agenda for separate consideration. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE REMAINING CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET- ING OF JULY 21, 1981 AND CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN NO. 81-8, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter*, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: *Porter (Minutes of 7-21-81 only) The approval of the July 7 minutes (Item A-1) was discussed in regard to the motion on the compact car provisions. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 1981, WERE APPROVED AS CORRECTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4,'1981 Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-012 Applicant: Fox Meadow Inc. (Cont. from 7-21-81) To permit establishment of a temporary horse facility and to allow certain exceptions therefor, on property located on the south side of Ellis Avenue west of Goldenwest Street. Neither Commissioner Bannister or Commissioner Porter will be able to vote on this item, as they were not present at the July 21st meeting at which public testimony was taken nor have they reviewed the tapes of that meeting. Noting that this left no quorum to act on the requests, Chairman Paone asked for a continuance. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-19 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-012 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1981 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-8 Applicant: Philip and Linda Oliver To permit a change of zone from R2 (Medium Density Residential) to C4 (Highway Commercial) on a .27 acre parcel of land located on the west side of A Street approximately 50 feet south of Warner Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Philip Oliver, 300 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach, spoke in support of his requested change of zone, concurring with the staff's recommen- dation for C4 and the qualified zoning with the exception of the 110-foot setback from the sectional district line. It was his feel- ing that such a setback would create a hardship on this small lot in the use he could put on it and the siting of,a structure and parking. There were no other persons to speak for or against the zone change, and the public hearing was closed. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the staff would like to change the structure of the proposed ordinance to establish the setback as a part of the body of the ordinance itself and not as a condition on the "Q" designation. He also explained the actual set- back of thirty (30) feet which the recommended setback would effect on the subject site, saying that ultimate widening of Warner Avenue would make the northerly property line of said property the future right-of-way line for the arterial and provide the site with direct access to Warner as well. -2- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 3 Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION APPROVED ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-8 FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, SAID CHANGE TO REFLECT A "Q" C-4 ZONING WITH THE'RESTRICTIONS ON PERMITTED USES INCLUDED AS A CONDITION OF THE "Q" DESIGNATION AND THE 110 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SEC- TIONAL DISTRICT LINE TO BE DELINEATED ON THE SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ORDINANCE, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. A change of zone from R2, Medium Density Residential, to "Q" C-4, Qualified Classification combined with Highway Com- mercial District, is consistent with the land use diagram of the General Plan, which is General Commercial. 2. The proposed zone change is compatible with surrounding land uses because the use will serve as a buffer between the residential uses to the south and retail commercial and office uses located to the north, east, and west. CONDITION: 1. Permitted uses shall be limited to those uses contained in Section 9471.4'PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND OFFICES, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Medical, dental, and retail uses shall be prohibited. AYES: _Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO'. 81-2 Applicant: Jim Marino Isuzu To permit the installation of one 64 square foot pole sign 25 feet in height on property located on the west side of Beach Boulevard southeast of Main Street. The public hearing was opened. Marvin Spellburg, 137 Stanford Lane, Seal Beach, addressed the Commission to discuss the alternatives proposed by staff. He informed them that the VW dealership adjoining his will not per- mit joint use of the existing sign; he also noted that the wall signs will not provide adequate identification from the street for his use. He stressed the fact that the two dealerships were completely separate from each other, each requiring its own signage. -3- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 4 There were no other persons present to address the Commission in regard to the proposal, and the public hearing was.closed. In response to questioning from the Commission, staff indicated that the two dealerships occupy one parcel, and the -subject facility was approved as an expansion of the existing auto dealership. Two signs could be allowed in compliance with the code only,.if the prop- erties were separated by a parcel map. Further discussion followed. ON MOTION BY NO. 81-2 WAS VOTE: SCHUMAC_HER AND SECOND BY -BANNISTER SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING'FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that strict compliance with the ordinance code will result in substantial economic hardship. Other options are available to the applicant, including wall signing on the new building or changing the sign copy of the existing pole sign. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional or extraord- inary circumstances that do not -apply generally to the properties in the same zoning classification as -demonstrated by other com- mercial uses within the general area. 3. The granting of this request will constitute a special privilege because the applicant has severa•l.options,available-that fall within the scope of the ordinance code, as outlined in Finding No. 1. - AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-6,CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 81-012/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-32 Applicant: J. Don.Hartfelder To permit_ the expansion of an existing beach club, including the re- location of two tennis courts within the 25 foot front setback and the installation of a six (6) foot high architectural block wall and card control gates, on property located on the north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the proposed guest cottages on the site as depicted on the -plan encroach into the required set- back between any structure over fifteen (15) feet in height within an ROS district and adjacent residential uses. (The code requires 50 feet in the above instance, and applicant is proposing a setback of 35 feet for the guest cottages.) He also indicated that the suggested conditions of approval should -limit live-aboards on boats docked [1 -4- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H:B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 5 at the facility to no more than 72 hours, in keeping with the limitation i1i the Municipal Code. Acting Chariman Paone informed those present of his abstention from action on the Bay and Racquet Club at prior hearings because of his status as legal counsel for the persons who owned the property at that time. The property has since been sold and he has no further connection with the present owners; therefore, he will be participating in the discussion and determination on this item. The Commission discussed stacking distance in the entrance off Warner Avenue, how fire access will be taken to the guest cottages, the impact of the reduced setbacks, and the sanitary pumpout facilities for the boat slips. The public hearing was opened. Don Hartfelder addressed the Commission to describe the history of the club and outline the proposal being made by the present owner. The following persons addressed the Commission in opposition to the project: • Don Watson, 17071 Edgewater Lane Cecil Hubbard, representing Weatherly Bay residents Morris Stone, Weatherly Bay resident Norman Smith, Weatherly Bay resident Mark Rugen, 16692 Bolero Lane Luis Cardenas, Huntington Harbour resident Lorraine Faber Ken Kirk, -Weatherly Bay resident. Two of the above persons submitted petitions signed by other resi- dents of the Huntington Harbour area opposing the project. The major area of concern was the construction of the guest cot- tages. The speakers cited the density of the project, saying it is really an apartment complex which does not comply with apart- ment standards; the lack of adequate parking in a -project which is already 74 spaces deficient in parking; the blocking of the line of sight for some of the units in Weatherly Bay; the lack of proper separation from buildings of this height and the adjacent 18 foot high condominiums; the balconies which will overlook the neighbor- ing residences; and the impact of traffic on Sceptre Lane, the only access into the Weatherly Bay units. The general feeling of the speakers was that providing the guest cottages with kitchens and two bedrooms would ensure that the applicant would try to obtain maximum occupancy of those units, even though assurances have been given that they will be for use of members' guests and relatives only. -5- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 6 Individual speakers also addressed the following items: 1) The con- figuration of the proposed pierhead line. It was asked that the line depicted on the plans be straightened out to make sure that no more docks are added in the future, and that the area outside of that pierhead line be dedicated to the public to ensure retention of the turning basin; 2) Elimination of the beach; 3) Lack of enforcement of the prohibition of live-aboards in the harbor; 4) Moving of the tennis courts. It was asked that if the relocation is approved the courts be limited to daytime use to prevent intrusion of lights and noise on the neighboring residences; 5) Use of the commercial build- ing in the center of the existing parking lot, which a speaker con- tended should be deleted from the plan; 6) The need for retention of the launching ramp when there is the Fire facility only two blocks away which can be used; and 7) Current and past management of the club, which some speakers contended had largely contributed to its present problems. It was the consensus of these speakers that the project if approved would constitute a major, dramatic change in the nature of their community with which they could not concur. Bill Matthews, representing the Huntington Harbour Homeowners Asso- ciations, informed the Commission that there,is a letter in the file signed by him which could be misconstrued as supporting this project, but in fact the letter had been written to attempt to dissuade the Coastal Commission from forcing the beach and the club to go public and did not apply to the present proposal. Mr. Matthews added that he had been unaware of many of the modifications which have been in- cluded in the present proposal and -could not say what its effect would be without further study._ He asked that the Commission post- pone a decision until all residents have had an opportunity to review the total plans as submitted. The public hearing was closed. Very extensive discussion took place between the Commission and staff. Included were the items touched upon by the above speakers, princi- pally the guest cottages and their impact on the area. It was the consensus that the inclusion -of kitchens in the units was unacceptable and might lead to some future conversion request, that there was in- adequate buffering between the proposed units and the adjoining dwellings, and that the plans need to be redrawn to minimize the im- pacts from those units. The pumpout systems were reviewed, and Savoy Bellavia suggested new wording to require a pumpout.system to be in- stalled adequate to accommodate the total number of boat slips in the facility and that such a system might require a sewer hookup for each individual'slip. The establishment of the pierhead line was consid- ered and Don Hartfelder said that he could see no problem with squar- ing off the line as suggested earlier in the meeting'. Mr. Hartfelder also concurred with a postponement of the project to address the com- ments received and to consider -modifications to the.proposal. -6- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 7 ON MOTION FJY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY PAONE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-6, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.81-012 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-32 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1981 WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 9:30 and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-5 (Continued from 7-21-81) Initiated by Development Services An amendment to Article 915, Oldtown Specific Plan, and to Article 935, Townlot Specific Plan. This amendment is to clarify and illustrate specific zoning requirements pertain- ing to street visibility, sight angle, setback and yard require- ments. It will also establish a provision for zero setback on both sides of lots located in the Townlot Specific Plan only, under specified conditions. Fleetwood Joiner presented slides illustrating present devel- opment in the Townlot area. Discussion took place between staff, Mr. Joiner, and the Commission on the merits of the pro- posed code changes. The public hearing was opened. Leonard Wright addressed the Commission to object to the double zero lot line provision in the proposed code amendment, saying that it would result in added "group living" and rentals in the area, would adversely impact air circulation, fire safety,and lighting, and would be incompatible with existing dwellings in the neighborhood. Rita Bohannon, 217 llth Street, also opposed the establishment of the double zero lot line, citing the existing problems of overcrowding in individual units and saying that the proposal would result in more renters and more people living in the houses. She also felt there would be a very detrimental effect to the existing homes from the visual bulk of the buildings. There were no other persons to speak for or against the pro- posals, and the public hearing was closed. In response to questioning from the Commission,. -legal counsel Folger informed the Commission that if it should be their deci- sion to include stepped setbacks in the ordinance it would not -7- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 8 be necessary to rewrite the ordinance and reopen the public hearing. The Commission discussed the merits of such a provision, and staff explained that they would discourage a flat setback requirement in order to avoid a "stairstep" effect on the street frontage. It was staff's position that the ordinance as written would provide suffi- cient flexibility to allow a variation in front elevations of the three-story structures. After extensive review, it was "the consensus that some provision for progressive setbacks on.each floor should be written into the code. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-5 TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1981, TO ALLOW THE ABOVE ADDITION TO 81-5(c), TO INCLUDE SOME REQUIREMENT FOR FRONT VARIATION IN THREE-STORY STRUCTURES BASED ON A VOLUME RATIO AS OPPOSED TO A DEFINITELY DELINEATED SETBACK. A motion was made by Schumacher to amend the motion for continuance by deleting the provision permitting zero lot line construction on both interior lot lines. Motion failed for lack of a second. THE PRIOR MOTION TO CONTINUE WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None After approval of this motion, Fleetwood Joiner again addressed the Commission to note that in order to allow the setbacks it would be necessary to remove the requirement for counting the connecting bridge as lot coverage; this provision, he contended,'is the key to attaining the reduced scale of the structures as viewed from the street. Staff informed the Commission that the lot coverage require-. ment in the code amendment has not changed from 50 percent; ap- plicant is asking that the bridge be excluded from the computation, resulting in 56 percent coverage for his proposed projects. Secretary Palin noted for the Commission's information that staff has always opposed further increases in lot coverage because of the implica- tions for other areas of the City, where persons might construct bridges"or cantilevers and request that they also be excluded from counting as coverage. He added that at the Commission's direction the increase could be written in specifically for the Townlot and' the miscellaneous definitions left as they are for other districts. Commission'review ensued. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO DIRECT STAFF TO REVISE THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT 81-5 TO EXCLUDE THE BRIDGE AREA ONLY FROM THE CALCULATIONS FOR LOT COVERAGE IN THE TOWNLOT DIS- TRICT. Staff requested clarification on the width -permissible for this bridge structure. -8- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 9 Commissioners Paone and Mahaffey agreed to amend their motion to include some restriction, if there is not one already built into the amendment, on how far the bridge could extend, so that there will always be a percentage of open space open to the sky. THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Mahaffey NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Bannister asked that staff define "bridge" as opposed to "balcony," and Vice Chairman Paone directed that staff make sure that commissioners who have not been present at the public hearings on this matter, as well as the Bay and Racquet Club and the Fox Meadows stable public hearings, be provided with copies of the tapes for review. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-17 (Cont. from July 21, 1981) Applicant: Corona Development Co., Inc. To permit a portion of a main building to be constructed with zero side yards on both interior lot lines on property located at the southeast corner of llth Street and Olive Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Rita Bohannon addressed the Commission in opposition to the request. Leonard Wright also spoke against the proposal, saying that there are no -exceptional circumstances on the property which would justify the granting of the conditional exception. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL EXCEP- TION NO. 81-17 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-18 (Cont. from July 21, 1981) Applicant: Corona Development Co., Inc. To permit a portion of a main building to be constructed with zero side yards on both interior lot lines on property located at the southeast corner of 18th Street and Orange Avenue: -9- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 10 The public hearing was opened, and closed when no-one was present to speak for or against the matter. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-18 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-22 Applicant: Mansion Properties, Inc. To permit a 186-unit planned residential development to be located on the southeast side of New Palm Avenue and 38th Street within the Seacliff IV development. The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie, representing the applicants, addressed the Commission to describe the project and to explain how it differs from the previously approved Product C area of the Phase IV development. Mr. Eadie also expressed his concurrence with the suggested conditions of approval. The public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the comparative merits of the prior plan and the present layout. Commissioner Porter pointed out that, since the Commission is being asked later in the agenda to consider allowing certain streets in the Seacliff project to be private streets, this item should also be addressed in any approval action on this request. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-22 WAS APPROVED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PERMIT AND THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: SPECIAL PERMIT: The following items were approved under the Special Permit process for this project: 1) Individual trash collection versus centralized trash receptacles throughout the project; 2) a waiver of the requirement that specifies that a predominantly two- story project have one-third of the units as one story; and 3) a waiver of the code requirement which specifies that 30 percent of the garages have a 20-foot setback from driveways. FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. The granting of the special permit will promote better living en' vironment insofar as the project is an integrated part of an over- all planned residential neighborhood. These residential units have been designed to minimize vehicular traffic while integrating greenbelt areas into the living environment. -10- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 11 2. The granting of the special permit will provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout, and design. This plan has incorporated architecture that has created in- teresting shapes, planes, and areas and has incorporated land- scaping in order to soften and enhance the hardscape design of the buildings, and has utilized land planning techniques that reduce conflicts between the vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The orientation of most of the units has been designed to integrate with greenbelt spaces. 3. The granting of this special permit will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or the city in general, nor detrimental or in- jurious to the values of the property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the city in general. This project has been designed as an integrated part of a totally designed neighbor- hood and has been integrated into the natural constraints of the land and surrounding areas. 4. The granting of the special permit will be consistent with the objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. This project has been designed to maximize the features of the natural terrain and to mitigate the majority of the environmental effects on the surrounding property. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.-81-22: 1. The proposed project as presented is consistent with the land use designation on the subject property. 2. With the granting of the special permit as noted above, the proposed plan as presented is in substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 936, Planned Unit Devel- opment, and will be in keeping with the intent of said ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: All of the previously adopted conditions of approval for Condition- al Use Permit No. 77-23 shall be applied to the approval of Conditional Use Perrnit 81-22, except as follows: 1. The site plan, Eloor plans, and elevations received and dated July 27, 1981 shall be the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations. 2. Condition No. 18 originally imposed on Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 shall be deleted. -11- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 12 3. Condition No. 27 originally imposed on Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 shall be amended to delete the words "dedication to the City." AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Seacliff IV Project Request for A and B Streets to be Private Streets ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 10067, 10068, AND 10069 WERE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: TT 10067, TT 10068, & TT 10069: 1. Condition of Aprpoval No. 6, originally imposed upon the approval of the subject tracts, shall be amended to delete the words "A and B Streets" from the first sentence. 2. Condition of Approval No. 10, originally imposed upon the approval of the subject tracts, shall be amended to remove the words "A and B Streets" from the second sentence. AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell ABSTAIN: None Review of City Council Agenda Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meeting of August 3, 1981, for the information of the Commission. He noted that of particular interest to the Commission were two reports the Council had directed to be prepared, one a study by the Planning staff on the use of the "Q" zoning designation and the other a report by Public Works on the status of Indianapolis Avenue between Lake Street and Beach Boulevard. He said that staff hopes to have the %1' study ready for the Commission's review at its August 18th meeting. Development Services Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the Subdivision Committee will meet on August 13 at 8:30 a.m. -12- 8-4-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 4, 1981 Page 13 COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Bannister discussed a sign for a mobile message service and a problem with parking within a development on Warner Avenue. Staff will provide the Commission with backup information on prior staff actions in this regard. Commissioner Paone discussed the method of accepting public testimony which the Commission has been using. By motion action the Commission unanimously determined to ask the Chairman to set an individual time limit for speakers. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. 1 :df LJ Tim Paone, Vice -Chairman -13- 8-4-81 - P.C.