Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_10_18MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL ON OCTOBER 18, 1983 AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting convened by Chmn. Izant at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: Comm. Brown ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide; Ralph Casteneda, TDC Planning APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve the September 20, 1983 minutes, as submitted. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Newton believed that Resolution 83-23 and 83-24 had not been approved verbatim. Ms. Sapetto explained that the Commission had not yet reviewed using R-3 lots for parking as a primary use. It is in the environmental review stage with the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The Board of Zoning Adjustments requested an Environmental Impact Report; therefore, it is now in the Council's hands. The Council has changed the scope of the project. Another initial study will be made at which time it will come back to the Commission. She stated that the Commission has only dealt with a Resolution of Intention to look at the subject; however, it was discussed at the workshop. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether Resolution 83-25, Item C, was up for discussion. Mr. Mercado replied in the negative, stating that it was a change introduced by the Commission. Ms. Sapetto clarified that Resolution 83-25 will be coming back to the Commission because the City Attorney believes that the solution made by the Commission to take care of the C-potential problem is not a legal solution; in other words, there is no such thing as an automatic rezone. Another solution must be found by the Commission before it goes to the City Council. Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve P.C. Resolution 83-25. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS (Cont.) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Stroehecker, Soulakis, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Brown Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve P.C. Resolutions 83-23 and 83-24. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Stroehecker Comm. Brown APPLE TREE Chmn. Izant stated that this would not be a full public hearing because all owners of the Apple Tree were not notified. Public Hearing opened and continued at 7:47 P.M. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTA TI VE MAP #14584 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI TS AT 608 -6 1 2 LOMA DRIVE Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the ~equest is to extend the tentative tract map and conditional use permit for one year. During that time the applicant intends to file for the final and build. If the applicants do not build during that time, their conditional use permit will expire. Staff recommended granting the request. Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:53 P.M. Chmn. Izant asked if there were any reason not to extend the conditional use permit for one year. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to extend the project. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Brown Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve Resolution P.C. 83-26. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 3 TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE MAP #14584 AND CONDITIONA L USE PERMITS AT 608 -612 LOMA DRIVE (Cont.) AYES: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Brown TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1220 MONTEREY Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the request was to build a two-unit condominium. The applicants will be demolishing the two -st o r y apartment an d a one -story single family dwelling. The final map on this proje c t has been approved; however, the a p pli c a n t must req u est a c o ndition al use permit to demolish because the o r i g i nal con d i ti o na l use permi t has expired. The project met all of the Cit y 's r e quirements for condominium construction except for the lot frontage. Staff recommended approval of this project. Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. Fran Baker, Triad Design & Associates, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, designer, stated that the applicant agrees to all of staff's recommended conditions. Ms. Sapetto stated that chimneys are not included in the height requirement. Chmn. Izant stated that the Condominium Ordinance provides that the rear setback is to be three feet; however, the overhang may be one foot back. In this case, the garage and the building are acceptable, but the small balcony comes out an extra foot; therefore, it exceeds the setback requirement. Ms. Sapetto noted that it is not a balcony; it is a dormer window. She suggested that if the dormer window does not conform, it should be removed as a condition of approval. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the three-foot sideyard setback applied only to the first floor. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Soulakis asked if the plans in question had been approved by the City. Ms. Baker stated that they are not the identical plans that were originally approved. Most changes have been interior changes. PLANNING COMvUSSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 4 TWO UNIT CONDOMINI UM AT 1220 MONTEREY (Cont.) Chmn. Izant stated that the dormer window would not be an exception to the Code; however, the eaves would be acceptable as long as they are 30 inches from the property line. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the existing apartment building has parking. Ms. Baker replied in the negative, adding, however, that there is some parking in the back. There is no parking for the building itself. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the one-story family home has parking. Ms. Baker replied in the negative. Public Hearing closed at 8:08 P.M. Comm. Soulakis stated that he was not concerned that the eaves encroached onto the property line. He did not think the window in the rear should be allowed. He felt that what was considered the rear of the property in the plans was actually the front of the property. Ms. Sapetto stated that the front is based on the street, and Sunset is considered to be an alley. Ms. Sapetto stated that the City is obliged to follow what the Zoning Code says. The City is required to allow the window as long as it does not protrude further than 30 inches. Also, the eaves cannot be allowed without going through a variance procedure. Comm. Soulakis recommended adding to the Resolution something to the effect that the eaves and overhangs are built to existing Codes and not to encroach beyond that. Comm. Soulakis stated that the Commission has two issues to consider, those being, the window on the side elevation and the eaves on the front elevation. Ms. Sapetto stated that the same Code section addresses both issues. Comm. Soulakis asked if the drawings were to scale. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Ms. Baker stated that the scale is~ inch to the foot. Chmn. Izant stated that Section 604, Placement of Buildings, says, "· .. when a rear yard abutts a street or alley, the building may PLANNING COMMISSION MINlITES -October 18, 1983 Page 5 TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1220 AONTEREY (Cont.) be located three feet on the ground level and one foot on upper stories from the rear property li ne.'' He suggested adding a ·con­ dition II to the Resolution that says, 11 This p roj ect shall be in conformance with Zoning Code, Section 604 -2 and 1209." This would take care of the sideyards, the overhang, and th dormer window. Motio~ by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Chmn. Izant, to approve the plans for the two-unit condominium at 1220 Monterey with the addi- tion of Condition II in the Resolution to read, "This project shall be in conformance with Zoning Code, Section 604-2 and 1209." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton Comm. Brown Comm. Shapiro questioned why Comm. Newton abstained from voting. Comm. Newton stated that she had a conflict of interest. Chmn. Izant questioned whether any Commissioner would like to change any wording in Condition 11, the Resolution. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve P.C. Resolution with the amendment of Condition 11, that "This project shall be in conformance with Zoning Code, Section 604-2 and 1209." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton Comm. Brown SATELLITE ANTENNA -Poop Deck Chmn. Izant questioned whether this item had been noticed within 300 feet of the area. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that it was simply a posted notice. i\Ar. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that this project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Board on September 29, 1983. The project was granted a negative declaration contingent upon the antenna being screened. The project was before the Commission because of its unorthodox nature, and Section 7.1-11 requires that any project of that nature shall receive Planning Commission review. The project consisted of a nine-foot diameter antenna on a 5'11 11 tripod pole on the roof of the Poop Deck bar located at PLANNING COMMISSION MINITTES -October 18, 1983 Page 6 SATELLITE ANTENNA -Poop Deck (Cont.) 1272 The Strand. The antenna will be screened by a surrounding six-foot fence. Public Hearing opened at 8:20 P.M. Dave Bole, 226 First Street, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, stated that the square on the plans is a small hut-like structure that is over the existing air conditioner. It will somewhat screen it from the north side. The only view of the antenna is from the alley. Comm. Newton asked what will be the fencing materials. Mr. Bole replied that the fence will be¼ inch x 1 inch wood lattice. Comm. Soulakis stated that the scale on the drawing is incorrect; he noted that the view from the alley did not concern him. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the antenna. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the antenna. Public Hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve the Satellite Antenna located at 1272 The Strand. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Brown Moti o n by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Stroehecker, to approve P.C. Resolution 83-28 as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Brown REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT Mr. Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended that various sections in which six items could be incorporated could be considered. The first item dealt with home ownership. It was his opinion that establishing a quantatative number for home ownership was not desired by the Commission. The statements found in the Element are sufficient to meet the purpose of the Element and the purpose of showing a PLANNING CONlMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 7 REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT (Cont.) desire for home ownership. If the Planning Commission desired, a statement could be incorporated like the one of promoting expansion of home ownership in the statement of philosophy dealing with existing housing and new housing. This would add emphasis to that as a policy and desire of the City without establishing a single number or numbers for home ownership. The second area dealt with density bonuses. Some Commission members indicated that it has long been the sentiment of the community to have a negative reaction to density bonuses, whether it be to increase the housing supply for affordable housing. However, there was discussion that perhaps a clear and blanket statement against density bonuses was not desired, and there might be some areas which could meet approval in connection with density bonuses for seniors' housing. If the Commission desired, statements of the City's intent to implement state law in connection with density bonuses could be added. Also, statements dealing with the special land use category for seniors' housing might be amplified, which could, in effect, be a density bonus provision for project applicants dealing with senioD citizens housing. There is also th e alternative of not dealing with it at all. Comm. Soulakis requested the definition of density bonuses. Mr. Casteneda replied that State Legislation, AB1151, which was passed approximately three years ago, indicated that if a project applicant came in with a proposal with at least 25% affordable housing, the City would be obligated to provide a 25% density bonus or some other incentives to make that particular project feasible. There have been two applications in Hermosa Beach. Mr. Casteneda continued the staff report, stating that lot consolidation was brought up as a potential topic to be included in the Housing Element. It was staff's and the Commission's thought that this would be better dealt with in the area of the Land Use Element as opposed to the Housing Element. With respect to accelerating the variance processes, some reference had been made to the topic of an administrative variance in connection with housing improvements, but no reference had been made with respect to new housing development. The main conclusion is that it might be premature to come up with a blanket statement indicating that it would be the City's intent to establish a program; however, it might be worthy to have some type of policy statement indicating the direction of accelerating the development approval process. A r eview o f t he · i ocal s our c es of rev e nue i n dica tes that a more general statement could be included in the Housing Element dealing with exploring revenues in order to foster the continued development in some manner in the City and to protect an adequate fiscal base for the City. A statement has been added that could be added in the Element. With respect to manufactured housing, the current language PLANNING COM½ISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 8 REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT (Cont.) as found in the Element is sufficient to meet the intent of the State Housing Element law. On density bonuses for seniors' housing, it might be a possibility to implement this idea through an overlay zone. It is a floating zone which is applied, and the applicant comes in and will have this zone applied to that property in order to make that project feasible. It does not necessarily need to be applied to any property until the project applicant comes in. He stated that · it need not be included in the Element, per se, that is, the actual language of the zone, other than intent to either explore it and come up with alternative language. He stated that the function of the six items was to meet .the Commission's desire to have something on paper indicating that the six items were reviewed. Also, if the Commission chose to elaborate on the language in the Element on more than one of the items, there would be an indication of where that could be done. A Resolution could then be prepared for a subsequent meeting. Chmn. Izant recommended discussing home ownership first. He stated that the Commission must determine whether they would like it to stand as is in the Housing Element or whether they would like to make changes. Comm. Soulakis stated that the City favored promoting and expanding home ownership opportunities in most existing and new housing supplies. lv1r. Casteneda stated that it is in the current Housing Element. He suggested that it could be re-emphasized in areas of statement of philosophy. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to leave the home ownership as it is in the Housing Element. Comm. Stroeheck~r felt that the home ownership should be stressed in as many places as possible in the Housing Element. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Chmn. Izant Comm. Stroehecker Comm. Brown Comm. Soulakis felt that density bonuses ~ere dealt with sufficiently. He did not believe there was any need to reiterate it further in the Housing Element. Comm. Shapiro concurred. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission did not wish to take any action on density bonuses. The Commission also did not wish to take any action on lot consolidation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 198 3 Page 9 REVISIONS TO THE HOUS I NG ELEMENT (Cont. ) Chmn. Izant asked why is not housing being built to Code. He questioned why the City would want to accelerate variances for new development when they should be built to Code. He stated that he would accept accelerating variance processes for existing homes that would therefore make it simpler for people who wanted to keep up their own stock to make it easier for them to get variances. He was not certain he wanted to grant that for new housing development. Ms. Sapetto stated that the major thrust of the Zoning Code is to encourage r e placement of the housing stock. This is why a variance is required when one wishes to renovate a structure that does not conform to existing development standards. Comm. Soulakis recommended making a statement in the Housing Element. Ms. Sapetto stated that if it is the intention of the Commission to encourage the improvement of the older housing stock, the Commission may want to consider the topic of administrative variances in connection with a housing improvement incentives program for the older stock. She suggested amending the Zoning Code to include improvement of property that is not conforming to 50% as opposed to 40%. She believed that should substantially reduce the number of variances that would be requested. Chmn. Izant stated that they could allow some types of variances to be ministerial. Comm. Soulakis believed that allowing some types of variances to be ministerial would be transferring the responsibility from the Board of Zoning Adjustments to the Building Department. Ms. Sapetto stated that the issue for the Commission to determine is whether it wants the existing housing stock to be improved or whether .it wants the existing housing stock to be reconstructed. The main thrust of the Zoning Code at this time is reconstruction. She stated that the Board may make a statement with respect to nonconforming existing housing stock, to improve the process or encourage the renovation of the existing housing stock. Comm. Ne wton believed that if one encroached into his setback by about six inches and he wishes to build a small balcony on the second story, he should not have to pay a $200 filing fee to do so. However, when one is building anew, he should meet the Zoning Code. Chmn. Izant agreed with the above interpretation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 10 REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto stated that there is no justification for granting a variance to new development. She stated that to grant a variance, the Board must make four required Findings. The question is whether or not the Commission wishes to accelerate the variance procedure for existing units. Comm. Newton believed that the subjects of an accelerated variance ordinance would exclude exceeding the height restriction and lack of sufficient parking spaces. The subjects that would be included in an accelerated variance ordinance would be continuing a nonconformity, et cetera. Comm. Shapiro stated that the procedure should be the same with existing and new construction, except in those cases where the new construction is from scratch. Chmn. Izant stated that at this time it is more cumbersome to remodel than to build new construction. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Stroehecker, to not use an accelerated variance process in the Housing Element. Comm. Shapiro suggested deleting the word 11 new.11 Comm. Stroehecker asked if an accelerated variance process could go into the Housing Element for New Housing Development and/or Renovation. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the Commission will be obligated to look at an ordinance to accelerate variance processes. Ms. Sapetto replied ·in the affirmative, stating that it will come back to the Commission with options for implementing it. Comm. Stroehecker questioned whether reference to accelerating variance processes will still remain on Page 19. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Brown Mr. Casteneda stated that there was a connection between housing development in the City as well as costs that it generates to the City as well as the future fiscal base to the City. As one is making decisionsi there i s a connection bet ween the decision o n a particular parcel of property as well as the ongoing future fiscal situation in terms of costs and revenues to the City. The PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 11 REVIS I ONS TO THE HOUS I NG ELEMENT (Cont. ) idea was to support continued housing development and an adequate fiscal base as such development occurs, and the City will continue to explore all additional local sources of revenue. These would be revenues apart from those generated necessarily by that u s e. Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to exclude reference to the local sources of income in the Housing Element. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Brown Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission concurred with staff on manufactured housing. Mr. Casteneda stated that the Council may consider reducing the square footage of bedrooms for seniors' housing from 600 sq. ft. to 500 sq. ft. Comm. Stroehecker felt that seniors' housing was worth exploring; however, he was not certain he wanted to elaborate on specifics such as an overlay zone. Mr. Casteneda mentioned that density bonuses for seniors is different from density bonuses for affordable housing. The density bonus for affordable housing has an income limitation. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to not elaborate on the statement made on Page 24 regarding density bonuses for seniors. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro. Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. I z ant None Comm. Brown Chmn. Izant stated that it was the conse·nsus of the Commission to ask for a Resolution to approve and recommend to the City Council. He requested staff to prepare a Resolution with the Commission's recommended amendments. REVISIO N TO LAND USE ELEMENT Mr. Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that the Commission noted interest in the multi-use corridor and the general plan amendment and zone changes proposed for the five school sites. The purpose was to look at different sectors of the community and to gradually come to a consensus on the Land Use Element. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 12 REVISION TO LAND USE ELEMENT (Cont.) He stated that the Commission should address the questions: Are the Land Use Element designations appropriate representations of current land use as well as future land use for the multi-use corridor? Do the boundaries themselves on the map indicate the appropriate areas to include in the various commercial areas? The general commercial category is included in two areas, those being, from the City limits to 24th Place and from 14th Street to 8th Street, while the multi-use corridor runs from 14th Street to 24th Place and from the City limits to 8th Street. The Pacific Coast Highway strip functions in highway commercial, general commercial land uses, neighborhood commercial land uses, and a mixture of commercial and residential uses in some cases. There is a Lucky store and an Alpha Beta in the general commercial area. Those sites might be thought of as neighborhood commercial and include another category of Land Use for those two areas. In terms of whether or not there should be a multi-use corridor designation in the Land Use Element, he felt it was a solution to the situation that existed then and is a solution that exists now. The long-range future is commercial. Within the corridor. one of the major questions lies , .. ,:i th the boundaries, whether enough land or too much land is included within the boundaries themselves. With regard to the boundary, the Commission must determine whether the intent is and was to include the R-1 uses within the commercial multi-use corridor with the thought that they will be future commercial development sites. Ms. Sapetto stated that all C-potential lots are within the multi­ use corridor. Chmn. Izant felt that there was room for some tightening of the multi-use corridor. He agreed with #3. He stated that there should not be a special zoning category with regard to #4. The direction is supposed to be commercial. He thought it politically unpalatable, but better, to eliminate the multi-use corridor and term it either residential or commercial. Ms. Sapetto stated that the commercial uses allowed in the multi­ use corridor at this time are 45 11 high and 100% lot coverage, and there is no buffer between the single family and the commercial. She stated that the Commission should look at the development standards only in the multi-use corridor with respect to how they abutt residential standards. Mr. Casteneda stated that there are at this time two Land Use Classifications with one Zoning Category. Comm. Soulakis requested a map depicting those areas that are not C-potential but are within the corridor. PLANNING COJ\IL'vUSSION l'vUNUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 13 REVISION TO LAND USE ELE,AENT (Cont. ) Ms. Sapetto replied that she could submit a reduced size of the map to the Commissioners. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission would have to go out and look at the property. Comm. Soulakis stated that there should be research conducted on any property, R-1 property, that is not C-potential. Comm. Shapiro stated that the answer to #1 would be no. Comm. Soulakis requested more information on #1. Recess from 10:02 P.M. to 10:07 P.M. ENABLING ORDINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that this i tern has . been continued from the last meeting. The enabling ordinances essentially mirror the requirements of state la w and reflect the format proposed by the League of California Cities for con­ sideration of development agreements. The reason the proposed ordinance appeared skeletal is because it makes reference to the procedure for application, Article 15 of the City Code, which would require development agreements to go through the same procedure as a zone change request. It also makes reference to state la vv requirements which address ,_,,,hat must be in a development agreement. The City Attorney had recommended an uncomplicated yet specific ordinance, and staff recommended approval of that ordinance. Kathy Anderson _ stated th a t the ordinance is complete, and she was in favor of it. Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve the Ordinance and recommend to the City that the procedures and requirements for development agreements be enacted. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant Comm. Soulakis Comm. Brown Ms. Sapetto stated that the Resolution would read, "This is a Resolution of Adopting Ordinance 83-29" as worded by staff. Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to ado p t P.C. Resolution 8 3-29 a s worded by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18J 1983 ENABLING ORDINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (Cont.) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant Comm. Soulakis Comms. Brown, Shapiro COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Page 14 Comm. Shapiro questioned why the Planning Commission does not recite the Pledge of Allegiance before the meetings. Ms. Sapetto stated that it has never been the Planning Commission's policy to do so; however, it could be incorporated. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether there would be a meeting on the third Tuesday in December with the thought that it may be a hardship because of the holidays. Chmn. Izant stated that the meetings would be left as scheduled. Comm. Shapiro stated that he read an article in the October 18, 1983 Daily Breeze, Page Bl, that says, in effect, that all of the illegal immigrants should be sent to Lawndale, Torrance, or maybe even Hermosa Beach. He recommended that the City Council consider the action of the Redondo Beach Police Department concerning this problem. • Chmn. Izant stated that between September 1982 and this time, there have been no applicants who have appealed the Building Department's decisions regarding design review. Ms. Sapetto stated that sign review appeals go to the Board of Zoning Adjustments, and design review appeals go to the Planning Commission. STAFF ITEMS Ms. Sapetto informed the Commission of which items will be coming back before· the Commission. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Biltmore Site Committee will convene on October 19, 1983 at 4:30 P.M. and possibfy on October 27, 1983 at 4:30 P.M. to make a recommendation to the City Council on a particular developer. Ms. Sapetto stated that the City Council has appointed an Oil Recovery Investigation Committee to look at oil drilling in town. That Committee will meet on the first and third Thursdays of every month. Chmn. Izant is the Chairman of that committee, and Comm. Newton is on the Biltmore Site Committee. Motion to adjourn at 10:20 P.M. ... PLANNING COMMISSION MINlITES -October 18, 1983 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of t he meeting of October 18, 1983. DATE 11 /,1 /1:J Page 15