Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-04-06 PC MINS gMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, -CALIFORNIA April 6, 1964 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was held at 7:00 P.M. , in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above .date with the following members present: Stevenson, Comstock, Stewart, Johnson, W,illhite, Adams and Guyer. Absent: None. Also Present: Acting Planning Director Warren, Junior . Planner Lee, City Attorney Duberg and Principal. Engineer Harshman. . _ APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Guyer -- Johnson) Minutes of March'2 and March 16, 1964 be approved as mailed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Clarification of Previously Granted Conditional Use Permit - J.Bear - 496 Fifth Avenue Mr. Warren briefly explained the matter: On February 3, 1964, the Commission granted the conditional use permit to Mr. Bear permitting the use of the building at 496 F.ifth Avenue to be used for Medical7Doctor-offices. On March'.2, 1964, Mr. Bear requested a delay in a number.- of the conditions imposed and asked that the apartment residence, 496-A Fifth Avenue, be allowed, to continue as a residence. The Commission denied the latter request. Mr. Bear now asks if his original conditional use permit could be interpreted to permit the residence. City Attorney Duberg said he couldn't -see any reason why the applicant couldn't use part of this building for a residence, since the property is zoned R-3 and not commercial . Member Comstock-stated at the time of the hearing, the Commission-dis- cussed 496 Fifth Avenue and not.496-A F.ifth 'Avenue, with just one use for the structure- that of professional offices. He- added he,made his motion to this effect. Member Adams remarked that the Commission has always deemed it wasn't a good policy to have professional offices in the same building with residences. He cited two examples that had come before the Commission with this_ request and were turned .down. Mr. Warren commented that Mr. Bear had indicated it was an oversight that the request for Conditional Use Permit did not-specifically reserve 496=A for residential use; that the application did refer to 496 'Fi.fth Avenue. Mr.. Warren pointed out that the legal description defined the entire parcel . The Commission discussed the use and concurred it was not their intent at the time of granting this conditional use permit to allow any part of the building to be used for a residence. Vice-Chairman Stewart suggested a letter be written to Mr. Bear stating this decision. City Attorney 'Duberg felt it was not proper for the Commission to interpret its own ruling and suggested the Commission direct him to write the letter. Chairman Stevenson commented that he was absent the night of the hearing and as .he 'interprets the matter, the Commission is concerned about a joint use: office- and residential . He commented that in San Diego, there -were .several buildings where this use was enjoyed and stated he couldn't be convinced that this would be detrimental . Member Adams declared the policy the Commission pursued thus far was not to grant a residential use in a building of this type with professional uses. He added he felt this was a good policy., judging from the many cases that have come before the Com- mission. MSC (Comstock - Stewart) The City Attorney write a letter to Mr. Bear interpreting the action of the Commission in this matter. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Comstock, Johnson, ., Adams, Guyer and Stewart NOES: Member Stevenson and Willhite ABSENT: None Chairman Stevenson based his "No" vote on his interpretation that if the Commission approved a professional use in an apartment building, it would not necessarily mean that residential use should be discontinued. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING:' J. J. Murphy - 569 Park Way - Setback Reduction The application was read .in which a request was made for a reduction in side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet to allow for construction of a garage with a two bedroom unit overhead. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan explaining the location and the adjacent land uses. The applicant will have space to park six cars on the property for five units. Chairman Stevenson questioned the setback from the property line and asked if all the buildings were three feet. Mr. Warren stated the duplexes adjacent to this building were five feet from the property line. The Commission discussed the area the applicant needs for a proper turn-around. Member Willhite asked about the width of the building. Mr. Warren said it would be 22 feet. Member Willhite commented that ., a 20 foot building would take care of the automobiles, and then the second story can overhang two feet. This would allow a proper setback. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked if the drive would be .wide enough to provide access for fire-fighting equipment. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Junior Planner, stated that a suggested" amendment to the zoning ordinance would require a drive sufficient for this purpose. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. J. J. Murphy, the applicant, stated that the Planning Director had stated his case. Member Adams asked the applicant if he would consider the suggestion of Member Will- hite - a 20 foot wide building with the second story overhanging. two feet. Mr. Murphy felt this depth would not be adequate. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams commented that with a 5 foot setback, the applicant would have 23 feet to back his car up. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt this could be defined as a hardship, as the engineering standards specify a certain limit for a turning radius. -2- i - MSUC (Guyer Stewart) Variance be approved subject to the following condition: 1 . A 15 foot wide clearance shall be maintained along the driveway from front to rear of property for emergency vehicles. Further, findings be based on the following: r 1 . There are exceptional ci-rcumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intlan.ded use thereof that _do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same'.zone. The property is too narrow for the proper development of the use for which it is zoned and does not allow for proper vehicular maneuvering. 2. Granting this variance is `.necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of the applicant. This will allow proper interior development. 3. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property is located. The proposed building will be adjacent to buildings having the same reduction in'setback. PUBLIC HEARING: Gordon Pettit - 4080 Bermuda Dunes Place - Request to construct house with no garage. The application was read in which permission was requested to construct a single- family dwelling without a garage. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan -showing the location -of the proposed dwelling. He discussed the plans of the proposed residence, 'the storage area proposed and the parking area. The applicant stated he has no need for a garage and therefore didn 't plan one; however, Mr. Warren continued, our ordinance states he must have one, therefore, he is requesting this variance. This being the time and place as advertised, the hearing was opened. Mr. Gordon Pettit stated he was not aware of the requirement that he had to have a garage when his plans were drawn. He said he would compromise, however, and pro- vide a carport, if the Commission would allow. this. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson asked the developer of the subdivision, Mr. Walter Long, if this practice of omitting the garage would be gold for this subdivision, since it might set a precedent. Mr. Long stated he is building his own residence just two doors down from this one. He informed the Commission that they have their own architectural control whereby the proposed residents are required to have ample storage area, no visible clothes- lines, etc. He felt this applicant is providing ample storage area, and if others coming into this subdivision wished to build homes without garages, there would be no problem if they provided as much storage area and parking space as this applicant is proposing. Member Comstock stated the ordinance requiring garages has been in effect now for almost a year and, as stated in the application, Mr. Pettit purchased this property in December, 1963, he- should have been aware of this. Not building a garage would -3- also be unfair to the neighbors - they would have to look at all the cars parked in the area, and this would be setting a precedent that the Commission has been very strong about in the past. Mr. Comstock added that subdividers in the south- easterly part of the city were required to build garages , and he felt this applicant should do the same —more so, .since he is building in the Bonita area. Chairman Stevenson commented that the Commission must find an exceptional circum- stance in order to approve the variance. Member Comstock stated that, if they permit this, in this instance, they may just as well delete the ordinance from the books. Member Adams commented that someday, when this house is sold, the new owner will be coming in asking for a setback re- duction in order to build a garage. Mr. Pettit stated that the majority of the homes in Bonita now have carports and questioned whether the Commission wished to continue with an ordinance that would "change the character of Bonita." Vice-Chairman Stewart remarked that the Commission is required .to make an ordinance that fits the whole city, not just the Bonita area. He added that carports are unsightly - even in Bonita. MSUC (Adams - Comstock) Variance be denied for the following reasons: (1) no excep- tional circumstances could be found on which to justify granting this variance, and (2) by granting this variance, it would set an undesirable precedent. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING: Parking Requirements and Miscellaneous Items Mr. Warren 'stated the proposed changes were advertised in the local newspaper and copies were sent to the Commission. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, Chula Vista, developer, objected to the 12 to 1 ratio;,for parking spaces required for multiple units. He said this ruling was put into effect in the Los Angeles area and as a consequence, it drove business and population to other areas. The majority of one-bedroom rentals in Chula Vista range from $75. to $85. a month, and people renting these apartments are not the ones that can afford two cars. Mr. Ferreira declared this 12 to 1 ruling should not be "straight across the board," but it should be based on the number of bedrooms. . . .one bedroom might require 14 spaces, and so on graduating up the scale. Chairman Stevenson challenged this theory stating a couple, both working and having no children, would be the type to be renting a one bedroom apartment, and this couple could certainly afford two cars. He asserted that you couldn't designate the spaces according to bedrooms. Mr. Stevenson further stated that the staff had spent about four months researching this matter, and that they went to great lengths to come up with this plan. Mr. Ferreira felt the one-bedroom apartments would be rented mostly by ""teen-agers" (young marrieds) and if this ruling is enacted upon, it would cause the rentals to go up as much as seven to ten dollars a month. Mr. Kenneth Lee, Junior Planner, commented that the city of La Mesa set their parking standards according to the number of bedrooms, but that he could find no other cities -4- that did this. Mr. Warren stated that the standards vary greatly all around the County. It is very difficult to come up with something that is considered equitable to everyone. Member Comstock mentioned the apartments in his neighborhood which were required to have one parking space per dwelling unit. He said this was fine except when one of the tenants has a party, then cars are all over the street, blocking driveways , etc. He is in favor of leaving the 1 '-z to 1 ratio in the proposed changes. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Comstock declared he had a few comments to make on some of the changes: He questioned the first section (33. 10) pertaining to the double-faced or "V" shaped signs. Mr. Warren explained this and demonstrated it by sketches, stating the two sides would not exceed 24 square feet - (one sign not to exceed 12 square feet) . Member Comstock next questioned Section 33. 61-F, the statement whereby fireplaces or chimneys could project 24 inches to the side line of the building. He wondered how the fire fighting equipment would get in, since by this ruling, it would reduce the sideyard by 2 feet. Mr. Lee stated he had checked as manyas 30 zoning ordinances in order to get this ruling. Fireplaces were always allowed a 2 foot projection; however, with this ruling, they are merely limiting it to 10 feet in length. Fire Marshal Smithey stated the Fire Department had no objection to this , and felt it would not create any bad problems. The next comment Member Comstock had was in regard to the definition of a "junk yard.'.' He felt salvage items such as washers , machinery equipments ,, appliances, etc. , - should be classified in this category. Mr. Warren felt- that some of these could be construed as being incidental to a residential use. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt if they tried to make the changes more restrictive than that advertised, then they would have to hold another public hearing. Member Comstock commented that he just felt it should be spelled out in an R-1 and commercial zone. Mr. Lee stated the ordinance allows a "Junk yard" only in an M-2 zone, and any storage of materials in a commercial zone must be in an enclosed building. Member Comstock next commented on the requirement of a 20 foot setback to the garage. He felt this was inadequate and insufficient as most -people drive. right up to their garage door. and just leave their car there, projecting into the sidewalk. Member Comstock felt a minimum of 25 feet would be proper. He suggested the Commission omit this section (33.20) from the motion and hold a second hearing on this section alone. Mr. Lee .stated he found one other city using the 20 foot setback; however, he added many other cities may 'be requiring this in their subdivision ordinance or by reso- lution. He cited a parcel of land having a depth of 75 feet; if you take 25 feet off for a garage and 20 feet for rear yard setback, it doesn't leave you much to build on. Vice-Chairman Stewart said he felt they should compromise with the builders, and perhaps even check with the League of California Cities to find out how other cities do this . Member Willhite commented on the trapezoidal lot. He felt there may be problems when the rear lot line had a deeper and longer angle than the one sketched. An acute angle could move the midpoint way up. Mr. Warren felt this would be worked out when related with the adjacent property. MSUC (Adams- - Guyer) Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 301 City Council the Adoption of Various Amendments to Ordinance No. 398 and Chapter 33 of the City Code. Member Comstock voted "aye" with a reservation on Section 33.20. -5- RESOLUTION NO. 302 Resolution of the Planning Commission Adopting (Comstock - Guyer)MSOO- a Parking Table for all Parking Layouts SUBDIVISIONS Final Map - Bonita Cove Subdivision Mr. Warren submitted the final map, noting the location of the subdivision. He . explained that after the tentative map was approved, minor changes were made, 'thus the list of conditions is longer than usual . There was a problem of setbacks on the northerly tier of the lots, so the subdivider eliminated one lot and made the other lots more shallow. Mr. Warren added that the Commission may wish to consider a 10 foot setback on these lots instead of the 15 feet suggested. There still re- mains the problem of the 20 foot strip exclusion along the easterly part of the subdivision. ' According to the final map, the subdivider has excluded it from this map and will include it in the adjacent R-3 zoning. If the str.ip is to be excluded from this -subdivision map, Mr. Warren stated that a deed should be recorded showing it as part of the parcel contiguous to the east. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, presented thirteen recommendations and comments of the Engineering Department. Chairman Stevenson questioned the number of the conditions. Mr. Harshman remarked that he and the Planning Director had met with the subdivider and several points were eliminated; however, because of the long history of this subdivision, he felt the remaining conditions should be clearly defined. The Commission discussed the three parcels of land that would be excluded from the subdivision. Vice-Chairman Stewart contended that a deed should be recorded showing the legal title to these lots before this comes before the Council . Mr. Ferreira, the subdivider, said this would be no problem. Mr. Luedke, Engineer from Wittman Engineering Company, stated a deed has already been prepared on one parcel and they are contemplating dedicating the 20 foot strip parcel to the City. Mr. Warren warned the Commission against creating an illegal building site or parcel . Mr. Ferreira stated he was going to deed the small parcels to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Warren commented that there would be no problem presenting this to the Council with this number of conditions , as in his recommendation to the Council , he would explain that these conditions had been met, as they will be before Council action. Member Willhite brought up the question of the 15 foot easement for the sewer line leading to County territory. He felt the sewer should go in now, and not after the property owners have landscaped their property, or eliminate it. The Commission discussed the problem of the adjoining property owners in the County getting sewer. Vice-Chairman Stewart stated they must annex to the City before getting sewer. Mr. Harshman declared that, at present, there is no sewer on Hilltop Drive; they are all on septic tanks. He further added that this is a routine requirement for sub- dividers - extending streets, etc. , to their subdivision boundary. Mr. Ferreira stated he would like '`to see this easement eliminated. Mr. Warren asked the Commission for comment pertaining to the 10 or 15 foot setback on two of the northerly lots; that the suggested reduction was not necessarily in- tended to be a recommendation. Mr. Ferreira stated he would prefer to have the 15 foot front setback on all lots at this time, and if the need arises, he will request a reduction in rear setback at some later date. He further stated that he does not intend to build on Lot 1 and would request that the tree planting easement -6- be omitted from this lot. The Commission felt it should remain. MSC (Stewart - Guyer) That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the final map of Bonita Cove Subdivision with the following conditions: 1 . That portion of the subdivision presently within the County shall be annexed to the City of Chula Vista -prior to consideration of the final map by the City Council . 2. The title sheet, improvement plans and necessary calculations, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council . 3. An eight (8) foot tree planting easement shall be shown along the street frontage of Lot 1 . 4. Ten (10) foot width drainage easements shall be provided on Lots 21 and 30. 5. The existing easement held by California Water and Telephone Company along Hilltop Drive shall be shown. 6. The property line return at southwest corner of Hilltop Drive and Bonita Road shall be deleted. A separate deed for the offsite portion of the intersection shall be provided. 7. Technical changes and additions shall be made as indicated upon the Engineering check copy of the final map. 8. The triangular parcel adjacent to the west line of Lot 11 shall be deeded to the owner of the parcel contiguous to the south, and shall be recorded as part of that parcel . 9. The triangular parcel at the southwest corner of the subdivisi.on, having been excluded from the subdivision, shall be deeded to the owner of the property coni tiguous to the west and shall be recorded as part of that parcel . 10. A deed shall be recorded showing the 20 foot wide parcel excluded from the easterly edge of the subdivision as a portion of the property contiguous on the east. 11 . The following discrepancies from the tentative map are approved: a. The exclusion between Lots 1 and 2. b. The 20 foot wide exclusion along the easterly subdivision boundary. 12. The 15 foot wide sewer easement between lots 43 and 44 shall be eliminated. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Johnson, Stevenson, Willhite, Adams and Guyer NOES: Member Comstock ABSENT: None Proposed Sign for Bonita Cove Subdivision A copy of the proposed sign for the subdivision was shown to the Commission. -7- Mr. Warren stated specific approval is required as part of the Conditional Use Permit. The sign will contain 480 square feet. Mr. Ferreira discussed the content _ of the sign. MSUC (Johnson - Guyer) Acceptance of sign as presented. Palm Gardens - Final Map Mr. Warren reviewed the history of this proposed subdivision. About two years ago, the Commission approved a tentative map, and then extended it for one year last May. The extension expires in May, 1964. Mr. Warren noted the location of this subdivision as being in the path of the proposed extension of "H" Street. Normally, if a final map has met the conditions of the tentative map, approval is routine. Some time has lapsed since approval and in the interim, a General Plan has been ap- proved by the Planning Commission which calls for the extension of H Street. Since the Council has not yet acted upon the General Plan, he suggested that Commission action on this map be delayed. After Commission discussion, Vice-Chairman Stewart remarked that the City Council had previously agreed that it was not practical to extend "H" Street, and that they are the ones who should rectify the statement. Member Adams felt this map should be held in abeyance until such time as the City Council has acted upon the General Plan. Member Guyer agreed. Member Comstock commented this map should be held over for a month or two, since it was an unusual case; however, he remarked that numerous cases will be coming before the Commission now with points in opposition to the General Plan, and they will not be able to postpone all of them. Mr. Warren declared that since the Commission has adopted the General Plan, and it does delineate major street routes for certain areas , the Commission should insure that proper development occurs as is possible. The Commission discussed the Consultant's reasons for the extension of "H" Street. Member Johnson commented that no one voiced any objection at the public hearings to the extension of "H" Street. Chairman Stevenson declared that the Commission could do nothing until they heard from the City Council . Mr. Dale Horton, E1 Rancho Vista, owner and subdivider of the property, in clarifi- cation, stated the firm of Edwards, Craig, Welsch and Bartels were the engineers working on this subdivision and not Mr. Lane Cole as the newspaper erroneously printed. He added that with a 100 foot right-of-way for the road, plus slopes , room would not be left to build on. He is requesting a firm approval of the final map at this time, since, with the approval of the tentative map sometime ago, he feels he is on "firm ground" and does not need to provide for the extension of "H" Street, as the General Plan delineates. Mr. Warren said another extension of a period of one year may be allowed. City Attorney Duberg stated he would like to study the matter and report at the next meeting. MSUC (Comstock - Guyer) Consideration of the final map of Palm Gardens be continued until the meeting of April 20, 1964. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS -8- Street Name Changes - Princess Hilltop Subdivision and Orange Avenue Mr. Warren explained the need for the change of street names in the Princess Hill- top Subdivision. The present names were assigned while this area was still in the County and are erroneous as relates to City street names. Mr. Warren stated the staff would recommend the following changes upon annexation: Gallico Street to Olympia Court Remora Street to Oneida Court Lomax Street to Orlando Court Mr. Warren pointed out that there is a conflict of an existing Orange "Street" in the northern part of the City and Orange "Avenue'' in the southern part. The County and the City major street plans show.-Orange Avenue as west of 241 Freeway and Poggi Canyon Road as east of the Freeway. In order to have consistency, Mr. Warren stated the staff would recommend Orange Avenue be changed to "Poggi Canyon Road." This recommendation should be forwarded to both the City Council and the County of San Diego. MSUC (Stewart - Comstock) Approval of names as recommended by the Planning Director. r' Mr. Warren stated the extension of old "E" Street requires a new name. The Commission discussed this and it was suggested by the Chairman that the Planning Director suggest a name and present it to the Commission. MISCELLANEOUS Architectural Consideration -'.Residences in Bonita Verde Subdivision Mr. Warren submitted plans of two homes proposed for the subdivision. The con- struction of the first on Desert Inn Way will be of board and batten and stucco with shake shingle roof. The plans were presented by W. G. and H. L. Long, developers of the subdivision. The second home is the one proposed to be constructed by Mr. Gordon Pettit, on Bermuda Dunes Place whose variance to build this residence without a garage was denied by the Commission. Mr. Warren asked the Commission if they would accept this with a carport, instead of a garage, as Mr. Pettit had requested. Mr. Adams stated the ordinance does not allow this; carports were eliminated because they are always cluttered and unsightly. Mr. Warren suggested the Commission approve the plans subject to the provision of a garage. Member Comstock felt the approval should be withheld pending the plans for the garage. Member Johnson stated the "D"zone specifies that landscaping plans should be shown and questioned whether these plans delineated any. Mr. Warren reminded the Commission that they agreed at a previous meeting that landscaping on single family develop- ments was not an issue. Member Willhite agreed, stating they left this up to the Planning Director. Mr. Warren asked if he should require landscape plans or whether the Commission wishes the staff to administer this matter. Chairman Stevenson stated the Commission should hear about anything unusual going in, but otherwise felt the Planning Director could approve the landscaping. -9- Mr. Pettit stated he will not build his home with a garage. He asked that a carport be considered, as the majority of homes in Bonita have carports. City Attorney Duberg stated the Commission could not approve this based on a car- port rather than a garage. If the applicant wished to put a carport in, it requires approval by variance; the public hearing was opened and closed .as far as his variance was considered. Vice-Chairman Stewart said that the idea of a carport instead of a garage was in- troduced in the hearing but the Commission opposed this idea because it would be undesirable and unsightly. MSUC (Stewart - Adams) That plans for the two residences in the Bonita Verde Sub- division be approved with the condition that the home proposed by Mr. Pettit on Bermuda Dunes Place be built with a garage compatible with the architecture of the house; such compatibility to be determined by the Planning Director. Approval - Speedee-Mart Center - Telegraph Canyon Road at "L" Street Mr. Warren reviewed this matter, stating final plans were approved for this center at the meeting held by the Commission on February 3, 1964. At that time, the applicant thought he was going to build on a smaller piece of property. The Com- mission, at that time, required that written permission from the Standard Oil Company for westerly access to the Center be filed with the Planning Department. Mr. Warren stated he has that agreement. The applicant has now submitted a revised plan Mr. Warren noted the relocation of the sewer easement and the elevation of the buildings. The landscaping for this project was planned by Mr. Warren Purdy, -Landscape Architect. The only problem encountered was a small projection of the building over sewer easement, and according to the City Engineer, there should be no T projection of any structures over sewer easements. City Attorney Duberg stated an encroachment permit from the City Engineer must be obtained. Member Adams felt this should be made a condition of approval . Mr. Warren presented the following recommendations for approval : 1 . Parking area shall be surfaced and marked. 2. The property shall be landscaped, as is feasible, in conformance with plan on file. 3. Service area shall be screened from view; method to be approved by the Director of Planning. The Commission discussed the proposed uses of the building, noting this was a condition imposed on their original variance - that the uses were subject to Com- mission approval . r MSUC (Comstock - Stewart) Approval of revised final plan subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Director with the addition of the following conditions: 1 . The sewer easement, in relation to the building, shall be subject to the approval of the Engineering Department. 2. Final plans for the uses of the building shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval . -10- Request from Princess Park Estates for Model Homes - Princess Manor Mr. Warren stated the tentative map has been approved; the final map has not, as yet, been filed. The applicants would like to start building their model homes before the final map is approved. They sent a request to Mr. Fred Ross, and he in turn, referred it to the Planning Department. This request must have Commission and Council approval . Mr. Warren said the applicants are proposing ten model homes to be built somewhere in their subdivision. These homes will have routine inspections and final in- spection will be withheld until the homes are moved onto legal lots based on a final map. The applicants must build the homes this way because the final grades and final roads for the subdivision have. not been established. The Commission discussed the problems that may arise and future control over the final layout. Member Comstock discussed the possible illegality of this proposal. Member Adams stated that technically, the applicant has a 360 acre lot and could see no problem here. Chairman Stevenson declared a restriction of time should be put on these homes - once the final map is approved, the homes should be on legal lots. Mr. Ralph Spaid, Treasurer-Secretary of Princess Park Estates , asked that a period of four months be given. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked whether 180 days would be suitable. Mr. Spaid agreed this would be more suitable. MSUC (Stewart - Adams) Approval of the request to build ten model homes in the Princess Manor Subdivision. These homes -to be inspected by the Building Department as needed, with the final inspection being withheld until such time as the homes are on legal lots as defined on the final subdivision map. Approval subject to the following conditions: 1 . These homes shall be on legal lots as defined by the final subdivision map within 180 days of City Council approval . 2. Within this 180 day period, prior to final building department approval , the subdivider shall submit plans of the model home development for Commission approval . 3. Final agreement concerning this proposal to be approved by the City Attorney. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock - Johnson) Meeting adjourn to April 20, 1964. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary