Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1984/09/12 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, September 12, 1984 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of August 22, 1984 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Consideration of Precise Plan (P-84-14) for Chula Vista Woods subdivision with 110 manufactured homes (Continued) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-85-2, Request to construct 13 apartment units in C-N zone, southeast corner Hilltop and East Rienstra - Wayne M. Clark 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-84-6, Amendment to Title 18 of Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) adding new section allowing Planning Commission authority to approve tentative subdivision maps for one-lot condominium projects DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Joint Study Session Meeting with the Design Review Committee on September 19, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. in the Planning Department TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of September 12, 1984 1. P-84-14: Consideration of Precise Plan for Chula Vista Woods Subdivision of llO manufactured homes, Stafford/Gardner Development A. BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 1984, action was taken on the EIR, the General Plan Amendment, and the rezoning for the Chula Vista Woods property; ho~ever, the Planning Commission failed to take action on the Precise Plan which was includeo as part of that overall package. B. RECOIqNENDAIION Based upon the attached report and the findings listed therein, it is recommended that you adopt a motion recommending to the City Council approval of the Precise Plan for the Chula Vista Woods Subdivision subject to the conditions listed in the report. WPC 1273P City Planning commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 22, 1984 Page 18 2d. PUBLIC HEA, RING: P-84-14, Consideration of precise plan for the development of Chula Vista Woods Subdivision Stafford-Gardner Development A. BACKGROUND lhis item involves consideration of the precise plan for the Chula Vista Woods subdivision which is the preceding agenda item. The Environmental Impact Report is also an earlier item. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the precise plan for the Chula Vista Woods subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The development of lot lll and lot ll2 shall be subject to site plan and architectural approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to application for any building permits within the subdivision. 2. Fencing details including setbacks on individual lots shall be determined by the Planning Director upon application for building permits. 3. The architectural treatment for each unit shall be subject to Zoning A~mininstrator approval upon application for building permit, 4. The final site plan including the unit mix shall be subject to Zoning Administrator approval prior to approval of the final subdivision map. 5, The structures shall maintain a minimum level area from the top or toe of slope in accordance with Chula Vista Standard Drawing No. 20. The dwelling shall not be located closer than 5 feet to any retaining walt on the same lot, 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the developer shall provide the location of all above ground utilities (transformer boxes, cable t.v., etc.) and shall consider these items in designing the landscape and irrigation plan for the project. 7. The garages and driveways (both straight-in and curved) shall be so sited on each lot in such a manner as to maximize the nu~er of on-street parking spaces, 8. The entry road into the development shall be clearly identified as being a private road through the use of entry walls, signs and a different treatment of the paving. These details shall be submitted along with the details for the development of the recreation area. City planning Commission AgenQa Items for Neeting of August 22, 1984 Page 19 9. The curb on the si~e of the street where parking is prohibited shall be painteO red. 10. lhe 6-foot-high chain link perimeter shall not be installed until such time as it is determined that it is necessary by the Zoning Aoministrator. This condition ~oes not apply to the R.V. storage lot. The perimeter fencing shall be replaced with a wood fence where necessary. DISCUSSION 1. ProposeO development The developer proposes to develop the subdivision with manufactured houses consisting of three basic floor plans as follows: Unit (a) Bedrooms Floor Area Garage (bi Width Length 60'-0" A 2 864 s.f. 2 car 27'-10" 66'-6" B 3 1274 s.f. 2 car 27'-10" 69' 0" C 3 1125 $.f. 2 car 27'-10" - (a) There will also be reverse models including various architectural exteriors. (bi The garages will be constructed on-site. The units will have composition shingle pitched roofs (with eaves), a combination masonite siding and stucco exterior as well as wood trim and garage Odors. The recreation area lot (lot lll) is to be developed with a swimming pool and recreation building; however, at this writing, specific details have not been submitted. Specific details of the R.V. storage area (lot ll2) have also not been submitted, but is intended to be fenced and lighted. A 6-foot-high chain link fence is proposed on the perimeter of the subdivision wi ti) 6-foot wood fencing between lots and a 4-foot fence at the top of slope along tile rear for most lots. The fencing along the front of each lot will also be wood (this fencing plus the area between the fence and the private steer will be maintained by the owner's association). 2. parking As indicateo earlier, each unit will have a two-car garage; however, parking will be permitted on only one side of the private street. The number of spaces on the street is depenUent on the lot width and location of tile Uriveways. Under the present plan approximately 82 parking spaces can be accommodated on the street which is less than a one-to-one guest parking ratio normally expected in conventional single-family areas. It is believed that the number of spaces on the street can be increased by paying close attention to the siting of each structure and location of the driveways. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for ~eting of August 22, 1984 Page 20 D. ANALYSIS The plan as submitted lacks the specificity normally required of most precise plans. This is due in part that the development is actually a conventional single family development rather than a planned unit development. The main reason for the precise plan submittal is to determine the aoequacy of the subdivision map to accommodate the manufactured units on the small er lots and the effect of the reduced setbacks on the private streets and livability of each lot. After reviewing the precise plan and tentative map, it is the staff's opinion that the project should be allowed to continue to the next step in development, that being the submittal of more precise information prior to approval of the final map and issuance of any permits. lhe conoitions as proposed will address this more specific review at a later date. E. FINDINGS 1. That such plan will not, under the circumtances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; The circulation system and lots have been designed to accommodate the proposed units. The conditions of approval will insure that the development will create a livable environment. 2. That such plan satisfies the principles of the application of the P modifying district as set forth in Section 19.56.041; The proposed development is in accordance w~th the precise plan standaros established with tile rezoning ot this property. 3. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the P precise plan medtfying district; No exceptions are proposed which deviate from the requirements of the underlying zone and precise plan standards. 4. That approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the adopted policies of the city. Time project is in keeping with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. WPC ll61P NAPLES ROGERS ST. GREG ROGERS PARK I PROJECT wc L City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of 9/12/84 Page 2 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-85-2; request to construct 13 apartment units in the C-N zone at the southeasL corner of Hilltop Drive and East Rienstra Street W.~_yne M. Clark A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a 13-unit apartment complex on a 32,500 sq. ft. parcel located within an existing shopping center at the southeast corner of Hilltop Drive and East Rienstra Street in the C-N zone. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the Negative Declaration issued on IS-80-53 for a previously proposed 12-unit condominium project on the subject property. On August 30, 1984, the ERC determined that the document was adequate for the proposed project and recommended that the Negative Declaration be readopted. B. RECO~IMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-80-53. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to deny the request. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-1 Castle Park High School South C-N Office building East R-1 Single family dwellings West C-N Service station & retail commercial 2. Existing site characteristics. The project site is a vacant 32,500 sq. ft. (0.75 acres) parcel located at the northeasterly corner of an existing 2.5 acre neighborhood commercial center, lhe center is comprised of five separate parcels located at the southeasterly corner of Hill top Drive and East Rienstra Street. Three of the parcels front on Hilltop Drive and are developed from north to south as follows: service station; retail commercial structure; and, a vacant store (formerly 7-11 store). The fourth parcel is a landlocked lot located at the southeast corner of the center and is developed with an office building. This parcel receives its access via easements from both streets across the adjoining parcels. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of 9/12/84 Page 3 The subject property has approximately 130 feet of frontage along the south side of East Ri enstra Street and extends southerly to a depth of approximately 250 feet. The property has been previously graded. There is an existing 2 to 1 down-slope bank along the easterly portion of the site as well as the northerly street frontage. The westerly 25 feet is a paved road easement serving the adjoining commercial properties. Other easements include a 15 foot wide slope easement along the easterly property line for the adjacent single family as well as a 7.5 foot SDG&E easement also located along the easterly property line. 3. Development history. lhe subject property was annexed in 1964 and zoned R-1. It was subsequently zoned C-1-D (Limited Commercial with Architectural Control) in 1965 and rezoned to C-N in 1966. The entire 2-1/2 acres remained vacant until 1968 when a proposal was submitted to divide the property into 3 parcels for the development of a service station at the northwest corner and a convenience store (7-11) at the southwest corner. An overall plan was submitted for the remaining parcel to be developed at a later date. Although both the Planning Commission and the Planning Department expressed concern over the piecemeal development of the center, the two uses were approved. Since that initial approval the site has been further divided and an office building and a retail structure built on separate parcels. The subject property is the only parcel left undeveloped. In May of 1978, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for the site to build a racquetball facility. The permit was never used and has since expired. In June of 1980 the applicant was granted a conditional use permit (PCC-80-17) for the construction of a 12-unit condominium project on the subject property which was allowed to expire. ?he project consisted of three structures of four units each. Two of the structures were two stories, whereas the third was split-level, two and three stories in height. Each unit was to be constructed over a two-car garage leaving 24 spaces in garages. No open parking was proposed, lhe Planning Department had recommended that the request be denied. The Commission action was a reversal on a 4-2 vote with one absent. 4. Proposed development. The proposed development consists of 13 two-bedroom units housed in two structures. The most northerly structure is two stories in height and contains eight units, lhe other structure is a com~ination one- and two-story building with five units, a storage room and a laundry. The parking (23 spaces) is all open and located to the west and south of the southerly building. Three guest parking spaces are proposed on East Rienstra Street. Each unit will have a private balcony or patio with adjacent private storage. The design of the buildings is contemporary architecture with composition shingle pitched roofs and a combination exterior siding of stucco and wood. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of 9/12/84 Page 4 D. ANALYSIS Since the buildings were erected in the center, there has been concern over the piecemeal building approach which has made the rear parcels near the easterly property line undesirable for retail commercial uses. lhis could have been avoided if the center had been developed in accordance with the original overall plan. However, parcels were split off, sold, and developed independently leaving the less desirable parcels vacant. Residential development within the C-N zone is provided subject to approval of a conditional use permit and density limits within the R-3-G district regulations which allows one unit per 2500 sq. ft. (17.4 DU's/acre). The 13 proposed units is the maximum number of units permitted based on the overall lot size; however, approximately 7400 sq. ft. of the lot is encumbered by slopes resulting in a density of slightly more than 22 units per acre on the usable area (0.58 acres) of the parcel. The usable open space complies with the City's ordinance requirements; however, the project is extremely small making it difficult to achieve a self-contained residential atmosphere in the rear of several commercial buildings. Retail commercial development typically requires good primary street exposure which this parcel lacks. While the site fronts on East Rienstra, it is below the level of the street which carries approximately half the volume of traffic of Hilltop Drive (6000 daily trips). Uses which could conceivably do well, however, are office uses or specialized service/recreation commercial activities similar to the once proposed racquetball facility. Those uses are not so dependent on street exposure. Approval of this request would serve to further isolate the existing office building in the center which could be enhanced by other office construction. The lack of development on the site tends to indicate little or no demand for additional office space in this area. There is little opportunity to screen the proposed residential development from the rear of the commercial development because the intervening area,must be kept open for access to the adjacent commercial uses. Thus, in the opinion of the Planning Department, a satisfactory residential environment cannot be created. Further, the construction of a residential complex, as proposed, would substantially reduce any redevelopment possibilities to convert the existing commercial uses into a well planned shopping center to serve the neighborhood. For these reasons, the staff recommends denial of the request. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or faclltty which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the commmnity. No evidence has been presented which would indicate that the proposed use is necessary or desirable at this location. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for )teeting of 9/12/84 Page 5 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use would further isolate the existing office building and disrupt the commercial continuity. It would establish 12 housing units in an area having a poor residential atmosphere and would inhibit the proper redevelopment of the area as a commercial center. 3. That the proposed use will comply wi th the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The project meets the R-3-G regulations as required by Code. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The area of the neighborhood center is less than the desired 5 acres. Approval of this request would further reduce the area available for commercial use. WPC 1276P/OO15Z CASTLE PARK. HIGH I I TDF ----J I MFD I ~ ~"F'- --'---' I - MFD LOCATOR  PCC-85-2 ~, $. E. CORNER OF RIERSTR~. & HILLTOP The City of Chula Vista Planning Department 69~- 5101 August 30, 1984 Wayne M. Clark P. O. Box 1092 Bonita, CA 92002 Dear Mr. Clark: The Environmental Review Section of the Planning Department has completed your requested review of Negative Declaration (Case No. IS-80-53) which was issued for a proposed 12-unit condominium project'near the southeast corner of East Rienstra and Hilltop Drive. This was in conjunction with your proposed project which would increase the density by one unit from 12 to 13 units. Section 15.162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provide that where a Negative Declaration has been prepared no additional document need be prepared unless: 1. Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous Negative Declaration; 2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken.which will require important revisions to the Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in the previously prepared Negative Declaration; 3. New information of substantial importance to the project has become available and that information was not known and could not have been known at the time of the completion of the previous Negative Declaration, and that information shows that the project could result in one or more significant effects not previously reviewed, previous effects will be substantially more severe, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be infeasible. Wayne M. Clark August 30, 1984 Page 2 It is hereby found that none of the above circumstances exist and that the previously prepared Negative Declaration (IS-80-53) is an adequate finding of no significant environmental effects for the project as currently proposed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 691-5101. Sincerely, DDR:jo ~' ' ' L CONDITIONED [. NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: RIENSTRA CONDOMINIU~LS Project Location: Near southeast corner of East Rienstra and Hilltop Drive Project Proponent: Wayne Clark CASE NO. IS-80-53 DATE: March 27, 1980 A. Project Settin~ The proposed project involves 32,500 sq.ft, of property located on the south side of East Rienstra Street and approximately 150 feet east of Hilltop Drive. The site is currently vacant with the exception of a 20 foot access drive running north and south across the wester%y side of the property. Castle Park High School is located to the north, single family dwellings are located to the east, an office building is located to the south, and retail commercial uses, along with a service station, are located to the west of the site. The site is generally void of any significant vegetation or wildlife, although the existing slopes have been planted with erosion resistant plant materials. There are no significant natural or manmade resources present. Existing slopes on the property may be subject to landslides and there are expansive soils present on the site. There are no known faults in the project vicinity. B. Project Description The applicant proposes to construct three condominium structures containing 12 total units. One building is approximately 34 feet high and two buildings are approximately 28 feet high. The proposed density is 16 dwelling units per acre. Twenty-four parking spaces have been provided within garages. C. Compatibility with zoning and plans The General Plan land use designation Js !'Retail Commercial" and the present zoning is C-N (Neighborhood Commercial). The zoning ordinance allows multiple-family or condominium development in the C-N zone subject to approval of conditional use permit by the Planning CommissiQn. D. Identification of environmental effects Geology · T~e potential for landslides on the existing slopes may be present. These slopes, created by previous grading for the adjacent residential development, should be examined for potential hazards. A soils report should be prepared and all recom- mendations incorporated into the project to ensure slope stability. IS-80-51 -2- Soils The Engineering Department for the City of Chula Vista has indicated the potential for expansive soils on the project site. A soils report should be prepared and all recommendations incorporated into the project to ensure stable construction. Schools The local elementary school, Loma Verde Elementary, is presently operating over capacity. The current capacity totals 560 students and the current attendance is listed as 569 students, 9 above capacity. The project is estimated to generate a total of 5 elementary school children. A letter from the school district giving assurance that adequate facilities are available for this increase will be required prior to development. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant impact 1. A soils report shall be prepared and submitted addressing the potential for landslides on existing slopes and overall soil conditions on the site. All ~ecommendations shall be incorporated into the project to ensure stable slopes and construction. 2. Written assurance from the school districts indicating the adequacy of school facilities shall be received by the City of Chula Vista prior to development. F. Findings of insignificant effect 1. The project is void of any significant natural or manmade resources, although the potential for landslides and expansive soils are present on the project site. The effects of these potential hazards can be mitigated to a level of insignif- icance by the previously mentioned mitigation measures. 2. The level of impacts due to the project are small and no cumulative impact on natural or manmade resources is anticipated. The project will not achieve short term benefits to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. Visual impact due to the height and siting of the structures will be addressed through review by the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee, and the project will not result in any impacts which could interact to create an adverse cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The project will not cause the emission of any hazardous substance or significant noise which could adversely effect human beings. IS-80-51 -3- G. Consultation City of Chula Vista D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Bill Ullrich, Associate Engineer Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Gene Grady, Director of Building and Housing Merritt Hodson, Environmental Control Commission Steve Owens, Applicant's agent and designer Documents City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance (Title 19, Municipal Code) The Initial study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA. REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 3 (rev. 5/77) CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS I WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING l COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Wayne ~. Clark Carol H. Clark List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Wayne ~. Clark Carol H. Clark 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. N/A 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes× No ... If yes, please indicate person(s) Mr. Will£am Cannon Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc-6E-~T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.).~~. ~.~ (~/~.~)/ Signature of applicant/date WPC 0701P ~ayne I~. Clark A-1lO Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 12, 1984 Page 6 3. PUBLIC )~EARING: PCA-84-6 - Consideration of amendment to Title 18 of the Municipal Code to allow Planning Commissiof, approval of tentative maps for one-lot condominiums A. BACKGROUND On July 16, 1984, the City Council accepted the report on the land development process in the City of Chula Vista. The report recommended several changes to help improve or expedite the development process. One such change was to allow the Planning Commission to approve tentative maps for one-lot condominiums which is the subject of the report. B. R£CONMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending Title 18 (Subdivision Ordinance) as shown on attached Exhibit "A" allowing the Planning Commission to approve tentative maps for one-lot condominiums. C. DISCUSSION At the present time, the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 18 of the Municipal Code) places the authority to approve, conditionally or disapprove all tentative subdivision maps with the City Council. The State Map Act allows this authority to be vested with either the advisory agency or the legislative body, ~hich are the Planning Commission and City Council respectively. Therefore, the present Code regulations are by choice and not required by the State. Tentative maps for condominiums are primarily for the purpose of selling individual units within multiple family projects which have previously received or are in the process of receiving site plan and architectural approval and meet the requirements of City for condominiums regarding storage and private open space. Having met these requirements, the tentative map becomes a technical formality. Since tentative maps for one-lot condominium projects are relatively simple, review by both the Planning Commission and City Council is not necessary. The staff is recommending that the authority to act upon these maps be vested with the Planning Commission with appropriate appeals to the City Council. This is consistent with Council direction and discussion which took place at the July 16, 1984, workshop. AL:fp WPC 1258P EXHIBIT IIA" PCA-84-6 Proposed Revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance Relating to One-Lot Condominiums SECTION I Amend Title 18 of the Municipal Code by revising Sections 18.12.080 and 090 as follow, s: 18.12.080 Planning Commission - Review and report duties. The Planning Commission shall consider the tentative map as submitted by the subdivider together wit)) the recommendations prepared by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning. The Director of Planning may, with a minimum of three working days notice, require that all or any part of the boundaries and/or streets of a proposed subdivision be flagged at the site to facilitate any field review of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall report, in writing, on the map of any subdivision submitted to it ~ithin fifty days after the tentative map has been filed and the report shall recommend approval, conditional approval or disapproval. (Exception: See section 18.12.150 one-lot condominiums.) The number, size and configuration of lots to be created and the alignment and width of streets and easements shall be clearly depicted upon the tentative map prior to approval by the Planning Commission. Conditions to make the map approvable which involve modifications to lots in terms of number, size or configuration, or to streets in terms of alignment or width may be set forth by the Commission for the guidance of the subdivider. However, when such conditions are substantial, the Committee may require that these changes be incorporated upon a revised tentative map and returned to the Director of Planning who shall have the authority ~of approve the revised tentative map on behalf of the Planning Commission the map is clearly in conformity with the conditions establish, ed by the Commission. The Director of Planning may, at his discretion, require that the revised map be submitted to the Commission for approval in any instance where the map is not clearly in conformity with such conditions. (Ord. 1369 (part), 1971: prior code § 28.205(4).) 18.12.090 City Council - Approval or disapproval authority. Within ten days or at its next regularly scheduled meeting after receipt of the report of the Planning Commission on the map, or upon appeal the City Council shall act thereon. If the City Council finds that the proposed map complies with the requirements of this chapter, it shall approve the map. If the Council finds that the proposed map does not meet the requirements of this chapter, it shall conditionally approve or disapprove said map. (Ord. 1369 (part), 1971: piror code § 28.205(5).) Section II - Amend Title 18 of the Municipal Code by adding thereto a new Section 18.12.150 as follows: 18.12.150 Planning commission - Approval or disapproval of one-lot c on domi n i um projects - Appea I lannin Commi ~~--cO~n~dO~m-in~ u~m ~he pro osed ma compl!es ~omml ss map. The decision of the Plannin Commission is final unless ap ealed to the Cit_ye ~nts. Ad di ti on s Deletions WPC 1125P -2-