Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/05/05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 5, 1969 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, Macevicz, Stewart, Chandler, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: none. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Liuag, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Chandler) Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 28, 1969, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING AND PREZONING - "L" Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues (north 300') - R-2-A to R-3 - Charles and Barbara Offerman Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the properties in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The request is for prezoning to R-3, 18 parcels of R-2-A zoned land in the County and a rezoning to R-3 of two lots, presently in the City. No plans for the proposed development have been submitted; however, in a rezonin9 request, the applicant cannot ordinarily be held to his plans. Mr. Warren discussed a former rezoning request for this area made in 1965 to the County Board of Supervisors which was denied. He added that the new zoning ordinance sets up a procedure whereby a land owner can develop a deep lot with additional dwellings as long as the net density remains consistent with Ordinance requirements. This is done administratively rather than by variance. The subject property is a difficult piece of property to develop and perhaps some form of low-density multiple-family could be developed. This could be done by a subdivision map; however, any development proposed for this area would have to assure being compatible with the adjacent single-family use. The staff is recommending denial of the request and has presented findings for Commission consideration. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Gaylor L. Henry, attorney representing the applicants, from the firm of Miller, Evatt & Henry, San Diego Trust and Savings Building, San Diego, listed the name of his clients and the property ownerships on a plot plan which he circulated among the Commissioners. He submitted an aerial photograph of the area and noted the adjacent land uses, and the freeway interchanges. He pointed out that some of the homes fronting on "L" Street have to back up onto the street--this could happen with 8 or l0 homes here, but the best solution would be to approve the proposed development and have two or three curb cuts. Because of the time element, Mr. Henry claimed he did not get a chance to talk to all of the people involved in this request, and the Director's suggestion for the filing of a subdivision map seems to be a good solution. The applicants want to do something here that would be attractive and an asset to the City. He hasn't had a chance to explore with the Director of Planning the matter of filing a subdivision map. -2- 5/5/69 Mr. Lou Beran, real estate broker, stated he had specialized in the sale and develop- ment of R-3 zoned property for the last 15 years, and that this particular area was one of the best locations for a multiple-family development in the City. Speaking in opposition were: Eugene S. Mrowka, 438 Westby Street; Millard E. Showman, 410 "L" Street; John F. Garduno, 469 Westby Street; Gene E. Bauer, 441 Westby Street; Chester L. Coderre, 454 Westby Street~ and Lydia Coderre, 464 Westby Street. Their objections were: (1) it is inconsistent with the City's General Plan which delineates medium density housing for this area; (2) in 1965, a similar request was denied by the County Board of Supervisors; (3) the rezonin9 would be detrimental to the general welfare as the height and density permitted in this zone would be an invasion of privacy for the adjacent single-family residences; (4) the traffic on to "L" Street would increase tremendously--there could be as much as 500 vehicles using approximately 14 points of ingress and egress in a space of 1300 feet if this partic- ular area was developed with apartment units; (5) the people buying homes in the adjacent area invested their money in what they believed to be strictly a single- family residential zone--this proposal would not be compatible with this area; (6) there are thousands of acres of undeveloped land in the City that would be more suited to this type of development; (7) some of the property owners included in this request have no desire to have their properties rezoned or prezoned; (8) there would be a noise factor coming from the tremendous number of units that could conceivably be developed; (9) the schools in the area are presently operating at capacity level-- this development would overcrowd the schools; (10) a precedent has been set for this area--the County Board of Supervisors denied a similar request in October 1965; (11) most of the adjacent dwellings have the living area in the back--this proposed complex would invade their privacy. Mr. Henry, in rebuttal, stated that they would consider a lower density, such as, instead of one unit for each lO00 square feet of land area, they could go to one unit for each 2000 square feet of land area. As to the school problem, ~e main- tained that there will be children coming into this area, regardless of what proposal goes in, and the need for new schools would be handled by the local school authorities. He added that development of single-family homes in this area is not the answer--perhaps the answer is the filing of a subdivision map. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Letters were read from several of the adjacent property owners protesting this request. The City Attorney ruled that where letters are read and the person writing them is not present for cross-examination or rebuttal, it is proper to just note that the letters are received in opposition to the request. Chairman Hyde questioned the guidelines as set up in the new zoning ordinance for the development of deep lots. Director Warren explained the administrative provision which could take care of a certain number of units subject to certain conditions. This provision may be desirable for this area or it may not. -3- 5/5/69 Member Adams commented that development either of the single-family concept or the multiple-family would both be difficult. Mr. Warren related this proposed development to that east of K Street in which the developer put several parcels and developed it with multiple-family units of 1 to 4000 square feet of land area, and single-story. This concept was acceptable to the people in the area. Member Stewart suggested that if the developer desired to bring in a subdivision map or a planned unit development, the density be no greater than that existing in the County. He would favor consideration of all that property that could be included in this plan. Member Rice agreed, adding that the "D" zone should be imposed. Member Warren remarked that if the Commission were going to consider another density, they determine from the applicant an acceptable period of time and then continue the matter rather than reach that decision now. Mr. Miller claimed that he could not answer that right now. He would ask for a continuance so that he can get together with the people in the area and see what they want to do. He felt three months would be sufficient time to do this. City Attorney suggested that the hearing be then reopened and continued to this date, and the people in the area be notified of the next meeting. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) The public hearing be continued to the meeting of August 4, 1969, and the staff be directed to notify the people in the area of this change. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 648 Third Avenue - Communit~ Center - The Salvation A~ in a C-1 Zone Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The property involves two lots measuring 162.5' x 290'. The applicants will be developing a Community Center consist- ing of such uses as meeting rooms, chapel, game room, library, and outdoor recreation and basketball courts. They will eliminate the structures now on the premises. The staff is recommending approval of the request subject to certain conditions which he outlined and reviewed. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Hr. Bob LeBre, 1145 Fourth Avenue, member of the Chula Vista Advisory Board for the Salvation Army and a realtor, introduced Major Robert Yardley of the Salvation Army. Major Yardley discussed in detail the uses that would comprise the Community Center. He indicated that they haven't gone into any detailed study as to the exact needs of this particular area, but that the Center would serve a two mile plus radius. In answer to Chairman Hyde's inquiry, Major Yardley stated that there would be absolutely no retail sales of clothing or other merchandise on the premises. He added that they agree to all of the conditions being imposed by the Planning Department. As to the outdoor activities, these games would be over about 9:30 in the evening. -4- 5/5/69 Admiral Charles Whiting, Attorney-at-law, and also a member of the Phoenix Institute, owners of the adjacent property which is presently being used as a church site. He stated the dwelling has been used as an institute of learning--the Phoenix Institute-- and they are now in their third semester. They incorporated on November 30, 1967 for this purpose, and they are now formulating plans for their new buildin9 which will be their liberal arts college on this property. They meet from 9 a.m. to l0 p.m. almost daily. They still hold one religious service there on Sunday; however, the main service (ll a.m.) is so great that they hold this service in the Fredericka Manor Hall. Some of their classes consist of a period of meditation, and it would be impossible to conduct these classes next to a recreation center. They believe the Salvation Army could find another place in the community where there would not be an existing insitution already going in adjacent to it. They plan to raze the existing building and build the institution on this location. Mrs. Antoinette Ravalocci, real estate agent, declared that t~e City was fortunate to get the Salvation Army here. She felt the Phoenix Institute could construct their building in a sound-proof manner to shut off any noises that might come from this Center. Mr. Henry Willardson, owner of the Tree Haven Apartments on "J" Street, remarked that the majority of his tenants are retired people. The only objection he would have would be the noise factor, since noise can carry and it might interfere with his people. If the recreational activities were held indoors, there would be no problem. Mrs. Nelson, representing Lincoff-Mannis clinic, 685 Third Avenue, stated the doctors at the clinic are fearful of the particular uses that could occur at such a center. Specifically, they wondered if it would be a food distribution center, for one thing. Major Yardley refuted this, claiming they will not have a food line as such or sleeping quarters of any kind; it will be an office such as the doctors now have. Activities in the Center will be confined to the school children which will take place after school hours to early evening. Mr. LeBre maintained that at the time the church bought their property, there was a sign up next door s%ating the adjacent lot was purchased by the Salvation Army. He discussed the noise factor of the super market next door to the Tree Haven apartments, and then discussed the possible uses that could 9o into a C-1 zone. City Attorney Lindber9 stated that this was a request for a conditional use permit and not a rezonin9; the purpose of a conditional use permit was to be sure the use would be compatible to the surrounding area. Mr. Marshall Barlow, 647 Third Avenue, spoke in opposition, stating this use should be in some other location. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Adams felt this was a good place for the Salvation Arnty; it would have no detrimental effect on any of the adjoining properties. He would suggest the condi- tion be imposed that all outdoor activities cease at 9:30 p.m. -5- 5/5/69 The Commission concurred and added that the noise factor would be no greater from this Center than from any commercial use that could go in there. They felt that a lO p.m. curfew on outdoor activities would not be an imposition. Director Warren commented that the use of the adjacent dwelling was approved by the Commission for a temporary church site; however, with the use changed to the Phoenix Institute, a university, it goes beyond that originally approved. The staff will check into this. MSUC (Rice-Putnam) Approval of the conditional use permit request subject to the following conditions: 1. The outdoor basketball courts shall be screened from the adjoining residential property with a solid backdrop if said courts are used after da,vlight hours. No lighting shall be directed toward the residential area (subject to staff review). All outdoor activities shall cease at 10 p.m. 2. A preliminary plan shall be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to submission of plans for a building permit. The preliminary plan shall include: a. Parking layout. b. Preliminary landscape and irrigation plan (show existing trees on site and parkway treatment). c. Schematic building elevations. d. Activity layout of proposed uses. 3. Final landscaping and architectural plans shall be approved by the staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Any signs proposed shall require staff approval prior to being erected (maximum size 20 sq. ft.). Findings be as follows: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed facility will serve the Chula Vista area as well as the surrounding communities. b. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detri- mental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. No detrimenal use is proposed in the facility which would affect the safety, health, or general welfare of persons in the vicinity. c. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Code for such use. The use will comply with all Code regulations. d. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The General Plan is not affected by this use. -6- 5/5/69 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING - 574 and 586 "I" Street - R-2 to C-I - Harbor Management C_._oor~oration Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. The applicants are requesting rezoning from single- family residential to commercial (C-l) on five parcels of land located on the south side of "I" Street, 142 east of Broadway. The staff is recommending denial of the request since, in all probability, it would commit the remainder of the "I" Street frontage property between Broadway and Fifth Avenue to commercial zoning. Mr. Warren also cited the traffic congestion problem on "I" Street and the fact that further need for additional commercial zoning in this area has not been shown. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. James Pollack, President of Harbor Management Corporation, stated they proposed to put in a Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor and a Pie Shop on this location. He spoke against the reasons for denial stating that the General Plan, which delineates R-3 zoning for this area, is a plan which does not define absolute lines and should not be adhered to too strictly. He then discussed the existing shopping center and declared that many requests will be forthcoming for businesses that are attracted to this center and want to locate adjacent to it. Mr. Pollack added that "I" Street will be widened, and that some day, the entire frontage of "I" Street will be rezoned to commercial (between Fifth and Broadway). Mr. Wesley Garst, 625 Beech Avenue, questioned the possible location of the trash containers and the parking layout. He noted the number of ice cream businesses and restaurants in the area and felt there was no need for additional ones. Mr. Garst also mentioned the trash pickup for the DeFalco store which takes place on Sunday mornings and is quite noisy. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Putnam felt it was premature to grant this request at this time. Member Rice commented that he would like to see this business come in, but perhaps not at this particular location. The Commission agreed with the recommendations of the staff. MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Denial of the request for rezoning based on the following reasons: 1. The General Plan designates this area as high density residential which is equivalent to R-3 zoning. 2. Approval of this request would, for all practical purposes, commit the remainder of the "I" Street frontage between Broadway and Fifth Avenue to commercial zoning. 3. Need for additional commercial zoning in this area has not been shown by the applicant nor is it evident to the Commission. 4. Commercial development would compound the severe traffic congestion problem on "I" Street in the vicinity of the subject property, since full street widening would not be accomplished. -7- 5/5/69 - PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - 1423 Ocala Court - Reduction of rear yard setback from 20' to 11~ - R. Klopfer Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the property in question, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted that the lot measures 6000 square feet which size lot was reduced within this particular subdivision to provide open space adjacent to Greg Rogers Park. Partially because of the lot size, the applicants are faced with a limited area within which to build without encroaching into the rear setback area. However, even with their proposed addition, the total rear yard area that would be left will be in excess of the total area required by ordinance. The staff recommends approval and offers findings for Commission consideration. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. R. Klopfer, the applicant, stated this is a four-bedroom home; however, the rooms are quite small, and with three small children, they must provide for more room. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Putnam-Rice) Approval of the variance request. Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The primary intent of the 20' rear yard requirement is to provide a reasonable separation between neighborhood dwellings to afford the occupants "living space," light and air and a modicum of privacy. The distance between the neighborhood rear dwelling and the proposed addition would be 47 feet, a distance which would insure such privacy. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The lot is only 100' deep making any addition inflexible by maintaining a 20' rear yard. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. Adequate open space remains in the rear yard since approximately 1560 sq. ft. wou would exist, when the lot would normally have 1200 sq. ft. (60' x 20'). d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan would not be affected by this proposal. -8- 5/5/69 Move-In (Continued) - 196 East Oxford Street - Dale Hill Director of Planning Warren explained that he met with the owners of this proposed move-in, and reviewed the pictures. In its present form the building is not attractive, but frequently this is the case when these are moved-in; however, with Building Department requirements, they must bring the building up to Code and the buildings look a great deal better. In this case the staff would recommend approval subject to the condition that the building be painted the same color as the house. The Commission concurred. MSC (Adams-Chandler) Recommend approval of the proposed move-in of an accessory building to the southwest corner of Oxford Street and Monserate Avenue, subject to the condition that the building be painted the same color as the dwelling on the lot, and subject to any other departmental requirements. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Adams, Chandler, Putnam, Hyde, Stewart and Rice NOES: Member Macevicz ABSENT: None Subdivision - Holiday Estates, Unit No. 5 - Final Map Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map commenting that it conforms to the tentative map. The subdivision is located approximately 600 feet west of Hilltop Drive, bisected by Orange Avenue, lying south of the San Diego Gas & Electric easement on 19~ acres of ground and contains 158 lots. One of the problems to be resolved prior to Council action would be the treatment of the double frontage lots along Orange Avenue. The staff discussed the land- scaping with their architect and they are working on this. The staff would also suggest the design and construction of the fence along Orange Avenue be made subject to staff approval. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Recommend approval of the final map subject to the following conditions: 1. The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until corrections are made to the map in accordance with the check sheets, all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, agreements, deeds, letters, improvement plans and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. 2. The design and construction of the wall along Orange Avenue, plus the land- scaping, shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to Council approval of the final map. -9- 5/5/69 Design Consideration - Addition to Bi~ Apple Garden Shop - 475 "H" Street Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan of the shopping center noting the location of the proposed addition to the nursery. They will be eliminating parking spaces for this addition, which at the present time, is being used either for employee parking or not at all. There is no need for the spaces until such time as the market goes in. At one time the applicants attempted to expand this nursery northward adjacent to the building; however, the Fire Department objected because of the existing exit doors which made this proposed expansion impractical. The staff is concerned with the haphazard manner in which this particular nursery is growing; however, most of the objections are such that it will not interrupt the business. The staff recommends approval subject to a condition that the wire fence enclosing the nursery not exceed 9 feet in height. The Commission discussed various other locations for this proposed nursery, such as immediately adjacent to the existing one, northward beyond the fire exit door, or an inside nursery similar to the Sears store. Chairman Hyde discussed the original approval for this nursery and felt this was not enough to allow them to expand. This entire area is under the "D" zone control, aha at the time they requested the original permit they indicated that that would be the extent of their nursery operation. Member Adams discussed the outdoor storage of their materials and suggested continu- ance of the matter to the next meeting so that the applicants can inform the Commission as to whether or not they are going to provide warehousing for material presently stored outdoors. Member Stewart remarked that every nursery in the City has material stored out in the yards. MSC (Chandler-Macevicz) Addition to the Big Apple Shopping Center Garden Shop be denied based on the finding that it would be incompatible with the existing develop- ment, and that the proposed addition was not a well-planned one and would interfere with traffic flow. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Chandler, Macevicz, Hyde, Rice, Adams and Putnam NOES: Member Stewart A~SENT: None Member Rice questioned whether anything has been done with the service station lighting. Director Warren indicated he didn't know what the status was. They had agreed to do something about t~e bright lights; however, the staff will look into this. -10- 5/5/69 Requg.st for vacation of public right-of-way - First Avenue and Tobias Drive, south of Quintard Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat noting the areas requested for vacation. These are portions of public rights-of-way located on the east side of First Avenue, south of Quintard, east and west side of Tobias Drive, south of Quintard and the full right-of-way of Tobias Drive, south of Quintard, being the most southerly 430 feet, plus or minus. The Division of Engineering recommends approval of this request based on the fact that the right-of-way is not necessary for public improvements. MSUC (Rice-Adams) Recommend approval of the request based on the testimony of the Assistant City Engineer that the right-of-way is not necessary for public improvements and is in conformance with tentative maps of Kingswood Subdivision Units 1 and 2 now being processed through the City. Discussion - Setback alon~ Tidelands Avenue Director of Planning Warren explained that the Port District has advised the staff that there is no established setback on Tidelands Avenue. Rohr Corporation has now undertaken a five-year plan for this area and needs to know the setback requirements. The Port District Goes not regulate the setback, but some times, they do it through their leases; they would support any action the Commission and the Council would take. Mr. Warren submitted a general layout of the tidelands commenting that in the past, they had a 25' setback. He showed the proposed diagram of the 120' right-of-way noting that he declared if the City adhered to this cross-section a 20' or 25' setback would be superfluous. The right-of-way would be 120' wide with a center island of 18', 37' travel-lane,part of which will be parking,with 14' between the curb and the property line. The staff feels that a lO' setback here would be all that is necessary. The Commission could recommend to the City Council that they adopt a resolution estab- lishing this setback, and then send it to the Port District requesting that they uphold it. In answer to Member Macevicz's inquiry, Mr. Warren remarked that the new proposed zoning ordinance sets the setback at 20 feet. In this particular area, the setback should not be as great as the other streets. Mr. Howard Gesley, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the Commission should consider what the Council has adopted, which is a 100' right-of-way for this area. Director Warren explained that the Port District cannot explain the additional 14' they require. The Commission discussed various setbacks and generally agreed that if the right-of-way is 120', a 10' setback would be sufficient; if the right-of-way is 100', then the setback should be established at 20'. City Attorney Lindberg commented that the Port will be developing this area in accord- ance with what they believe to be their needs, and as long as they meet our minimum standards of right-of-way and what the City considers to be minimum on setbacks, how it is achieved is not important. -ll- 5/5/69 Member Rice questioned the City Attorney as to his opinion about a conflict of interest if he and Member Chandler voted on this issue. Mr. Lindberg ruled there would be none. MSUC (Stewart-Adams) Recorm}end to the City Council the adoption of a resolution to be sent to the Port District establishing the setback along Tidelands Avenue as follows: for a 120' right-of-way, the setback be established at 10 feet; for a 100' right-of-way, the setback be established at 20 feet. Discussion -Revised Budget request Director of Planning Warren commented that he has completed reviews of the budget with the Administration office. He discussed the changes in his initial requests and remarked that one concern was the denial of the request for a new Associate Planner. Approval was given to the hiring of a Junior Planner but this was not to start until January, 1970. The Commission felt t~ey should object to this since there will be a strong need for more planners if the 3100 acre annexation to the east comes into the City. Director Warren spoke of the needs in his department and the desire for this additional help, if they proposed to accomplish anything. He suggested that the Chairman speak on this behalf to the Council, if this is the desire of the Commission. MSUC (Rice-Macevicz) The Chairman present the position of the Planning Department to the City Council supporting the budgeting of a new Associate Planner position and that the Junior Planner be hired in~ediately and not wait until January, 1970. R_e.~uest for deferment of Public Improvements - Christies Restaurant - Broadway and E Street Director of Planning Warren explained that a request has been received by the owners of Christies Restaurant for a deferment of public improvements on their "E" Street property. The Division of Engineering is recommending approval of the request based on the property owner's problem in securing a contractor to perform this work. The staff agrees wi th their recommendation that the deferment be granted for two months, subject to the posting of a bond or lien. MSUC (Chandler-Putnam) Approval of the deferment of public improvements for two months or until July l, 1969, subject to the posting of a bond in the amount of $2200. Vacation of the northwest corner of Bonita Road and Willow Street Member Macevicz opened discussion on this subject which the Commission recommended for approval at their last meeting (April 28). He stated there are circumstances concerning this that have come up since this last meeting. Specifically, it concerns the turning radius at this corner. The Assistant City Engineer explained that this radius was established from dimensions given him by Chevrolet Bus-Truck Company. This was based on a regular school bus which seats 45 children. However, most of the buses being used today are the 92 passenger buses which cannot make this right turn without going into another travel lane. -12- 5/5/69 Director Warren commented that he could discuss this with the City Engineer, or he would suggest the Commission send this to the Safety Commission to investigate it, if they feel there is real concern over this. The Commission could recommend that the City Council direct the Division of Engineering to restudy this area and report to them. City Attorney Lindberg agreed, stating that the Division of Engineering should justify it clearly to the City Council. Director Warren indicated that the Commission should take the technical advice given them by the people who present these requests to them. He questioned the capability of the Commission as a whole to make a determination as to what the proper turning radius should be. The Commission discussed this, concurring that a recommendation should go to the City Council asking them to direct the matter to the Safety Commission prior to their action on the matter. MSUC (Macevicz-Rice) Amend the previous motion made on April 28, and recommend to the City Council that they direct the Safety Commission to study this proposed vacation ascertaining whether the radius is adequate for proper traffic movement. J~int Planning Commission-Ci.t~ ~.ouncil Meeting Director Warren reminded the Commission of the joint conference to be held on Tuesday, May 6 at 3:30 in regard to the proposed new zoning ordinance. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting to the joint conference to be held Tuesday, May 6, 3:30 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ssee~arM~ Fulasz