HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1966/12/19 MI NOTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEEltNG OF ~'hE
CiTY PLANN!NG COMMISSION OF C~ULA VISTA CALIFORNIA
December 19, 1966
The regular adjourned meeting of the Cit:v Planning Commiss:o~' of Cnula V sta
was he~,d on the above date in the Council Chamber~ Civic Cente', at ? p~m.
members pre~ent: Stewart., '~ork~ Greg$on, Rice, Adams; and Gu~er. Absent:
present: Associate P~anner Maogane~?~ ~un~or Planner Lee~ C~ty Atto. ~e¢
Principal Eng(neer ~arshman.
STATEMENT
~he Secretary of the Commission hereby ~:tates that she d~d po~t~ ~ ~ n 24
adjournment as required by law~ the order for the sdjourned meeting of December
APPROVAL OF M~NUTES
MSUC (Adams-Vork~ Mtnutes of Decembe- 5~ ~966~ be approved, a~
PUBLIC HEARING: Propo'~ed Permaner~t Zoning of Elks-Telegraph Canyon Annexation to R-1-D
Associate Planner Ma~ga~e~ submitted a plot pla~ noting ~h~ ~ce~)'~ o~
which conta~ ns ~0~09 acres. He noted that the Chu e ~s~a E:;k~ Lodg~ ~ ~oca:=J
most of this iar, d. At the time of annexation0 the Comm"s~or. rdc)mmended to
Council ~hat the area be prezoned R,-,i-D~ and it: s now t~me t: pe'-,~e~ zone
annexatlon~ The "0' zone which ~s attached to th~s area v, ~ g ~e t,e Corn'
over the parking ~ayout and !and~cap~ng.
Cha rman Stewa,t aid he vls ted tne ~, te and wou~d suggest t~,st 'he [)m~',:~
that the parking ~pace5 be strtped.
Mr. Maogane]]~ ~nd cated that th~s would be contro,Jed unde~ t~e 'D" zo~
Member Gdyer questioned ~e t~ang~eishaped parce~ north of ]elegr:p~: (~): Ro~e~
Mr. Manganel!~ stated tha~ ~t was part of th s property and co't~'~ :: rt~
square feet which ~s a lega: s~ze lot' however, there are p~an~ t) w:,de-
Road and par~: of ~h~s property w ]~ no doubt, be taken ~or th~
Membe- ~ork commented that this s a problem that w~ have to be worked o~t ~
t~me of the street widening ~f the ~ghway Department acou~re~ t~- ~nd Oy :
~t would eave the owner w"th an ~!~ega] s~ze ~ot~
This being the t~me and p]ac:e a': advertised the publ:c he~r~ng wa~
There being no comment,, ~ther for or against the h~ar~g was declared
RESOLUT;ON NO. ~37 Resoiut~on of the C~ty P~ann ng Com~ ~(r Recomm~,~d '9
MSUC (Guyer~Adam~} the C~ty Councl] the Perm~'~ent Zo~rg for t~ E~ks'~e
Canyon An~nexatlon to
Findings be a~ follows:
a. The General P,]aq designates th~s area a~ med dm density re; de~t =: ~. ch
to the R'~ c~as~if ,:~t~o~
bo The assignment of any other less restr~ct:~ve classification would stimulate, reque~t~
for s~m~lar zonir~g along the south s~de of Telegraph Ca~yon Road°
Co Sound planning principles would dictate that access to Telegraph Canyon Road be
to a min~mdm s~nce it [s designated as a major thoroughfare ~ the R-I c!ass~f]catior:
on this area wouid insure this,
d. The "D" suppiementaJ zone while having ~it:t]e control over the architecture of the
already comp!eted bu~ld[ng~ WOuld insure that the C]ty had some control over the
landscaping and parking arrangement on the s~teo
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance -Time Sav:n~s and Loa~ ~ 275 Woodiawn- Request for R-3 Use in
C'2 Zone
The app!ication was read n which a request was made for permission to construct ~ 20~unit
apartment bui!d]ng~ an R-3 use on property zoned
Associate Planner M~ngane:!~!~ ~ubm~tted a plot p!an noting the Joc~tion and adjace~
use° He noted that the p~operty has 100' of frontage on Woodlawn A~enue and measdre~
200' deep° Although thls area is zoned C-2 (heavy commercial) the Commission did grant
a variance fo~ mb~t~P~e-fami y use for the parcel on the south and east; thi~ ~as based
on the ex!sting iand u~,age of the surrounolng area and the fact that the Genera! Plan
designates nigh der<ity residential for this area. Mtn Manganel'li noted another pint
plan which dei~r~eated the park,ing layout and the building remarking that th~s bu;!d;ng
will be simlJar to ~he o*h,~rs Jn the area, beJng bu1!t by the same contractor°
Th~s being the t~me and p'iace a~ advertised, the public hearing was opened°
Mr. Leo Myzak the deve!oper, stated he bu~tt the un[ts south and east of ~h~s s!te ~'d
also has an off;,:e bu!!d!ng abouz one-half mile from this iocat~on° ~e stated that t~:ey
have found t~8t apartments were very good in th~s locatJon, and asked that the Comm~n
grant their
There be~ng no further comment, e~ther for or aga~nst, the hearth9 was declared
Member York deciered that he reit t~e ~rea was not suitable For C-2 use, as it was zomeo
that the Genera] PJan oes~gnates it for h;igh-densJty.
Member Guyer agreed, adding that it was a perfect spot fo? this type of deve!opmenr°
Member Adams comme~ted that if the new zoning ~rdinance was o~ ;ke books~ rezoeing for
this deve!opme~t co,:id t~ke place immedqatelyr however, since ':t !s not on the book~,
the Commission ~hould do something ~or th[s property owner so that he co~ld proceed.
MSUC (Adems'R'~c~;~ Ap~',,~-~, ~ variance sdbject to ~e following copditiors;
1. A six foot: (6~)kigh so'l!d wall be constructed along the northerly property ~ine of
the property -reduce to 42" in front yard - 15~ from the property line.
2. Detailed ar:k;tectura't and landscaping plans (includlng the area between the s~;dewaik
and curb) be ~ubm~tted to the PJannlng D~rector prior to issuance of a bu]'idir:g perm;t~
3. Any perm~eent ~ig'~ to be erected on the property must be approved by the Planning
staff a~d conform to R-3 reguiatioi°is concerning maxlmum size.
4. At !eas* three (3) ~+ rrees be planted in the parkway (subject to staff approva
5, A mlnJmum of s]x (6) parking spaces shall be plainly and permanently marked
or "guest parking." (Location subject to staff approval).
Findings be as
I. That the~e are practica! differences and unnecessary hardships w~t~i:~ the meanii~g
of Ordinance NOo 398 as amended which would *esu!t in the strict compS!at,ce of the pro-
visions of said ord~nanceo So stated as delineated below.
2. That there are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to tke prop£,ty
herein ~nvo!ved or the !nteaded use thereof that do not apply generally to property
class of uses in the same zone. The entire property ~s zoned C'-2~ yet the maJority of
uses in the 6rea are residential ~n character. The General Plan ca!is fo~ k~g~.der~i?y
use in this area, yet because of the zoning that now exJsts~ the applicant is dap:ired
of the opportun?ty to carry out the goals of the plan. A new zoning class~f!car[on
under study w~l! a!!ow proper mu!ttp!e-family development of this a¢eeo
3. The grant[ng of such variance is necessary for the preservation o~ t~e sbbstan[!~l
property right of the appJicant. Unless the applicant Js granted a v,~r~ce. Pe ~
deprived of the opportun!ty to develop his property with the uses ~h~c~ pfev~;i on
adjacent propertie~.
4. 7he granting of such variance w~]! not be materially detrimental to t~e pbblic
or injurious to the property improvements ~n the zone or dJstr~ct in I~hick ~;d p~ope~t¥
is located since most of the adjacent property is now developed resldent~ally or
vacant.
Request for Extensfon of Time - Variance at 8i9 Fourth Avenue i Mo
A letter from Mr's. Bag~alt was read in which she requested an extens]oe o~ th,ce 3i
years or more on her variance which expires December 18, i966o
Associate Planne~ Mangane:!i stated that the original var!ance was ~pp'o~ed ~y
CommJsslon o~ December 18~ 1961 and e~tended for three years or November !8~ "963.
orJglna! variance was for ten apartment units, six of which have bee-
Chairman Stewart quest!oned whether the parking meets the pre~e~t C~t'y
Mr, Lee, Junior Pl~q~er, declared Jt does not - that the ratio for pa~:[ng w=- i to ,
at the time Mrs° Bagna!l was granted her variance; ~owever, any new ~.r:!ts wou~d
to meet the !½ to I parking requirements.
Associate Planner Manganelll noted on the p!ot p!an and on photos that t~e applica--
has suffJcJer~t space on the prem;~es tO meet th]s stanoard.
Member York asked ~f tt woblo be approprJate to condlt[on the extension on the fac'
she would have to provide the !½ to I parking spaces for the entire site.
C~ty Attorney L~ndberg stated it would not without holding anotr er public heari-~g~
whou!d be without cost to the applicant.
Member York deciared that the present parking was inadequate; that although the d,
easement, and the required s~x parking spaces were paved~ there ]s an area to the
which is not Raved a~d which is be[ng used by the tenants for parkirg. ~e wo~!ld
see the c:ondi'tion imposed that paving for !½ to I ~:paces De required for the
already built.
Chairman Stewart fe!T thls would not be fair even though there ;s this qeed became
it would be retroact;ve.
The City Attorney stated that this should be str!ctly a determinat~o~ of the Commissiom,
although the normal variance situat!oo would ailow the matter to run for the I~fe of the
!and~ and an extension wou~d not be necessary~ to impose conditions now w~thout a pubiic
hearing wodld not be proper,
MS (Adams-York) Caila public hearing for the next meeting - January 4, 1967, to coo-
sider imposing the ii to 1 parking spaces for the entire s~teo
The motion Cai!ed to carry by the ~o!iow~ng vote~ to-w~t~
A~ES~ Members Adams Yo~k
NOES: Members Guyer~ Gregsorl Stewart~ and ~!ce
ABSENt: None
Member R~ce comme~ed tha~ this variance has been open now for five years and reit
another 3 years is ~ long t~meo
Member York asked ~ the ~i~t ~ng house in fro~t would be torn down eventually a~d
additional un!~s built there. Mr~ Ma~gaoelli stated there are no s~ch pians~ the
variance was strictly for the rear of the property.
Member Guyer asked if the black-topped ar~¢ met the requirements. Mr. Lee stated
applicant met this requ~remento Ne further added that, hopefully, Lhe new proposed
zoning ordinance and map wlJJ be adopted sometime nex~ year and this entire area will
have to be restudied; thus, the stdff wou!d suggest that th~s variance request ~ot be
extended for ~oo ion9 a per~od of tfmeo
Member Guyer indicated he was in favor of granting ~t for another year.
Member Stewart fe!~ this wou~d o~!y require the app!]cant to again request an extens~or,¢
since the money ~itdarioo was tight and the fact that this is an inter,or Jot and any-
thJog the Commis¢!oq ca~ do to encourage development for th!~ area would be beneficial.
if it takes three years, M~o Stewart added, he is in favor of it, since it is ~othiog
but a weed patch now°
Member Rice asked if the~e was any expense involved on the psrt of ~he City, ~n keep;,!g
this on :he book~° Mtn Mangane!li declared there was ,*o~- jb~ ¢ notation n the
Secretary's handbo}k.
Member York remayked ~here wou!d be no prohiem in 9ranting a one-year extenslo~ on th~
variance -at ~he end of che year~ the Comm!ss!on could took =r ]t again with rcfereEce
to the new proposed zon]n9 ordi~ance~
MSUC (Guye' ~?k Ap~}.~i of a one-year exteos~ ,r~° Such e~ ~r~! ~ to expire om
December 18,
Request for Extension of ~ime ~ Variance at 26! Eearney Street -6o C.
A letter was read from Mr° Alley requesting a~ e~tepsion of time on h~s variance.
Associate Pianner Mangane'li~ explafned that ~he or~gioai v~r;ance was granted o~ Ju~y 6
1966, and ~ovoived a 1ot of record with 2?50 square feet and having 47 feet of frontage
on Kear~ey Street. :hi~ variance allowed for the construction of a two-bedroom home
co~talnJng 828 square Feet and a 2-car carport° Mr° Mangaoel~i added tha~ the app'ic=nt
has received some b~ds tot hi~ construction and plans are complete; however; he doubt~
whether any of th!s could be completed Yn time to meet the deadline of the variance.
The Commission discussed the lime limit for the extension~ and since no specific ['me
was requested by the applJcant~ they concurred thaT: one year should be granted°
MSUC (¥ork'Greg$on) Approval of one year extension of time. Such extension wlij exp!re
on December 19, 1967,
~equest for Exte~si~n o~ [[me- Va~arce at 2800 Bonita Road I Harr~s,-~urqer~
A letter from M'o James S. Tur:ner was read in which he requested a 90-day extens;o~ o~
time on his variance granted rJune 20, 1966,
Associate P!aneer ManganelJJ reviewed the variance request noting that !t was re!arno
to the co~dltJonal use permit granted for property zoned R~3 at 2800 Boclta Road° This
was for cocstruc*io~ of a convalescent facil[ty at the corner of Sandalwood Dr~ve and
Bonita Road. The iaria~ce request was fo~ a reduction of setback along Sanda!wood
from !5 feet to lO ~eet for the projection of a sma]] corner o~ the building w~thir: t~e
setback.
subject to a p!ot plan submitted at t~e meeting~
The Commi£s~om d~scus~ed ~e 90-day e×tens~on requested ar~ concurred that it shouid be
one year.
MSUC (Guyer-York) Approva! of a oDe-year extension of time. Su(v extems~)~ to expire
on December 19~ 1967.
To Be Set for Hearinfl, Proposed Ord~i~nce Estabiishin9 an '~['-R" Zone
Associate Planner Ma~game~]i reviewed the reasons for th~$ proposed mew
Sometime ago~ the owners of property at: ~me ~ntersectiom of Me!~ose Avenue amd Ot=y
Valley Road IP-~,-'cess Park E]st:ates~ into] requested tqat this p~ope-ty be permanently
zoned to M-ID ]he Commies!on approved th~s request and attached the '~D~ zone to it:
however~ because of the iarge opposition by the adjacen~ neighbors~ the Cour)ci]
held their second reading fo~ 120 days because [hey felt the new proposed zoning
ordinance would be adopted and a new zone, more appropriate for the area, wouid come
into effect° A[ the expiration of this i20 days,, t~e Commi~!on asked for an extension
of 90 days, which exter/s~on will expire on February i~ 1967. !n order to meet th~
deadJJne~ it ~s imperative that t~e Planning Commission ho~d ~!earing~ on thi~ yew
proposed "]-R" zone which nas been I!¢ted from the new zor~ing ordinance°
City Attorney Lindbe~g sta~ed [nat t~is !s a comp~eher!s~e zoning ord~.,=:ce,
although this spec!~ic parcel of property may have stirred t~e interest in ~ t
in the future at[r, puolic
RESOLUTION NO. 438 Re:solutiOn of the C~ty Planning Commission Call!ng a Public
MSUC (~uyer~Greg~on) ~ear[ng for ~Janua~y 4~ 1967 to Consider theAdoption of ac
Zone
To Be Set for Mear~9 - Proposed Prezon~ng to R-I ~ Poggi Canyon Annexation No. 2
~Associate Planner Mangane!]~ stated that this parc:e! of land conta~n~ 20 ~cres a~d
abuts the F!ajr Subdivision on tP,e nortF and east sides and Js south 0f the Greg Rogers
Par~. The northerly lO acres of th!~ f~te wi]! house an elementary school° ~e
annexation ha~ been approved by the Planning Comm~ssior!~ the City COur~Cvl and
Local Agency Formation Comm~ss:on, and the staff would recommend that it be set for
hearing for orezoniog to R-i~
RESOLUTION NO, 439 Resolution of the City Plannlr~g Commission Stating ~be~r
MSUC [York-Rice) to CaI~ a Pub]~c Mearir~g for January 4~ i967 to Prezome the
Poggl Canyon Annexation No. 2
Discussio:n -~oposed Re~ocat~on of 69 KoV, Power Li~te Through the F]eir Subdlv!~'on
Associate Planner Morg~,*elil presented a map showing the existing llne and the new p~opo~ed
line. He explained that the reason it is before the Commlss~on ~ that the staff wanted
them to know what ~s i~voived here° before going a~ead and approving it. One of the con'-
ditions of the approvai of the subdivision map wa~ that the staff approve thi~ li~e:
ever, it was thought that i~: would 9o along the freeway in a northerly direction.
State Divlslon of Highways, nevertheless, i~ quite adamant about not allowing any po~es
etCo, to be ~ocated or anchored on State property, The staff and the developers have
talked to the San D~ego Gas and Electr!c Company and they state th!s ~s the mo~t feasible
way to go e~ou~ !t, Since ~t: wili be above ground, thi~ is a problem, because the
does have the underground ut~llty ordinance. ~owever~ the San D~ego Ga~ & E!e~tr!c Company
state they have ~o means or spec~f~c3tlons on locatlng this 69 ~.Vo line underground at
this time. lnese pole~ wi,I be ce!o~ po!es, pa,nted gray~ and ~nstead of c~oss
will have bell ~su~tor~ There w~tt be three wlres, one below the other~ fou~ feet (4')
apart. The distance between the poles vary from 400~ to 500~,
Che Commission 0iscussed the criss-cross pattern of the location of the poles and the
height of the po!e~,
Chairman Stewart asked ~f there was a source of power closer than this one to their
Mr. Manganel]~ deciared there was ~ot.
Member York commented that the Commission has no choice but to approve th~ lire since
they have no faci~ ties, et the present t!me~, Of putting this undergrour, 0o ~e added
that they cou!d-or !eave the ]ir, es as they ex,ct because both Chula V!sta and the
Power Company hav~ ordinances w~ch preclude construction over these i~e~o Mtn york
then spoke of a~ :?tic!e he read in "Buslnesf WeekTM wh~c~ stated tF:~t the Power
have aPproprla~ed ove~ one-qua~]er Of a mili;or doi!ar~ ~or public rei~tion~ to convirce
the pubiic~ the P ~g Comm!sslor~ eton it,ut t~ese po!~s a,e not ~s uns~ght!y as they
used to be,
Chairman Stewart asked ~f al! Of Oleander wi]l ~ave lots facing on it, Mr. Manganel,;
stated it wou,d, up to where the open space begi~.
City Attorney Li~oberg Ytared ~hat the C~ty s underground utility o~di'nance doe~ not
apply to ~a,%mi-~i,.~r I~,' :nd the only th:rig attemp+~d he~ waF to re(ochre tBese I,~es
to the most Oe~ir~b!e pl~c~ ;'q v:]~w OF t~ ~act that th6y h~d to be relocated because
of the subdivision design. 'it must be ~ocated with!n an easement, and it must be done
on the public street -it cannot be done on the freeway.
Mr. Dennis Wittmar~, E~,g~neer~ for the Subd~v~siom, declared they were "up ~n the al~
themselves as to where th~s ilne shoutd go; they wa~ted to go aiong the State
boundary, San D:ego Ga~ & E~ectr~c Company came up with this design, and the spacing
is for anchorage and posting, Mtn ~'ttmafl stated this was the oniy feasible way to do
MS~C (York-Adam~) Approval of t~e relocation o~ the 69 K.V. power l~ne through Fia~
Subdiv'!~ion according to the plot plan submitted.,
Approvai of Carport Design- Garage Conversion at 230 Chute V~sta Street
Associate Planner Manganeil~ ~tated t:h:!s was the first application of a conversio~ ~om
a garage enc!osu,e to a carport, a~,d the staff wished to get the opinion of the Commission
on this case., s~nce the comments wili set the trend for approve) or den~a!~ ir~ the
future. ~e then ~bm!tted a ~ot p!~ showing the converted garage sta~-g t~t thi~
part~cu!ar convers on is to a one-car carport with a roof extending to the hous~ p=~t of
which would ser,'e ~s a po~ch.
~he ordinance states that bui!ding materia!s be compatible with that o~ the dwel!~ng; in
this case, it w~li be a f~ber-glass roof whic~ the staff is not too enthusiastic ~bout~
Mr. Mangane~i~ the~ ~howed :some pictures o~ ot~e? garage conversions.
Cha!rman Stewart ¢?ked ~ the Commission coutd ask them to put a fascia or ~t~ rte
Commies!on d!scus;ed this ~d *~,e ~etbacks requlredo
Member Adams felt the prooosed roof material did not add 8nythln9 to the dwe,,;~g, but
rather detracted from the house.
Member fork commented that i{ it was just a patio cover, it wou!d be c~p~ete!y iegai
but ~nce i? was a carpo, t cover the Comm~.~¢on must decide whethe~ ~ ;s ie35i o,
C~airman Stewart questioned ~hethe~ there ?.'~il be a enclosure fo~ ~;torfge as reQu red
in the ordinance where r~ey wilt be build,r,g carports. Mr~ Mangame~;: ;ndlcated that
the app!~cant has compl!ed w~th rh~s requ~,ement s~nce he has ample .storage ~pace
a store room in the rea~ of the garage.
Chairman Stewa,t questioned whether th~s f!ber-g!ass roofing would be structural y ~ourd
for a roofing of tkls sort. Ne asked how th~s measured up to the s!andard set bp by the
State Building (ode° Mtn Mapgaee~i~ mg!eta~ned that iff proper;y constructed a~d prope~y
supported, it wou~d meet the State 8b?!ding Code.
The Comm~ss~or: d!scussed whether thi~ mater!al was compatlble a~ rend:ired ,n the
Member ¥o*k rem=.rked that ~ome5 of ali price levels are using thi~ mate¢idl for both
patio and ca*po.t
Mr° Mangane;,i!!' commente~ that t~e staff feels [he i~tent of the ordinance is such, that
the eatport~ wh, en added ~houid :OOk I~ke part OF the ~oulse as much as poss~bi!e and
a ~eparate addit om He added that ~t Ooesn't necessa~i'~y have to be the dent~ca~
materla] For tke c:rpo, t roo~ but they Could use ~ rOCK Or composition roof or
something sim~ 1~- wh ch wou d look bet[er ~han the fiberig]ass.
Member York commented that being compatible was JUSt a matter of taste. Cn~:rma'~ S~ewa~?
indicated he wa~ "' '~vor oF :t Js !ong as !t met the Bu~ldlng Code.
mater~al for the roofing: (]) ~ !s su~tab!e ~or fiat construct:ion~ arld (2) "r !ets
;n a certain* amoun: of !~ght, ~ember Adams %a~d he felt the architecture was at~oc;ou;
but it is ha~d to find an
be 12 x
MSUC (Ad4m--~ork Rppra~d, of {;ber-g!a~ m~ter !a! for the ca~port w,i~r, 'he
t~at a ~u!:abi:e ta~cia be :'; tai!ed a~ound the edge.
Appointment of Director and Alternate - San Diego Plann]nfl Congress
Associate Planner Mangaqe!li stated that~ w~th the resignation of Bruce John~on~ the
Commission would have to elect another Director and A!ternate to the San Diego Planning
Congress.
MSUC (Guyer-Adam~) Member ~onk be e~ected as D!~ecto-and C~airman Stewart as Alter~teo
Resolution - Ch~e Next Reg.!ar Meet~n] Date of Jaquary 2~ 1967 to ~!anuary 4, !967
Associate Planner Ma~ga~e!ill po!qted out that the next meeting falis on a holiday a~d
therefore~ the staff wouJd ~ugge.;t t~at the meeting d~te be changed to the 4th~
RESOLUTION NO. h40 Resolution of the C~ty Piann'ng Commission Canceling Reguiar
MSUC ~¥ork-Rice) Meeting of lanuary 2, i966
Oral Communications
Mro Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Or;ve, BonJta~ referring to the p!ot plan of t~e
variance granted for an apart:merit use at 275 WoodJawn, pointed o~t the ~pace r~at wou!d
be black-topped for parking ~d the ~mail amount of !andscap~ng. ~e i~gge~ted that the
parking reqb~remen~ be changed from !½ t~ I to 1~ to 1o ~e discus~e~ the apartment
complex he owns an0 the parking for :t deciar~ng that he f!eds that 25 % of the space~
are nearly always vacant - most of h~s tenants pa-k on the ~treet. ~e Would ~ike to -ee
some study made about the amount of black-topped are3s i~ the City d~d find ~ome s~itable
reduction to the parking req~!rements whereby more landscaping co~id be brought
City Attorney Li0dberg outed that in the dpartment bdiia]ng where he J!ve, if i~ were~
for the 20 % vacancy factor~ there wou'idn't be any place to pa~k -that the sp~ce~ meet
the CJt¥ ~ parking reouiremer~s but even th!s has proved inadeque~e.
Member Rice poir~ed out *that t:he ratio of ca'~ per fam!iy !~ ~r:,cr~¢~r~g - the ~pace~
needed. Mr. Ferre!ra ag-eed, but sa~d he Ceit !t was unfair to require ,~ to I ~p~cet
for a one-bedroom apartment as opposed ~o a th,red-,bedroom one.
Chairman Stewart thanked M~o Ferreted for hi~ views on this subiect.
ADJOURNMENT'
MSUC (R~ce-Adams) Meeting adjourn ~ine die. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pomo
Respectfully submitted,