Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/12/20 M~NUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA V~STA~ CALIFORNIA December 20, 1965 The regular adjourned meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date in the Councll Chamber, Civic Center, w~th the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Smith, Johnson, Vaden, Adams and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present; Director of Planning Warren, Associate Planner Manganelli, Junior Planner Lee, City Attorney L~ndberg and Principal Engineer Harshman. STATEMENT The Secretary of the Commission hereby states that she did post within 24 hours of adjournmeqt, as provided by law, the order for the adjourned meeting of December 6, 1965. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Johnson) Minutes of the meeting of December 6, 1965, be approved as mailed. REZON!NGS PUBLIC HEARING: Del Mar Avenue and Second Avenue between "I" and "J" Streets - R-1 to R-I-B-I~ Associate Planner Manganelli reviewed the matter stating this first came up with a lot split request which was denied by the Commission because the residents in the area wanted to keep their properties intact. They subsequently initiated a petition to rezone their properties to R-l-B-15. Second Avenue frontage on the west side was included in this proposal because it was similar to these properties; however, since they weren't ;nvolved in the ~n~tiation of this case, the Commission will want to hear their op~n!o~ on this request. Trois being the t~me and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Duckworthford, 666 and 668 Del Mar Avenue, felt the large lots were good; how- ever, he was concerned about the properties on the west s~de of Del Mar Avenue since they adjoin commercial property~ ~m three or four years, he declared, these properties might be better suited for something other than residential, should the commercial properties expand~ This may prove to be a d~sadvantage in rezoning these lots, unless the Cor~ss~or~ could rezoqe these properties temporarily, say for two or three years. After d~scussing Mr. Duckworthford'$ proposal, the Commission assured him that zoning is always permanent and ~s never done on a temporary basis. Vice-Chairman Stewart remarked that the General Pla~ ~ndicated the mo~t desirable use for property along Third Avenue should be for apartment~ a-~d not commercial. M~. Robert King~ 663 Del Mar A~enue, felt the rez o~ng would be poor planning practice, a~d that in the future this would b~ve to be rezoned again. Since he was the applicant or;ginally request¢~g the lot split, he declared he will accept the decision of the "~ Commission and ke~p h~s ~ot -1- ,~r W~yFie ~:~1 m~,~, 644 Second Avenue, qu~ t~oned the r~eed for the rezoning~ ~e ex- pressed ~"; m:e. rest ir keep~rg ~',~ ~ot:~ as t~ey we~ ,c order for them to ba able to ;e~ off t~e re~,t por~o~s of the~ ~ots ~ ]w~, ~ were ever ex~ended M~. W '~: ~ ~ I~q'g, 646 Seco~d A e~aa~ s~ted she opposed the change of zo-,e - wants ~ ae ease to do whate~er sh~ w ?~ w th her ~ard M:F ~e. ~a~r~ re~,i e~e ~ge~, ~ )r~ez Re~tv~ ~d he m~de a study of ~he ~rea west of ~e~ M~r Ave~e ~,d calked to t~e peopJe ~bout putting a street through which would ~ke ~he combi.ed yffo. t of the e:'~ re b~ock U~n order to approve th~s ,ezo~ing, ~omm ~ ~.~, must f ;,d publ,c ace':s~ty He ca'noL see the p'~anning pract~ce of zo, ~g :L t:~d~y arid coming back ext year for ~nother zone He felt the people should ~,: -eter ~r~iaW, 665 e, ,~e:r Ave¢.e, appearS'9 ,~ Deho'.f of the res4dert> ol Del Mar, ,d{coted tier the res¢de¢t:~ 3r ~ecord A/erde were not a part of the initial request e'~,d do ut u~ders~ar,d w~at co=id occu~ here - what s '"Podge-podge" could develop. ' f T'ere !s off c[ent reaso,, *re: p-operty c¢q be rezonedo Mr. DeGraaf added that s p~rt cu{~r block needs tke rezo'il¢9 lhat ~:~ proposed, and the residents are [~ f=~or of t, ."e sta, ted he w~5 spe~k~n9 for almost al', of ~e property owners or ~ere be cg r,o f~rther comment, e~ther for or agairst, the hearJn9 was declared closed a, ector of ~ I~rm,n9 ~arreq stated that the propert[es alon9 Second Avenue were c!uded ,~ t.n s proposal because the lots sbered S{m~lar characteristics, but whether o¢ mot the : p¢operlies should be ~ncluded ~* t.h~s rezo0ing should be based op their owl de; re~. 'he people oo Oel Mar requested th¢s rezorlqg, which seems reasonable, '~e~,~se i, wo~ld preserve their lots, e%d the st~ff wished to get the opinfo, of those ~eop~: ~, Ceco¢:d Ave~,ue. ¢~ ~arreo added thai r,o magic rdmber of years c~ be pie, ced r~zo ;~9, [~ wiit be reasortab y perma~e~,t }pps>:ed r~e rezo¢ '~g Member Adams ind'c~(d ;l wooid be wrong to ;nclude the :eco~d A,t'.,e 'es de' t5 i': thii5 rezor5 09, s{nce one=th!rrd of them were present ~r,d opposed .3we:t-'. - w;~s r(gFt to rezore tfat property f'o't~,r9 o' both sides of Del Mar. t d 'fl' ~¢,~ 3low Or~[y that Jt ~s good zor*,:,zg pract ce~ Member John&of added '~S~( Jo~,'rco ~Stew~rt) to t~e { *y Cour:C~l the ttayge of Zo:~e from R-~ to · d~g', are ss follows: P~BL~C ~E]ARiNG: Northwest Corner Second Avenue and Palomar Street - R-I to R-3 ~he application was read in which a request was made to rezone from R-1 to R-3 that property on the northwest corner of Second Avenue and Palomar Street. Also requested wa~ a reduction in setback from 25 feet to 20 feet on both streets° Associate Pla~ner Manganelli submitted a plot p~ n noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning° Most of the adjacent zoning in the County adjacent to this area is zoned R-2iA but developed with single-family dwellings. Th~s being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Since the applicant was not present, the Commission concurred that the matter should be continued until the next meeting. MSUC (Guyer-Stewart) ~earing be continued to the meeting of January 3, 1966. PUBEIC HEARING: Third Avenue Extenslor~ and a Portion of Third Avenue - C-1 to C-1-D Associate Planner Manganel]~ submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent zonings. There are two City-owned properties here presently for sale, and because of their odd shapes and relationship to residential property, there is concern as to how these lots will develop and therefore, the Commission set this hearing tonight, at the request of the City Council, to consider attaching the "DI' zone. This will affect · all the properties located on either side of the Third Avenue Extension which is zoned C-1 to a depth of 160 feet. Mr. Manganell~ noted the different uses in this area and stated the staff would recommend assigning this "D" zone to the properties in order to insure commercial development which will be compatible with the residential areas existing to the north and south of this area. Member Vaden questioned whether there were any requests for minimum lot sizes in th]s area; Director Warren said there was ~o limitatlo~ here. ,his being the time a~d place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. T~.:ere being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. L~irman Stevenson remarked that anytime the Commission has the opportunity to establish the "D" zone to ~lesure compatible development with the area, they should do so. RE5~tUTiON NO. 390 Resolution of the C~ty Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (Vaden-Johnson) to City Council the AtLachment of the "g" Zone on Both S~des of Third Avenue Extension and a PortJo~ of Third Avenue, all Zoned C-1 F~ndiogs are as follows; !t constitutes good zoning practice because ~t w~11 place a better control over the architecture of the area to ~nsure compatibil!ty with the residences in the area~ VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Greater Southwestern Corporation - Southeast Corner of Center S'treet and Fourth Avenue - Action on Parking Requirements and Setbacks 0irector of Planning Warren reviewed the matter briefly stating that at the last meeting (December 6) the Comm~sslon continued the matter until the following Thursday, December 9, ~n order to review the applicant's parking plan. This meeting was not held due to a lack of a quorum and subsequently cor~tlnued to this meeting. Mr. Warren explained the latest request as delineated ~n the applicant's letter, and reviewed the staff's recommendations. Mr. Warren stated the parking plan, as proposed, is unsatisfactory, but the general concept of the development is not. He suggested that the Commission rot give approval to Plan "BTM as such s~nce some of it is objectionable to the staff. The ~ppllcants propose a banquet room which will probably be located adjacent to or ~.ear the restaurant. The staff feels that it would be appropriate to utilize adjacent public parking or public parking lots w~th~n the downtown area for this use. Director Wafter, showed the revised plans and explained the parking concept using Ce-.ter Street as access. The applicants are asking for approval of Plan "B"; however, the staff is recommending that the concept of Scheme "B" with 350 spaces be approved, and that a revised parking plan showing 350 usable spaces should be approved at a later date. Director Warren Further added that the staff has agreed to some tandem parking, and the plans also call for aisle parking. However, some of the aisle parking is undesirable. He then discussed the parking for compact cars. Originally, the applicants had asked for 20 % of their spaces for this use, but the staff recommended 15 %. The applicant is now requesting 16 %. Member Johnson asked about public parking lots, and parking on adjacent property° Director Warren stated the public lots were considered, and that he d~scussed with the applicants the possibility of leasing some property next to the development for parking. "f, ]n the future, this parking was proved to be unnecessary, the applicants could request that the Commission relieve them of this requirement. Chairman Stevenson asked how the staff arrived at the figure of 350 when originally, they proposed 461 spaces. Director Warren explained the changes in the development which, reduced parking requirements: elimination of the 3 story central building and ~me c.~mmercial therein, the reduction to 200 seats of the proposed 350 seat restaurant, o~d f~rther consideration on the part of the staff. Mro Robert Miles, Secretary of the Greater Southweatern Corporation, stated that Plan "~" presently shows 384 spaces and that they have a 34 car latitude to work with to provide the required 350 spaces. He declared that they didn't know, at the moment, wrether the restaurant will be located on the top floor of the north tower or in the center building They have elh~nated the meeting room which called out for 56 parking spaces. He d~scus~ed the recommendations of the staff and stated they agree to a!l but 7, 8 and 11, which in their opinion, are technical conditions: 1hey would !,ke approval of Plan "B" and feel they can work very closely with the staff since they ~ave almost reached a~ agreement for the parking. Vice-Chairma':, Stewart asked if it wo~Jd be acceptabJe LO recommend approval subject Lo tne recommendations of the Planning staff wi~h f~nal pla~s to be submitted to the Fl~,,,¢~;-,g staff for approval. Mr. Miles cla~med there may be a few phys~caJ cha~ges ~ tke characteristics of the building that might ~.ot occur for 60 days -4- Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, President of the Corporation, stated they will be committing themselves to SilO,non set of mechanical plans and they do not want any loose ends on this~ He is asking for consideration of Plan "B", and the items in quest!on are~ (1) the w~dth of the aisles which should be 25 feet are, instead, 24 feet, (2) 384 parking spaces are shown of which the staff claims 30 are unacceptable - in v~ew of which they will be able to meet the 350 required spaces; (3) they have agreed to omit the uses of the center building; however, this building will remain for recreational purposes for the tenants~ Again, he asked for approval of Plan "B" w~h 350 parking spaces which w~ll be acceptable to the staff. Member Vaden commented that agreement w~th the City Council still has to be reached for the joint use of the recreational parking Int. Mr. Ferre~ra stated this was true, a!so for the improvements they wil~ have to make. Director Warren reiterated that the staff ~s in accord with the general concept of the plan, but not Plan "B'~ as such, and 350 parking spaces should be required. ~he staff ca~mot possibly recommend approval of the parking layout of the Plan since they have no idea Pow ~t will be arranged. ~n order to avoid any unnecessary costs to the deve!oper, the staff ~s willing to meet w~th their architect right away and come to some arrangement. Director Warren sa~d he felt there was no need to bring this back to the Commission agai n~ The Commission discussed the parking layout with the 24 foot aisles. Vice-Chairman Stewart felt the Commission shouldn't discourage this since ~t is a modular building, and with an attendant, this could very well be acceptable. P~r~ M~les commented that perhaps for the first six or nine months, there would be no need for an attendant, Mr. George Owens, Monte Vista Way, asked for approval of Plan "B" with the 350 spaces and to omit recommendations 7, 8 and II which state: (7) That tandem parking for residential, office and commercial use is acceptable, depending upon the analysis of a final plot plam (8) That no specific approval be given at this t;me for aisle parking; that approval, if necessary, be based upon need or desirability as delineated in the final parking plan which w~ll be submitted at a later time. ~11) Since we find the site plan as last submitted, referred to as Plan "B", in some areas unsatisfactory, we would suggest that approval be given only to the general project based on the total number of spaces and zhat a revised plan be submitted at a later date for detailed approval~ O~rector Warren stated the staff w~ll approve 350 usable spaces~ Member Adams also stated that the 24 foot a~sles should be approved, and velet parking when conditions Warrant ~ ~enneth Lee, Junior Plan~et, commenting on the park~mg layout, stated there was actually 322 spaces on this revised plan wh~c~ are acceptable to the stafF~ Mr. Lee t~e~ pointed out the unusable spaces on the plan. V(ce-Cha~rma~ Stewart suggested the word "usable~' be substituted and the items question be omitted~ -5- Mr. Frank rerrelra discussed the parking spaces on Center Street which they felt were acceptable, Mr. William Harshm~n, Principal Engineer, stated the City Engineer has Never approved diagonal parking such as they propose on Center Street. Mr. ~iek Sl~jk~ Manager of the Chamber of Commerce~ stated they have been following th~s project with a great deal of ~nterest and the Director of the Chamber spoke of this at great length at their last meeting, A development of this nature will have an impact on the downtown a~ea, and the Dowtown Association have voiced their approval of ~t~ ~here being no further commerts, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed~ Chairman Stevenson stated he was pleased that they have arrived at this point; the only matter left would be the approval of the parking plan. MSuC (Stewart-Johnson) Variance for parking spaces and setback requirements be approved subject to the following: T'he South Tower and the 6th~ 7th, and 8tF floors of the North Tower to contain approximately 130 rental apartments. The 1st floor of the North Tower will be commercial and be restricted to the uses falling into a light-commerclal category. ['he 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors of the North Tower to be for office and pro- fessional use but not medical use. 4. That a restaurant wJth an approximate seating capacity of 200 seats be permitted on the roof of the North Tower. There Js no objection to relocating th~s to the central mall providing a proper site plan were possible. The center building to be used for recreational purposes for the building tenants only. 5, ,In concept, the subterranean floor for parking and the remainder at ground level is acceptable~ That parking spaces designed for compact cars and sports cars be allowed at a ratio of 16 % wiL~ a minimum w~dth to be determined by the City Traffic EngJneer~ That a 5 foot setback for parking be approved on Center Street as requested, and since no actual variance has been filed, that tentative approval be given for a 10 foot setback for parking on Fourth Avenue. A total of 350 usable parking spaces ~s required for this project~ Within 15 days from the meeting date, a parking plan shalJ be submitted which is acceptable to both the applicant and the City staff. 9~ The width of the aisles be approved at 24 feet. JO~ Valet parking ~o be provided when conditions warrant it F~ndings be as Follows: Ikat t~e'e are practlcaJ differences and unnecessary hardships wlth~ the meaning of O~d~na~Jce No. 398 as amended which would result Jn the strict compliance of the provisions of said ordJnance~ So stated as delineated below. That [here are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein ~voived or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone, This is a new concept in development not provided for in our existing zoning ordina~ce. Because parking for each use wil~ rot be required ali at one time, parking spaces for the total floor area should not be required; ;nstead, only enough to accommodate peak hour use need be pro- vided 3~ The granting of Such var~a,nce ~S necessary for the preservation of the substantial property right of Lhe applicant, Without the variance, applicant would be de- proved of economic development, based on the high-rise concept. If parking spaces were required based on totai fioor area or occupancy, there would be an un,necessary expense involved in providing parking whJch would go unused. 4. T~e grant[pg of suc~, variar~ce wili not be materially detrimental to the public we~ifa'e or ir~jurious to the property improvements in the zone or distr[ct in which ~aid property is Iocated, The number of spaces and use of the setbacks con- te~mpJated will be adequate to carry out the intent of the ordinance. SdBD!v!SPON - Princess Manor Unit ~5 -~entative Map Associate Planner Mangane[ii stated the staff finds the map acceptable with the ceptlo~ of the knuckle located south of the subdivision. This should be modified a conve~tiopat ma~er which can be approved by the City staff. Mr. Manganel]i stated the ~taff would also recommend that a fence, similar to that erected on Orange Avenue properties in ~n!t ~4 be constructed at the c~est of the slope on those parcels whose rear lot lines abut Otay Valley Road. Mr. Wil]~am ~arshman, Princiipal Engineer, presented the recommendations of the £ng~neering Division. ff~e Commission di~scussed the map and concluded it would be acceptable with the co~d~[io~s, ~C (Guyer-]o~nson) Recommend approval o~ tentative map of Princess ~anor Unit #5 with the ~ollow;ag condit~on~~ A fence and s[one suppo~[s ~imi~iar to t~at which was erected or, the Orange Avenue properties ~n Unit ~4 shal~ b~ con, true[ed at the crest of the slope o~ those parcels whose rear lo[ lines abut Ota¥ Valiey Road. ~he '~k~,uck~e'~ located south o~ [he subdivision sKa!~ be modified in a conventio-~a~ maoner which ~all be approved by the City staff. 3~ NO form o~ approvaJ of L~e method of drainage control is intended through approval of this tentative map Permatex[ type pavement [3" AoC. on de~gned base) shall be installed along Street f~or? the e~'~tetly suodiv~sion boundary to approximately the westeriy of Ole~de~ Avenue ~r~ ~ch manner ~ ~ecessery to accommodate sout~ Lo west 5,, S~opes adjacent to Ma]n Street shall be rolled and compacted. Curb height on Ma~n Street shal[ be either 6" or 8" as required to conduct the the surface runoff. £x~st~ng pavement on Ma~n Street shall be removed and replaced, or overlaid as necessitated by the final design to accommodate surface runoff and to provide a smooth and safe surface for vehicular traffic~ 8~ Curb, gutter and sidewalk on Main Street shall be of monolithic construction, 9 :!mprovements to the County portion of Main Street shall be as approved by the County of San Diego and performed under conditions stipulated by said County~ ~0~ Sewage collection system is approved in concept only~ ~, The method and point of connection to the Montgomery Sanitation District system no Main Street is subject to the approval of such District. Application for connection shall be made through the City Engineer~ 12, Subdiwder shall submit executed slope and/or access easements from adjacent property owners prior to approval of the final map unless grading and improvement plans clearly negate the need for same~ 13. Subdivider shali provide two foot contours of property easterly of Lot 693~ 14~ Dedication of right-of-way on Main Street shall include elimination of access rights on Lots 795 through 804. !5o The subdivider shall provide utility easements as required along the north side of Main St,eet~ 16~ The bulb at the !ntersect~oe of Tanbark Street and Ocala Avenue is approved Jn concept or~y, 17~ Main $~reet ~hali be referred to as Otay Valley Road upon the f~nal map and [o~ideraTio~ of Ch~!q~es ~n Shopp~n~ Center Plan - ffelmuth (Bonita Plaza) Associate Pla~ne~ Manganeili presented the new plans stating that there has been a rea~g~mer~t of ~orita Road which he noted or the pla~s, and that the developer will be using a portio~ of the land now owned by the C~ty but will soon be dedicated to hm tn the meantime, he must obtain an encroachment permit in order to pave the I~nd qow owned by the City which they will be using~ They w~ll also need a deferral 3f public improvements for that area along Bonita Road ~ntil such time as the street ~s compietely paved by the ~ ty, They have dedicated 6 feet along Allen School Roaa for the improvement of Lhi~ road~ The !andscap~g on the plars is more th~-~dequate, J:~e problem t~a~ does exist, Mr Manganeil~ ~oted, was their proposed free-stend~g %~gr which ,~ 60 square feet ~ z~e~, ~t i~ recommended that this be reduced to 50 equate feet Lo be ;n co',former, ce with the ordi~arce ~d would be just as e:ffect~ve~ Mr. Robert helm~th poin,_ed out thet there will be a walkway between the two bulJdi~g3 ~t~c (~tewart-vade:~i~; Approval of cha,~ges i~ the plot pi~rl es submitted at t~i~ meetirg ~!r~ t~e co:d~~ t~,or that the proposed freestanding sign be reduced in area from 60 ~qu~re feel ~o 50 square feet~ PUBLIC HEAR~NG: Amendment to the Zoninq Ordinance - Commerclal-Nei~hborhood Zone D!rector of Planning Warren stated this ordinance was taken from the new zoning ordinance and modified, Previously, the "D" zone was placed on these areas with a Number of cond'itions; this zone will now eliminate a lot of staff and Commission work a~d spell out for the developer exactly what is expected of him when he brings in his plans for a shopping center. It allows for light retail uses presently allowed in the C-1 zone. Jt w~ll also restrict the use of signs but allow more for windows such es for store '~specials~~l Mr. Warren then brlefly reviewed the different aspects of the ordinance~ Member Adams stated this ordinance would make it possible for the developer to get a better idea of what he must do. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Chairman Stevenson voiced surprise at the fact that there were no comments. Oirector War.eh commented that generally, [hey do not get any comments for this sort of ordinance until it is ,n the Code. He added he would be happy to distribute the proposed ordinance to anyone the Commission may want it sent to. V~ce-Chalrman Stewart indicated there was no need for any further mailing on it. RESOLUTION NO. 391 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (Guyer-Vaden) so the City Council the Amendment of Chapter 33 of the City Code by Addlng Thereto New Sections 33.35~1 Through 33,35,11 and 33~54.6 Through 33.54.11 and Revising Section 33.3 and 33.4 All Relating to the Establishment of a Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the Provision for Site Plan Requirements. ~ndings a'e as follows~ The Commission finds that public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice requ,re the amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing this /ommerciaI-Neighborhood Zone. F'~Li[ HEARING: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance- Political Signs Director of Plann ng Warren stated they had discussed in the past with the C~ty Attorqey more stringent control of political signs throughout the City, and this particular ordinance was prepared in the Attorney's absence, The staff prepared this ordinance so that it would restrict signs to C-2 and industrial zones, and the posting of a perf~,rmence bona co assure removal of the signs after the e!ection, Since that t~me, [he ordnance Fas beep discussed with the City Attorney and he believes it should be reu ~ s ed, E~y ALLor~ey Lirdberg sta~ed [hat th[~ whole area of regulation of signs ~s a very difficult one, He completely agrees with the restriction of sJgns, especlally in the re~;~de~Lia~ ~reas~ however~ when you talk about political signs, you get ~nto a damgerou~ ~ee ~ ?e same as retig:o~ s~gns~ This falls into the first 8mendme;0t of the ~eder~i cunz~tut~o~ o~ freedom of speech~ it has been recognized that the outright prohlbi- ~io' of s;grs In er~y zone is probably unconstiLutional; there is little doubt, however, th~z ~be tug. let!on of rte u~e of politicaJ or religion s~gns is proper. Mr, Lindberg -9~ added that the problem is an interesting one, and he would hesitate to suggest that the Commission proceed with this proposed ordinance at this time. He corr~nented on a lawsuit now pending in San Diego during the last election by a tax payer requesting a writ of mandate to force the City Council to enforce the ordinance to prohibit all s~gns in the residential areas unless they were specifically permitted. He said that that City sustained its position on the grounds that there is an area of d~scret~on among the enforcing officials that could not be dictated by the courts unless it was a clear case of the abuse of that dlscretion. However, if they got to the final argument of it, he added, that City would very likely be in a position to argue that they didn't enforce their ordinance because it is unconstitutional, which "is a sad position for any city to be put in." Mr. Lindberg indicated that he would like to have more time to analyze this problem of political signs with a view toward regula- ting them in residential zones; that there is no objection to having them in commercia'l or industrial zones. If these are legal, than they can be sustained, but the out- right prohibition of signs in residential zones is somewhat disturbing. O~rector Warren commented that he would agree to a continuance and added that he can understand how a law like this could be established, but fails to comprehend the logic behind ~t. Vice-Chairman Stewart said he d~sagreed with this theory also, but would agree to a postponement. MSUC (Stewart-Vaden) Matter be continued until the meeting of January 3, 1966o Report of Findings - Shelby M. Currie - 302 LeMire Drive D~rector of Planning Warren reviewed the report of findings, a copy of which was sent to each Commissioner, whereby a variance for permission to construct a 400 square foot carport on the side property line without setback; the City Code requires a 400 square foot enclosed garage with a 5 foot sideyard setback. MSUC (Stewart-Adams) Approval of report of findings. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Vaden-Guyer) Meeting adjourn sine die. Respectfully submitted, Fulasz Secretary