Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/04/05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 5, 1965 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held at 7:00 P.M., in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center on the above date with the following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Johnson, Adams and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Terrell, City Attorney Lindberg and Principal Engineer Harsh- Approval of Minutes MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Minutes of March 15, 1965, be approved, as mailed. VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING: Princess Park Estates Inc. - Princess Manor Unit #2 - Temporary Sign in C-1-D Zone Temporary Sign in C-1-D Zone The application was read in which a request was made to erect a temporary sign containing 128 square feet on property zoned C-1-D at the intersection of Orange Avenue and Melrose Avenue. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, the adjacent land use and zoning. He stated the proposed sign is existing at the present time, and that the "D" zone allows for a 50 square foot maximum sign, hence the request for variance. There is no development on the site, as yet. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer asked ~f the sign faced Melrose Avenue. Director Warren noted the sign sets at an angle and can be seen from Rienstra Street as well. The distance from this proposed shopping center to Rienstra Street is about 400 feet. D~rector Warren added that he believed the sign was erected before the applicants found out what the restrictions were, and that when the homes are built in this area, it will, in all probability block out the view of the sign. Member Adams questioned the need of the restrictions on s~gns if the Commission grants exceptions to everyone that comes in asking for it. Member Comstock said he felt there was a need in this area for a sign; the sign is placed on the property allowing people who would buy in this area to be forewarned that a shopping center will be built there. Chairman Stevenson asked if the ordinance interprets it to mean 50 square feet of signage for each business. Director Warren ~ndlcated that was correct: 50 square feet of signage area for each business establishment plus a 50 square foot sign for the business itself. Member Guyer remarked he agreed with Member Adams; however, he felt this particular case would be all right since there is no development on the premises. Vice-Chairman Stewart declared it should be allowed until such time as any per- manent signs are constructed here. Member Johnson questioned whether any business, going in before the one-year period requested for this sign, would be prohibited from putting up a sign for their business. Director Warren stated this sign should be considered inde- pendently of any signs in the shopping center. Member Johnson asked if the sign was illuminated. Mr. Rainwater said it was not. MSC (Comstock-Stewart) Approval of sign containing 128 square feet erected on the east side of Melrose, north of Orange Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. No further temporary signs be allowed in this commercial area. 2. The permit be granted for one year or until fifty percent (5~) of the pro- posed shopping center is complete. 3. The sign is to be non-illuminated. Further, findings be as follows: 1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning of Ordinance No. 398 as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the provisions of said ordinance, as delineated below. 2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same zone. The sign proposed will be a temporary one which would be removed when the shopping center is developed. The proposal compares to the provision we make for temporary tract signs which are not normally allowed in R-1 developments. 3. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation of the sub- stantial property right of the applicant. It would aid the public by giving notice of a shopping center to be constructed on this property, which is surrounded by residential property. Also, it is needed because of the distance of this property from traveled thoroughfares, in this particular case, Rienstra Street. 4. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said property is located. The sign would be temporary; it is in an un- developed commercial area and would be eliminated when the commercial de- velopment is complete. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Comstock, Stewart, Johnson, Stevenson, and Guyer. NOES: Member Adams ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING: Orrln K. & Pearl Larsen - 4100 Camino del Cerro Grande - Request To Build 6 Foot High Fence in Front Setback The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in setback in order to construct a 6 foot high fence on an 8 foot setback. --2= Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan, noting the location as being in the Bonita Bel-Aire subdivision. He stated there was an existing chain link fence on the property now. Director Warren explained the applicant's need for the fence and noted the grades, etc., in this area. It was noted that the applicants were not present at the hearing. MSUC (Comstock-Adams) Postpone the public hearing until the next meeting, April 19, 1965, so that one or both of the applicants may be present to answer any questions that the Commission may have. PUBLIC HEARING: John & Suzet~e McLeod - E. of Walnut Street~ alon9 South Side of San Diego Gas & Electric Company's Ri~ht-of-Way - Reduction in Setback and Request to Park in Right-of-Way The application was read in which a request was made for a reduction in rear yard setback from i5 feet to zero for the construction of an apartment building and for permission to use a portion of the adjacent San Diego Gas & Electric Company's right-of-way for parking facilities. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent land use and zoning. He stated the applicants have obtained a lease from the Gas & Electric Company allowing them to use a portion of the right-of-way for parking. He noted, however, that this lease can be canceled at any time. The ordinance re- quires that parking be on the same site as the buildings; hence, the need for this variance. The applicants have approximately 14,000 square feet of land. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. George Bishop, representing the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, explained that they have the option to cancel the lease within 30 days notice; the lease has not yet been processed, however. This property has been used for agricultural purposes in the past. Mr. Bishop stated the Company would also have to open up the end of Walnut Street, if the applicant intends to use this as his access; this land is also owned by the Gas & Electric Company. Mr. John McLeod, the applicant, explained he did not want to process the lease until after the Commission hearing. He noted he was paying three times as much per square foot to use this for parking as another would for agricultural purposes. He added that in case the lease was ever canceled, he would have to come back to the Commission and ask for a variance to park in the front setback and filling up the swimming pool and using this for parking, which seemed quite unlikely. Mr. McLeod stated he has 20,000 square feet in his lot and proposes to construct 20 units on it with 30 parking spaces. There being no further comment , either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Vice-Chairman Stewart declared that the ordinance requires on-site parking and wondered whether there was any provision of waiving this requirement, under the law. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Commission can legally do this since that is the basic purpose of a variance - allowing a requirement from it. Member Comstock commented that he could see why the applicant would want to take advantage of this adjacent property for parking; however, he felt the Commission would -3- be setting a precedent if they allow this. It would be giving this property benefit to the extent that the applicant can get maximum coverage on his land which other people cannot get; it would be an overdevelopment of this land. Vice-Chairman Stewart said he agreed with Member Comstock adding that he did not feel the applicant could justify the variance. Director Warren indicated that in view of the fact that the right-of-way will always be open, there was some merit in granting the setback reduction. Member Comstock suggested the matter be continued until the next meeting and the applicant work out a new plan for this development showing the apartment buildings and parking on the same lot. Member Adams felt the Commission should go ahead and grant the setback reduction as this is the only place that the applicant can logically use the setback reduction. He can then work out his new plan based on this reduction. Director Warren suggested the Commission inquire whether this reduction in setback would interfere in any way with the Gas & Electric Company's right-of-way. Mr. Bishop pointed out the construction of new towers could occur on this right-of-way and that there could be a problem of required clearance, but not necessarily. Mr. McLeod asked if he could get the feeling of the Commission in what they would consider a logical development. If he had to put his parking in front, it would require 45 feet for straight-in parking; this would take up most of the lot. He felt that proper site development is impossible without the variance. Chairman Stevenson stated the Commission could not answer that at this time; they have indicated they would like to see a plan worked out showing the buildings and parking on the same property and that the Commission could not design the new plan. MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Continue this hearing until the meeting of April 19, 1965, in order for the applicant to study a new plan which would provide for parking and a re-arrangement of the apartment units on the same property. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Sections 33.10 and 33.11 - Signs and Advertising ~isplays in R-I Zones Director of Planning Warren reviewed the ordinance, stating this would allow for temporary directional real estate signs in R-1 zones. By conditional use permit, administered by the staff, a three square foot sign will be allowed. The ordinance will also permit the staff to grant tract signs and sales office by a conditi~al use permit. This would speed the process up somewhat, but would allow the applicant to appeal the staff's decision to the Planning Commission, if not satisfied with the decision of the staff. Director Warren added there is also a provision to allow temporary directional signs for the sale of individual homes, such signs to be erected for no more than 48 hours in any 5-day period. 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. Member Comstock asked that the records show there was no opposition. '4- RESOLUTION NO. 350 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) to City Council Amendments to Sections 33.10 and 33.11 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 398 and the City Code Relating to Signs and Advertising Displays Permitted in Residential zones Discussion - Architectural Control Ordinance and Minimum Floor Area in R-1 Zone Director of Planning Warren reviewed the sliding scale recommendation by the Commission to the Council which called for a 900 square foot minimum for a one-bedroom house. The Council has returned this to the Commission asking that they reconsider their proposal by eliminating the 900 square foot allowance, leaving 1000 square feet as the minimum floor size. They felt this was small enough and would take care of tract homes, realizing of course, that variances could be granted to individuals building on private lots, when justified. The recommendation of the Commission on this, Mr. Warren continued, could be referred back to the Council without holding another public hearing. Director Warren added that the Commission has been asked to set for public hearing the recommendation of the Mayor's committee calling for an Architectural Board of Review. The City Attorney reminded the Commission that they took no action on this proposal when previously discussed. Director Warren noted this would be a five-man Board that would meet twice monthly and act on all dwellings proposed for subdivisions, but would be advisory to the Commission on structures proposed for the "D" zone. City Attorney Lindberg indicated he has spent some time researching and studying requirements of other cities concerning this problem; trying to create a more beauti- ful city is becoming a greater and greater concern to people. The ordinance seeks to find a workable means of administering this and it is difficult to set up guide lines for administrative process to make the ordinance constitutional. The Couocil felt it worthwhile to air this at a public hearing. Member Comstock commented on the architectural control saying everyone wants it but few are willing to work at it. Architectural control should be of prime interest to people living in the neighborhoods in which the building would take place. He would suggest setting up architectural control districts following boundaries of schools, service areas, etc., and members of that neighborhood or district be appointed to the Architectural Board of Review. Member Comstock felt this would be one answer to the architectural control - it would put the public on notice that it is up to them whether they want architectural control or not. Most of the public is not too concerned with architectural control; this then would make the public express their views on it for their neighborhood. Member Comstock remarked that if it were the Com- mlssion~s desire, he would put more time and effort into this suggestion, and bring back a more concise report to the next meeting. City Attorney Lindberg stated that with some modification, this is the sa~eapproach used by the city of San Diego for achitectural control. The residents of the area would establish the standards of the area for the architectural control. Mr. Lind- berg added that he would be happy to work with Member Comstock on this suggestion. Member Comstock suggested cons~ eration should be given to the "D" zone being imposed on certain commercial and industrial uses as well. RESOLUTION NO. 351 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating Their MSUC (Stewart-dohnson) Intent to O~i. 1 a Public Hearing on April 19, 1965, to Consider an Amendment to Ordinance No. 398 and Chapter 33 of the City Code establishing an Architectural Review Board and Archi- tectural Review '5- City Attorney Lindberg stated this was a complex matter and might require one or more public hearings. The Commission should get comments from contractors, etc.; also, it might be advisable for the Commission to have a workshop session in order to get the views of the other Commissioners. Director Warren suggested a public hearing be held first in order to get the public's comments on the ordinance; then the Commission could discuss these at a workshop meeting. The Commission then briefly discussed the minimum floor area requirement concurring that they felt the 1000 square foot standard could logically be the minimum floor area allowed. Member Adams felt ano~her~ublic hearing should be he~d on the matter. City Attorney Lindberg stated the Council could require a report, as provided for in the State Planning Act; they would then set their own hearing on the matter. They indicated their feelings to the Commission and asked for the Commission's opinion on it. This would be just a report back to the Council. Member Guyer commented that no one objected to the sliding scale recommendation during the public hearing held on it. MSUC (Comstock-Johnson) Recommend to City Council modification of sliding scale by eliminating this 900 square foot classification, establishing 1000 square feet as the minimum floor area for most dwellings in the community. The Commission recognizes that in certain isolated cases, when justified, a variance for a smaller home might be granted. SUBDIVISIONS Hilltop Heights - Tentative Map Director of Planning Warren submitted the tentative map noting the location as involving a portion of East Millan Street and Mission Avenue, lying south of East "J" Street. The subdivision will contain 18 single-family homes with a cul-de-sac serving these lots. The staff has no comment on the map but would suggest the following two cond~ticns, if approved: 1. All slopes shall be graded and planted in accordance with specifications on file in the Planning Department. 2. Street trees shall be provided on the off-site portion of the cul-de-sac. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, presented the recommendations of the Engineering Division. Mr. James Patten, representing the developers, stated there was no objections to the conditions. The Commission discussed the need for sidewalk. Mr. Patten stated the topography here falls off heavily on this north side, and since there would be only 18 families using this, it was felt that sidewalk on one side would be adequate. MSUC (Johnson-Comstock) Tentative map of Hilltop Heights subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions: t. All slopes shall be graded and planted in accordance with specification on file in the Planning Department. -6- 2. Street trees shall be provided on the off-site portion of the cul-de-sac. 3. Submitted information is not in sufficient detail to ascertain the probable effects of flood waters resulting from storms of magnitude to be expected on 10 and/or 50 year intervals. Such information shall be submitted as soon as practicable. The City Engineer shall determine logical protective works to be provided and easements to be required following such submlss~on. 4. Detailed grading plans shall be submitted with evidence of having obtained all necessary private easements, slope r~ghts and rights to do work on abutting properties prior to approval of the final map. 5. The property line radius at the cul-de-sac, being less than that specified as a minimum per ordinance, is acknowledgedas adequate and acceptable because of the limited area with which to work. 6. That sidewalk only along the south side of the off-site portion of "A" Street be allowed due to the topographic problems along the north side. 7. The subdivider shall obtain and submit all necessary grant deeds, easements and slope rights pertinent to construction of the off-site portion of "A" Street. All such documents shall be in the name of the City of Chula Vista. 8. Insufficient information is shown relative to the off-site sewer. The align- ment shown is specifically not approved at this time and is subject to approval of the City Engineer. 9. Correct Note 8 to read: "street name to be as approved by the Director of Planning." Dalseth Hills Unit No. 5 - Final Map Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map stating the Commission prevlously approved a tentative map consisting of Unit s 4 and 5. This unit contains 18 lots. The map conforms to the tentative map and the staff recommends approval. Mr. Warren then read the two recommendations submitted by the Engineering Division. MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Recommend approval of final map subject to the following conditions: 1. Guarantee of completion of public improvements shall be posted or a letter requesting Council approval subject to posting of such guarantee shall be submitted. 2. Evidence of having satisfied requirements of the California Water and Telephone Company shall be provided. Request by Frank Ferreira to Vacate Portion of Moss Street - South of S. D. Country Club A letter from Mr. Ferreira was read in which he requests the vacation of a portion of Moss Street from the intersection of Alpine in an easterly direction to where it intersects Naples Street. Mr. Warren stated this same request was approved by the Commission when it was pre- sented in October, 1956, but denied by the Council because of the many protests from the residents in the area. Director Warren noted that a vacation of this portion would -7- allow the area formerly dedicated for street purposes to be used for building. It is as yet undetermined to which adjacent owner the street would revert. Mr. William Harshman discussed this matter, delineating the requirements that must be met by the applicant if the street is vacated. On March 25, the Traffic Engineer made a study of this area noting a traffic count of 2000 on Moss Street, during an average week day and on Naples, west of Moss, the average is 2600. The east bound traffic on Moss is controlled by a stop sign at the Naples intersection. It was noted that there have been no traffic accidents at this intersection (Moss and Naples) in the past three years. On the Select System, Naples is a collector in the City and the County, and Moss is a local street. Director Warren commented that Mr. Ferreira had previously applied for a vacation and a rezoning; the vacation wasn't opposed, but the rezoning was. Mr. Warren added that this was a logical request, regardless of what rezoning he is seeking ~n the future. Member Adams commented that when this came up before, it was proposed to vacate one-half of Moss and leave the other one-half for traffic. Director Warren felt this would just encourage the use of Moss Street when Naples is designated as the Collector street. MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Recommend approval of the vacation of Moss Street subject to the following conditions: 1. That the radius at the southwest corner of the lot, between Alpine and Naples, be sufficient to allow smooth flow of traffic around this corner; such to be approved by the Division of Engineering. 2. Easements as required by the various utility companies shall be reserved. 3. The applicant shall dedicate the easterly half of Alpine Avenue, including a property line return at Alpine and Naples as determined by the Division of Engineering. 4. The applicant shall complete all missing improvements adjacent to his present triangular holding and adjacent to any property which may revert to him as a result of the proposed vacation. 5. The applicant shall provide a title company report setting forth sufficient information to determine from whence the original dedication was made. 6. The applicant shall bear all costs of advertising and posting associated with the vacation proceeding. Request for Approval of Signs in B. onita Village Shoppin~ Center Director of Planning Warren noted there was no one representing the applicant in the audience. MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Continue this matter until the next meeting, April 19, 1965, so that the applicant or his representative, may be present at the meeting. Request for Waiver of Sidewalk in Bonita - Helmuth Bros. A letter was read from Paul Stein, on behalf of Francis and Robert Helmuth, re- questing a waiver of sidewalk requirement on their property south of Bonita Road and Allen School Road. Director of Planning Warren explained the developers are asking for a waiver; pre- viously, the Commission has always granted a deferral. They plan to put in shoulder paving and curb, but request that sidewalk be omitted. The Planning staff tends to go along with their request. Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, stated there is a critical point between a deferral and a waiver. The conditions under which waiver or deferral may be granted are such that the installation of an improvement will cause a defective condition to property or it would be extremely impractical to so install or construct the same. Mr. Harshman continued that as of this time, the installation of side- walk at this site is impractlca~;however, the Division of Engineering would ask that the Commission grant a deferral until such time as a study can be conducted. They would suggest the formation of a group - Planning, Engineering and perhaps the schools, and any other groups the Commission might designate, to study practical standards to be applied in this vicinity of Bonita. Mr. Paul Stein, representing the developers, remarked that they have tried to come up with a development which would be consistent with the rural atmosphere of Bonita. Since there will be little foot traffic to the shopping center, and because the entire commercial area is without sidewalk, they feel the curb only would be more consistent with the rural atmosphere. Mr. Stein added that eventually this would be a waiver and would ask that this request be granted now so that they can go ahead with a definite plan for their Center. Director Warren commented on the deferrals granted by the Commission in this area; the La Bonita Town and Country Apartme~s, the Barber Shop and the Bank. He said the staff would prefer to go along with Mr. Harshman's recommendation that a study be made of the area. Member Comstock asked when this study could be made. Director Warren remarked that ideally, the Bonita area would be the subject of a special community development study and if so, a complete study should require several months. Member Comstock suggested a period of 90 days in which to complete a study to determine what permanent public improvements should be required in the Bonita area. MSUC (Comstock-Stewart) Denial of a request for waiver, but approval of a 90-day defercal of sidewalk construction subject to the following: 1. A bond, lien, or cash deposit be posted with the Division of Engineering in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.) to assure completion of public improve- ments. 2. The deferral will be for a 90-day period, during which time the Department of Engineering and the Planning Department will make a study of the area regarding the determination of permanent standards of improvement to be imposed in the immediate vicinity and in the neighborhood of this request. -9- Request for Approval of Plans - Portion of Shoppin9 Center in Princess Manor Unit #2 Director of Planning submitted the plot plan of the proposed Shopping Center. A Speedee Mart store is proposed and there will be a service station on the corner. The developers are asking for 3 curb cuts along Melrose. A 10-foot strip of land- scaping is proposed along Melrose, 4 feet on City property and 6 feet on their property. The staff would suggest that the developers be required to submit a de- tailed landscaping plan. Director Warren added that the Speedee Mart store will be a simple design; he would like an opportunity to discuss the exterior of store with the developers. Director Warren then presented several recommendations the staff would suggest for approval. Chairman Stevenson asked if any of the conditions were ob- jectionable to the developer. Mr. Ray Rainwater, representing Princess Park Estates, Inc., said he would like to see more things "tied down" as several of the conditions were left to the approval of the staff. He stated they could "live with the conditions." The developers plan to retain ownership and lease the property. He questioned the stipulations of the "D" zone and implied that they, as owners, were being asked to be the "police power" to control this. Director Warren declared the Commission put the "D" zone on this area because it was to be a neighborhood shopping center, and they felt they should have some control to assure compatibility with a residential area. In working with the staff, the developers have come up with something that is satisfactory, but as always with a developer, it is a matter of urgency and they never want to have to go back to the Commission. If they work together in the total process of the development, there should be no conflict. Director Warren stated it was necessary to tie down these conditions at the very beginning of the development, and cited another shopping center as an example of not having these conditions. He cautioned that these conditions should be given to all the new c~ners coming into the Center, so that they will be aware of them. Most of the conditions recommended are elementary and should be worked out with the staff. Vice-Chairman Stewart questioned whether there would be any hardship for the developers to give these conditions to every new lessee. He felt perhaps this should be made a condition. Mr. Ray Rainwater assured the Commission the developers would notify any lessees of the conditions. City Attorney Lindberg stated it would be advantageous to all parties that they be fully informed. He added that the Commission could not really enforce the conditions in the lease. Vice-Chairman Stewart asked that the records show that the developers had volunteered and agreed to inform all of the lessees of the conditions. MSUC (Guyer-Johnson) Plans for a portion of the Shopping Center in Princess Manor Unit #2 be approved as required under the supplemental"D" zone, subj,ect to the following conditi~s: 1. That the plan be approved in accordance with that submitted April 2, 1965. 2. That the sign on the Speedee Mart building be built as shown on the elevation and that this same type sign be used on all other businesses in the Center. 3. The proposed freestanding sign list each business in the Center, the specific details of the sign to be approved by the Planning staff. The sign should be designed so that additional business names can be attached or deleted without altering the general appearance of the sign. -10- 4. That any signs in the windows of any buildings on the site be restricted to no more than 25 % of the total window area. 5. That no signs other than those approved on the plans shall appear on the buildings. 6. That the concept of landscaping be approved, but detailed plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to planting. 7. That space for storage of trash containers shall be enclosed with a permanent wall or fence; the location of such enclosures to be approved by the staff. 8. That a minimum of 12 parking spaces shall be provided in the first phase of development. 9. That the entire easterly slope be planted with the development of phase 1. 10. That all landscaping shall be permanently maintained and watered to assure continued growth. Approval of Report of Findings - Appeal by Princess Park Estates~ Inc.~ to Commission Action Denying Portions of Variance Requests The report of findings was read in which a request was made for permission to con- struct 18 single-family, 2 and 3-bedroom homes containing from 1006 to 1280 square feet, and t and 1½ car garages containing from 336 to 468 square feet in Princess Manor Unit No. 7. - The Commission granted the request but stipulated that garages must be 2-car garages and have a minimum of 400 square feet. The report of findings for Princess Manor Unit #8 was the same request for 43 single- family homes. The Commission denied the variance but granted permission to construct homes in compliance with the recommended sliding scale. MSUC (Adams-Guyer) Report of Findings for Princess Manor #7 and #8 be approved and forwarded to City Council. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Donald Jacquot referred to a letter he submitted to the Commission at their last meeting requesting an allowance be made in the sign ordinance permitting a temporary sign for rental of a new apartment building. He stated that more and more apart- ments are being built on side streets and some means of allowing the developers to display directional signs to their development is needed. Director Warren stated there was no way in which this could be done with the present ordinance and a variance could not be justified, since theywould be using someone else's property on which to display the sign. Such developments will occur in areas of the City already covered on any street map, whereas the new subdivision tracts are not shown on street maps. -11- Chairman Stevenson commented that numerous requests like this one will be made by all new developers. After discussion, Chairman Stevenson informed Mr. Jacquot that this matter will be taken under advisement. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Comstock-Guyer) Meeting be adjourned until April 19, 1965. Meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, nie M. Fulasz Secretary