Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/11/10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 10, 1975 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Rudolph, Starr, Floto, Pressutti and Smith. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes. Chairman Chandler led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Pressutti-Rudolph) The minutes of the meeting of October 27, 1975 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman called for oral communications and none were offered. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration of request for annexation of 0.58 acres on the east side of Hilltop Drive between G and H Streets - Albert J. Leckman 2. Consideration of request for annexation of 0.77 acres on the south side of L Street between Hilltop Drive and Country Club Drive - Cedeno- Skinner 3. Consideration of request for one year extension for variance ZAV-74-27, for reduction in side yard, 10' to 5', 824 David Drive - Mario Ingargiola 4. Consideration of request for vacation of Madrona Street west of Landis Avenue - C. P. Kiffe 5. Consideration of formation of Open Space District No. 6 in Hilltop Vista Subdivision Commissioner Smith requested that items 1 and 2 be considered separately. MSUC (Smith-Rudolph) Agenda items 3, 4, and 5 under the consent calendar be approved in accordance with the recommendations in the report to the Commission. Commissioner Smith noted that the request for annexation of 0.58 acres on Hilltop Drive is only one lot and he suggested that the Planning Department consider establishing a policy for annexing larger areas rather than an individual lot. He also noted that the annexation of 0.77 acres on the south side of L Street involved a parcel which has no sidewalk and asked about the possibility of requiring the installation of sidewalk as a condition of annexation. -2- Nov. 10, 1975 Director of Planning Peterson advised that with regard to the first item, this request for annexation was a result of the cessation of the County of providing fire protection for unincorporated areas which are surrounded by City boundaries. He reported that other property owners in the vicinity were contacted to deter- mine their interest in annexing to the city, but no interest was expressed. He concurred that the City could better define its annexation policy. He also advised that it has never been a policy of the City to require public improvements as a condition of annexation; he questioned the legality of such a requirement. Assistant City Attorney Beam expressed the opinion that the laws of annexation as codified by the State does not allow cities to condition the annexation upon a requirement of installing public improvements. MSUC (Smith-Rudolph) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Notice of Exemption issued by the Environmental Review Coordinator on September 26, 1975, the proposed annexation will not have any possible significant significant impact on the environment. MSUC (Smith-Floto) The boundaries for the annexation of 0.58 acres located on the east side of Hilltop Drive between G and H Streets, as requested by Albert J. Leckman, be approved and the staff authorized to file the application with the Local Agency Formation Commission. MSC (Smith-Rudolph) The request for annexation of 0.77 acres on the south side of L Street between Hilltop Drive and Country Club Drive be referred to the staff to determine if there is a legal means of requiring the installation of sidewalk. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Smith, Rudolph, Starr and Floto NOES: Commissioners Chandler and Pressutti ABSENT: None Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt advised that there is a procedure known as the short form of the 1911 Act under which the City can force the installation of sidewalks if more than 50% of the block is so improved. MSUC (Rudolph-Smith) The request for annexation of 0.77 acres on the south side of Hilltop Drive be placed on the Planning Commission agenda for the meeting of November 24, 1975 with a report from the staff as requested. REGULAR CALENDAR 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Zone change PCZ-75-J - Request to rezone 6.28 acres in the northwest quadrant of I-8~5 and East J Street from P-C and unzoned to R-1-H - Citx initiated Director of Planning Peterson reported that the property considered for rezoning is under two ownerships at the present time. The easterly portion, immediately adjacent to the freeway and consisting of about 1.6 acres, is owned by George Cunradi who has expressed an interest in developing the property. The westerly portion was formerly owned by Otay Land Company and then sold to Dr. Bloom. A bankruptcy proceeding currently in process has clouded the question of ownership of that property, which comprises about 4.7 acres. It is recommended that the rezoning be considered in two separate hearings with consideration of rezoning -3- Nov. 10, 1975 the 1.6 acres set for November 24, 1975 when the environmental impact report should be ready for consideration, and the rezoning of the 4.7 acres held over to January 26, 1976 after the scheduled date for the court hearing on the bank- ruptcy proceeding. MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) The public hearing for consideration of rezoning 1.6 acres in the northwest quadrant of 1-805 and East J Street be continued to the meeting of November 24, 1975. MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) The public hearing for consideration of rezoning 4.7 acres in the northwest quadrant of 1-805 and East J Street be continued to the meeting of January 26, 1976. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-75-19 - Request to install a 50' high, 314 sq. ft. freestanding sign, 98 East Bonita Road - Union 0~1 Company Director of Planning Peterson advised that after this public hearing was adver- tised, it was determined that the location of the proposed sign on a scenic route in the city makes it necessary that an Initial Study of the environmental impact of the act be filed. It is recommended that this hearing be continued for one month to allow time for the filing and processing of the Initial Study. MSUC (Rudolph-Starr) The public hearing to consider variance application PCV-75-19 be continued to the meeting of December 8, 1975. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-75-18 - Request to use mobile unit for temporary classroom, 301 E. Palomar Street - Palomar Church of Christ Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that this request is for the use of a 10' x 50' mobile unit as a classroom for a one year period. The church is proceed- ing with plans for construction of a permanentbuilding but additional classroom space is needed immediately. Mr. Lee noted that the mobile unit at the location proposed would be adquately screened from public view. He called attention to three conditions recommended and the findings to support approval of the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. George Riley, 1125 Monserate Avenue, representing the Palomar Church of Christ, affirmed that plans are under way for a new building to be constructed on the site and that the use of the mobile unit is strictly for temporary quarters and should not be needed for longer than one year. He expressed compliance with the conditions listed in the staff report. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Starr-Rudolph) Variance resolution PCV-75-18 for the use of a mobile unit as a temporary classroom, including the conditions and findings as stated in the staff report, be passed and approved. -4- Nov. 10, 1975 9. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Variance PCV-75-17 - Request to split parcel into two lots, one without street frontage - Geo. W. & M. Clayton Director of Planning Peterson pointed out that this hearing was continued from the meeting of October 27 with directions to the staff to investigate the status of a possible 30 ft. roadway easement which the applicant thought would be avail- able to serve this lot. Research of the records revealed that no public roadway easement exists. Although a 30 ft. roadway easement was shown on the final sub- division map filed in 1947, the easement was not described in the title to the map and it was never offered for dedication to the city nor accepted by the city at the time the map was approved. Mr. Peterson advised that if an easement exists it would be a private easement lying west of the 40 ft. strip of property owned by the City. The staff position continues to be a recommendation for denial of the variance application since findings in support of a hardship peculiar to this property are not evident; the property owner enjoys the same rights and use of his property as other owners in the vicinity. It is recommended that none of the lots be divided until procedures for construction of a public street are put in effect. Chairman Chandler reopened the public hearing. Margaret Clayton pointed out that a variance similar to this request was granted to Mr. Dennis Mickey with one of the conditions being that he obtain a 12 ft. access easement across the property at First Avenue and D Street. Such an easement has been obtained by Mr. and Mrs. Clayton. She also advised it is not their desire to develop the rear portion of the property at this time, but only to divide the property. Commissioner Pressutti asked if it is possible to approve a division of a parcel with some codicil that the property cannot be developed until it has frontage on a street. Assistant City Attorney Beam adivsed that this is redundant since the reason for the variance is to make the land developable because it is not on a dedicated public street. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. In discussion the Commission concurred that findings to support approval of the variance request were not evident. MSUC (Staff-Rudolph) Based upon the following findings, variance application PCV- 75-17 is denied. 1. Reasonable use of the property is enjoyed through the existence of the single family residence on the front portion of the lot; hence, no hardship exists. 2. The existing home at 61Minot Avenue affords the owner the same rights enjoyed by other owners of R-1 lots in this vicinity. The formation of a 1911 Act Improvement District would provide for the construction of a public street to serve the rear portion of the lots fronting on Minot Avenue if the owners desire to subdivide their properties. -5- Nov. 10, 1975 3. Since access to a public street would be available to the rear of this lot and similar adjacent lots under 1911 Act procedures, the approval of a private easement conflicts with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance Section 19.24.110 which requires R-1 lots to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a dedicated street. 4. The creation of private access easements in this area conflcits with the General Plan policy that future rights of way be protected against adverse development. Chairman Chandler advised the applicant of the right of appeal to the City Council within l0 days. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Specific Plan at 3900 block of Bonita Road - City initiated Current Planning Supervisor Lee displayed a plat showing five parcels located northwest of Bonita Road and Willow Street, noting that development plans for two of the parcels have been approved which entail access from Bonita Road. He pointed out that if the remaining two parcels fronting on Bonita Road also require curb cuts, it could result in traffic hazards on Bonita Road which presently has a traffic count of about 20,000 cars a day and is projected to ultimately increase to 50,000 cars a day. The staff proposed a plan to utilize a joint access drive- way for the two developments which have been approved; Bonita Racquets was recep- tive to the proposal but the Kaiser Foundation was not and expressed strong opposition to any joint use of access. In considering various alternatives for providing access to each of the parcels without undue traffic conflict, it was the opinion of the staff that a specific plan entailing the dedication and improvement of a public street cul de sac, from which each parcel would have access, offered the best solution. A plan for the proposed cul de sac was presented and attention called to five reasons contained in the staff report for the support of this plan. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Grant Baldwin, Regional Property Manager for Kaiser Hospitals and Clinics in Southern California, 1515 North Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles, discussed their proposed facility and their efforts to meet all requirements of the City in developing the property. He expressed concern that use of joint access from Bonita Road would result in traffic through their parking lot to and from the Willow Street access point. Due to the nature of their clientele, i.e., people who are ill and in need of medical care, it is their contention that such addi- tional traffic through their property would be an imposition and would create problems. He displayed alternative plans for access drives from the proposed cul de sac which they felt would discourage traffic through their property to reach the adjacent facility, but expressed a strong preference for retaining their individual driveway from Bonita Road, which he indicated could be placed at any point across their vacant parcel fronting on Bonita Road that the City deemed preferable. -6- Nov. lO, 1975 Kenneth Kolk, representing Bonita Racquets, owners of parcels, 2, 3, and 4 shown on the plan, expressed their desire to cooperate in any plan for common access that is acceptable to the City. He also indicated their wish for an early decision in order that their development plans may proceed. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lee discussed the various alternative plans submitted by the Kaiser Foundation noting the differences from the staff proposal. He felt any of the proposed alternates should be reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer before being approved. He again expressed the opinion that a private joint access driveway could serve the same purpose. Commissioner Starr expressed the opinion that the design of Bonita Road at this point should be taken into consideration, and whether or not it would permit left turns into or exiting from the property. He also felt that the points brought up by Mr. Baldwin were valid. He suggested that if parcels 4 and 5 could be limited to one curb cut each, the separate driveways for the Kaiser clinic and for the Bonita Racquets development would not create a problem. MSC (Staff-Pressutti) The Commission rejects the Specific Plan as proposed and directs the staff to explore the possibility of having one curb cut per property owner and keep access to the two functions entirely separate. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Starr, Pressutti, Rudolph and Smith NOES: Commissioners Chandler and Floto ll. Consideration of request to operate veterinary clinic in C-N zone, 1466 Melrose Avenue - S. P. Waterman, D.V.M. Director of Planning Peterson reported that historically veterinary clinics have not been permitted in C-N zones, but in recent years there have been changes both in terms of the veterinary practice and in zoning ordinances. The present Municipal Code of Chula Vista contains a section which allows the Planning Commission to authorize other kinds of uses which are similar to the basic businesses allowed in that zone. This application is presented for consideration under that section. In reviewing the request the staff found that the use is similar to other uses in the C-N zone and recommends approval of the request, subject to the conditions that no overnight boarding of animals shall be allowed, and examination and treatment rooms shall be fully soundproofed. The Chairman invited the applicant to present additional information relative to the request if he desired to do so. Dr. Waterman, 1394 Lilac Avenue, concurred with the conditions as recommended. He discussed the difference between a veterinary hospital and a veterinary clinic, which he proposes to establish. A clinic does not have the facilities to keep animals overnight; they are treated medically or with minor surgery and released to the owner on the same day. Animals requiring overnight care are referred to a veterinary hospital. He presented photos of similar clinics located in other shopping centers in the San Diego area. He also advised that this type of facility does not generate excessive noise since most of the animals are there a very short time and, if necessary, are sedated for treatment. -7- Nov. 10, 1975 Commissioner Rudolph expressed concern over the problem with the C-N zone as regulated in the zoning ordinance as denoted by the frequency of requests brought to the Commission. She pointed out that the C-N District is very restrictive in order to make it compatible with residential use. She also noted that a conditional use permit is required for the location of a veterinary clinic in the C-C zone, and only the C-T zone allows it as a primary use. She felt that would indicate this is not the kind of use that could be found to be similar to other uses in the C-N zone. Commissioner Smith expressed the opinion that if this use is to be considered for the C-N zone it should be done under the procedures established for a conditional use permit which provide for a public hearing with notice given to surrounding residents. Commissioner Pressutti pointed out that this particular C-N property is rather peculiar as a neighborhood shopping center since it is much larger and provides much more parking than the more commonly found small neighborhood centers. He cited the location of this center on a heavily travelled street, the greater than usual setback from adjacent residential use, and the lack of a similar service in the area, as factors which make it a compatible and desirable use at this loca- tion. Commissioner RudOlph suggested that possibly additional C-C zoning should be established in this area to accommodate uses not permitted in the C-N zone. MS (Rudolph-Starr) PCM-75-25 for operation of a veterinary clinic in the C-N zone at 1466 Melrose Avenue be denied based on the finding that it does not have characteristics of other retail businesses or service establishments which supply commodities or services for residents of the neighborhood. A tied vote was cast on the motion, as follows: AYES: Co~nissioners Rudolph, Starr and Smith NOES: Commissioners Chandler, Floto and Pressutti Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that since the tie vote does not constitute approval, if members of the Commission feel there is some issue or fact that would allow a compromise, that might be attempted. He suggested that if the Commission wished to get the feeling of the adjacent residents as to the compat- ibility of the use, consideration of the request could be continued and notice of the date of such consideration be mailed to surrounding property owners. MSUC (Floto-Smith) Consideration of the request to operate a veterinary clinic in the C-N zone at 1466 Melrose Avenue be continued to the meeting of December 8, 1975 and that surrounding residents be notified of the date and purpose of the consideration. Commissioner Rudolph requested that the staff make some comment concerning C-C zoning for the area. -8- Nov. 10, 1975 12. Consieration of request for deferral of public improvements at 368 Hilltop Drive - Lawrence Pi Colman Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that the installation of public improve- ments--curb, gutter and sidewalk--for which a deferral is requested, would cost about $3,000. He pointed out that this property and the adjacent lot to the north are the only parcels on the west side of Hilltop Drive between Center and G Street which do not have the public improvements installed in front of their dwellings. The distance between Center Street and G Street is about 820 feet and these two lots equal about 25 per cent of the total frontage. The City Code requires that the improvements be installed in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit for $5,000 valuation or over unless a deferral is granted. In this case the staff finds that installation would not result in any of the conditions enumerated in the Co~e as grounds for deferral. Lawrence Colman, 368 Hilltop Drive, expressed the opinion that installing such improvements on a piecemeal basis by individual lots is impractical. He also felt such improvements should be financed--not paid for, but financed--from public sources of funds, rather than using private savings or private credit. He indicated he would not object to participating in a 1911 Act district for installation of all improvements in the area, nor to having a lien placed upon his property as a guarantee of future performance. In response to a question from the Commission, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt explained that under the regular form of the 1911 Act an improve- ment district is formed at the request of a contractor or a petition from a group of people. Under the short form 1911 Act, the City Council may, if over half of the block is developed with improvements and all the right of way has been acquired by the City, require the other property owners to install the improvements. On that basis the City finances the installation and the property owners then pay back the City over a period of years at the established interest rate. MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) The Commission denies the request to defer the installation of public improvements at 368 Hilltop Drive because the present installation of public improvements would not result in a condition which would support the necessary findings for deferral, and that it is desirable to install the improve- ments as part of the development of public improvements in the area; the Commis- sion also recommends that the City Council investigate the possibility of requiring the improvements under the short form 1911 Act procedure. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-75-21 - Request to install a self-serve 3-pump 9asoline island in connection with existin9 convenience market in C-N-P zone, 88 East Bonita Road - Frank Ferreira Director of Planning Peterson noted that the application requested a 3-pump gasoline island, but the drawings of the proposed installation show 4 pumps to be located on an island in the driveway of the Whispering Trees shopping center. In reviewing the plan the staff determined that location for the pumps would result in inadequate stacking distance for autos waiting for sercice to clear Bonita Road. -9- Nov. lO, 1975 Modifying the plan to place the pumps in another location would disrupt the onsite traffic circulation. Mr. Peterson commented on the attractiveness of this existing shopping center, but expressed the opinion that allowing the proposed use would disrupt the center and detract from its appearance. Mr. Peterson acknowledged the receipt of a petition containing 465 signatures expressing support for the proposed application. He reiterated the recommendation for denial of the application based upon the findings set forth in the staff report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Frank Ferreira, 270 Bonita Glen Drive, reported that a year ago he took over the management and operation of Carriage Trade in the Whispering Trees shopping center, a store which had previously been in operation for two years. He reported that during the past year business had doubled over the previous year and the customer count has increased to over 3,000 customers per week. During the past year he has been offered numerous suggestions from customers for improving the shopping center, and one of the suggestions heard most often was that a cut-rate gasoline facility was needed in this area because existing gas prices are too high due to the lack of competition. He indicated that the only truly cut-rate gasoline station in Chula Vista is on H Street, some two miles from this convenience center. With the opening of 1-805, gasoline customers can find cut-rate stations at numerous offramps from the freeway outside of Chula Vista. As a result of frequent suggestions in this regard, a survey was conducted of the customers of the shopping center and the interest in having a cut-rate gasoline facility was extremely high. Mr. Ferreira discussed the proposed design for the pump island and kiosk in an architectural style to blend with the existing structures in the center. He indicated that the location for the pump island as shown on the plan is one of many possible locations that could have been shown. The reason for selecting that site was for exposure to Bonita Road, thus eliminating the requirement for a large sign. Mr. Ferreira discussed the difference between a cut-rate self service facility and a regular self-service with other services available. He contended that a facility for dispensing gasoline only should not require a market study for justification, as is required for a full scale service station. He also felt that the number of signatures on the petition shows that the service is necessary or desirable and will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. Mr. Ronald Feenstra, architect, 1975 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, pointed out the difficulty in knowing how to plan such facilities in the light of what is going to happen in the future. Due to the energy crisis, there is no certainty of what will happen in the future. He suggested that due to the investment required to establish a full scale service station, such facilities should be limited to those presently existing, and new installations should be this type which are far less expensive and can be removed within a short time when they are no longer needed. He contended that the facility proposed should not fall in the same category as a service station which provides a full line of service for motorists. -10- Nov. 10, 1975 Mr. Feenstra took exception to the statement in the staff report that the positioning of this pump island in the middle of the driveway will disrupt the visual continuity of the existing building lines and will tend to clutter the center. He also maintained there is ample room in the parking lot of this center for autos to circulate and reach the pumps without being backed up in the street. Larry Antinone, 39 Sandalwood Drive, a resident in the area, spoke in opposition to the location of a cut-rate station at the entrance to a residential area, since permitting this type of development would detract from the residential area and would add to an already overly congested area. He contended that the existing center causes an abnormal amount of onstreet parking for a residential area. He reported that his concern is shared by a number of home owners in the area and asked that those in opposition be requested to raise their hands. Six people in the audience responded. He also submitted a petition signed by 49 home owners in the immediate area in opposition to the installation of the pro- posed gasoline facility, which he indicated represents about 98% of the home owners in that particular tract. Martha Zumstein, 68 Bonita Road, whose residence is across the street from the shopping center, expressed the opinion there is no need for any more service stations in the area. She enumerated the stations presently existing along Bonita Road which she feels amply serves the community. Mr. Ferreira pointed out that over 200 of the signators to his petition are residents in the immediate area. Jack Wolf, 28 Sandalwood, asked how many of those 200 signators referred to by Mr. Ferreira are property owners. He suspected none were. He also pointed out that the architect's rendering as presented misrepresents the surrounding area. He asked what use is proposed for the vacant area to the west of the driveway. He was of the opinion that a request for a gas station on that property was formerly turned down because there are too many gas stations in the area already. He felt that area should be paved for additional parking for the center to relieve the excessive parking on the street. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that this is a C-N zone and she concurred that the finding cannot be made that it provides a necessary service or facility. She pointed out that within easy driving distance there are sufficient facilities to provide gasoline; also that it is in too close proximity to residential use. She expressed the opinion the conditional use permit should be denied. Commissioner Pressutti concurred that with an additional gas station already committed in that area, one already existing, and another application pending for further consideration, this application should be denied. Commissioner Floto also expressed opposition to the addition of this type of facility in the C-N zone. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission finds that conditional use permit application PCC-75-21 would not have any possible significant impact on the environ- ment and certifies the Negative Declaration on Initial Study IS-75-51. -ll- Nov. 10, 1975 MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) Conditional use permit application PCC-75-21 is denied based upon the following findings: a. With an existing service station adjacent on the east and a valid conditional use permit outstanding for a second station on the north side of Bonita Road, an additional service station in the proposed location is not necessary or desirable to serve the neighborhood and the information supplied by the applicant has not substantiated the need for such an additional station. b. The location of the pump island within the driveway of the existing center fails to provide sufficient stacking distance, so that traffic could back up into Bonita Road, and further relocation of the pump island to the south would result in a disruption of the onsite parking and circu- lation system in the center; thus, either solution adversely affects the safety and welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. Chairman Chandler advised the applicant that the decision of the Planning Commission denying the conditional use permit application could be appealed to the City Council within 10 days. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jack Wolf commented on his recent observations of the communities of Thousand Oaks, California and Westlake Village. He indicated he was very impressed with the attractive manner in which business development and various types of residen- tial development were integrated and with the well-designed signs identifying the commercial developments. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson suggested that the study session scheduled for November 17 start at 5:00 p.m. and adjourn for dinner at 7:00 p.m. The Commis- sion expressed concurrence. Mr. Peterson also reported that the Council has appointed Mr. Roy Johnson to serve on the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson has previously been a member of the Board of Appeals. It was suggested that Mr. Johnson be invited to attend the study session meeting and dinner. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rudolph commented on the numerous various requests related to the C-N zone. She expressed concern as to whether the purpose of the C-N zone is clearly covered in the zoning ordinance and if it is made clear to developers and businessmen. -12- Nov. 10, 1975 Mr. Peterson expressed the opinion that the ordinance is not confusing to the applicants and the provision for allowing uses of the same general character as the uses specifically named is one for Commission determination based upon individual applications. He pointed out that the majority of the applications have dealth with the center at Melrose and Orange which is larger than other C-N zoned centers and apparently has difficulty in achieving full occupancy of the facilities. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Chandler at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary