Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-12-14; Planning Commission; MinutesI F CITY OF CARLSBAD : Minutes of: PLAFINIMG COMIIISS Trff,' i Date of ileeting: December 14, l9G5 i Time of Meeting: 7:30 P.H. :-P-laca-of-S~sg~;.i.ng~----eounci-l--Ch~mbers---.--------------- : ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Munn, I I I Palmateer, XcCartny, Sutherland, Lamb, i4cComas and Freistadt. Also present were City Attorney Uilson, Planning Director Schoell, Building i Inspector Osbutv and C. R. Thornton, Ass't. City Engineer. I I I I (a) ftlinutes of the regular meeting of i ilovember 23, 1965, nere approved as corrected. 1 I I i (b) Tlinutes of the reoular adjourned meeting approved as submitted i of November 30, 1965, wer; I I I I I I t I I I I I I I F J WRITTEI4 COI.~~;IUWICATIONS: I I (a) Counci 1 action on I I I i I I I I I P1 anni ng blatters. i Chairman Sutherland asked for a clarification on i : the Council's request for the Planning Commission: i to study the uses allowed in a Residential-Pro- I fessional zone at the public hearing held on an : : appeal made by Jack Y. and Patricia Kubota of the: I decision of the Planning Commission denying thz : : request for reclassification of certain property i i located on Knowles Avenue East of Pi0 Pic0 Drive : ; from Zone R-1-7.5 to Zone R-P. I The City Attorney explained that the Council felt: the permitted uses are a little broad in the R-P : i zone and that a study should be made to determine! ! The Chairman asked that this matter be taken i under advisement until after the Aaster Plan ; is completed. 1 I I I I I r ; the proper uses and sign sizes in this zone. I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Planning Director stated that a study should i I be made after the islaster Plan is adopted. I i (b) City Manager - re: Request for vacation i : of certain streets. I : The City Attorney stated that the advantage of i this would be that the property could be made I I i into one large parcel and divided. i The Planning Director suggested that this matter ; be taken under advisement and a study be made i I for a report at the next meeting. I i Mr. Thornton explained that these streets are : located in the old Hosp Grove and do not meet I i the City standards. He stated that he would I I : like to make a thorough study and make a report i I on it. 1 I i The Cornmission agreed that the study shoutd be i made and reports returned to the Commission. I I i I I I I I I I 1 I I I 8 t I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I , ',...,\'' I I I I 1 I I I I ', '\ \ 8 ' \ 8' I % ' 8 ', 8'8'\, I b, ', ' \ , \' - . I '\ "8'*,, '8 8, '. I 1 ' '$4 1 : of '*\$+, '. +, I I : M P m ber .@\".+.9 \,d,,: I i Name '8\, '$$& '\, %$I, I I pi:: { ~~?~i~;cat,i~n5 in regari;s to th2 ::'raster Plan that i ::: l+;:! It I I I :::I:; :::::: I 4 I @;I:;; is:::: I 'pb 80 8 q',&$p 1 i"." .__ -. , " "_, -.,. """__I - "" ~ .. " " "..-.--.-I """ """"" "- "" + "" :- """""" S"'" "" "> : S~ci-etdry i]cc2;,Gi!?y y~p~i-tci 72~~:: yi:sg ~-.;IJo corn- I 1 yd::~X be c.crrsider.r.d jc;.t-.er. I ;lt;lt I l::l,l :::::: I I I ::::;: a I :;I::: I :::I:: I * :;:::: I (a) VARIANCE (Continued) - Applicant: Ernest i :::::t :'I::: 11 I I I :::::: :;:::: :II::: I::I$I I I :::I:: I :::;:: :::::: ::::I: ::;::: I ::::I; :::::I ::;;:; ;::;:a a I I 1 I .. . I -...-.- """"" I ! -.- . I :,(.:A 1- LLI~~K~ r CAef.i ~NS : ; I-!?;-:? WBE no oral commufi: cations. I 84 1 I PtrGi.:IC HEARIMGS: I I 11 I I Adlcr, Jr. ,I The City Attorney stated that on Page 311 , Sec- i i tion 241, the zoning ordinance definition of a i i lot indic3tes that if you do not have street : fror,taSc ~L'U do not have a lot. He explained I i that ths appiicant has asked for a variance on I ; property that does not have street frontage or a I i pGbl'ic dedicated easement to the City. He - I : stated the Commission could either refuse to i consider it or if they wished they could grant ! ; the variance with the condition that the appli- i :::;:: cant pu;-crtase property aIIowing street frontage I fur the proposed lots or provide a public dedica-i i ted ease;iierlt to the City for the "Panhandle" i port-i GP. I i Tiin Chairman questioned i4r. Adler regarding the : o:;lnership of that portion of land. I I . Ernest Adler stated that he did not own that I 1 ,;I portion of the property but there was an under- : : standing that they could acquire it. There tias i i only one other obvner involved and he had an I understanding in late September that the parcel i i would be available to him. He stated that he i i had tal ked to ifr. Rorick recently and he stated : : that some of the property owners were against thi! I hecaijse of the covenants and restrictions on the : : Falcon tiill Subdivision. 1 I : Thz Cornmissjon voiced objection to considering I i Pequests for changes on property before the pro- : : perty is purchased. I I I 811 81 I 1::1:1 I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 * I I I 8 I I I I I (b) VARXANCE - To consider a reduction in i frontage from 75' to 20' in o:*c!er to create one i "Panhandle" lot on property on the Easterly side : : of Hoover Street between Ifighland Drive and Adamsi i Street. Applicants: Elmer E. and Ida E. Boyce. i /\Jotice of ilearing was read. ?.he Secr2tary certi-i : fied that the property OW~~~TS in the area were I i notified and then read the apylicatiolt and the i i signatures of the property ovncrs in the area in : favor of this request. t The following Tatters opposing this request were i I I I 1 I I I I I I read: I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !::!:! a. . I- " '* .. _""""""""""_ """ i ilecembcr 5, 1965 Paul J. Srni th, wner of properti : at 4373 Highland Dr. objected to any reduction : of residential lots. [Iecernbcr IO, 1965 Malter 5. and Dorothy E. Parysh; I 1 8 I I I I I 4 ! The Ch"lman announced the Commission would now I i hear froin the applicant or his representative I I I and any others desiring to speak in favor of this! i application. I 1 PAUL MUNNEKE, 3985 Stella Maris Lane, stated thak he represented the applicants who wished to have : ! a lot split in order to develop Section 6. He i I explained that in order to get access to this t I : proposed lot a variance is required for a reduc- i i tion in frontage to 20', and pointed out the City; : has great need for this "Panhandle" as this "Pan-: hand1 e" would provide the City a means of acqul r-: : ing an easement for a right of way for future i i sewers to come down from Highland to Hoover. I I HR. M. !J. JARVIE, 1175 Hoover Street, stated he ; did not wish to speak against this request yet. i Iie stated that he has property nearby on Hoover : : and believes there should be some study given to i this request, He felt the zoning is rather re- I i strictive and the Commission should study this : ; before granting a variance for "Panhandle" lot I i split, as he did not believe they needed a "Pan-: : handle" lot split on this property. I I i Commissioner Lamb qusstjaneiiMr. Jarvie as to what! i he envisioned his property to be used for even- ; I tually, and iQr. Jarvie stated he would like to i sell it and felt it should be zoned R-3 or R-T. I F. J. FOX, 4215 Harrison St. stated the applicant1 i was content to keep his property residential, 4 I : however some of the property owners on the i perimeter of the lagoon would like to change the I : zone to multiple dwellings or residential tourist: i and felt that zoning would blend in with the I I : General Plan. : The Chairman announced the Commission would now i i hear from those opposed to this request. I I i id0 one present spoke in opposition. I I i The public hearing was closed at 8:50 P.M. ! The Planning Director read his report and retractbd I item (a) as the length of the "Panhandle" was in : I excess of 150 feet as stated in the policy. fie i stated that proposed Lots ''A" and "8' were bcth I : adequate in lot area and this property would he i i difficult to develop into a subdivision. i Mr. Thornton stated there is a petition out for I i sewers on l-toover and Highland. It would be I I : easier for the City to acquire an easement thru this "Panhandle" if final design requires same, ; I for sewer purposes to serve 3 or 4 structures in i this area due to the topography. He stated thet I : there is a structure on proposed Parcel "A" and : i explained its location. He stated that econornica:liy : it would not be better to have tho street corne ir( i from Adams. He reported making a study at one i : tlme of the feasibility of bringing a street in I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I 8 8 I ! I I I I 1 I I I I I I I' '8 '" I I I I I 1 I I I " . '. .- I : through the Anthony pro?erty, theace Northerly i t.hrough the Dunn and La;v properties and then down! i The Commission discussed the possibility of other: t requests for "Panhandle" lot splits in the area; .! i tha: it is not real land locked property; that f i proposed parcels "A" and "Qrr are owned by one I : cul-de-sac in from Adams; whether 20 feet would i i be adequate for this length "Panhandle"; and the I I property being difficult to develop. I I : Thornton explained that at the time the ''Panhandlu" policy was adopted there were parcels; i of property where the adjacent property was I I ; developed and there was no other way to develop : I the property. There was discussion that it would! : be more desirable to state in the policy that the! i length of the "Panhandle" should be typically no : ;more than 150 feet, and the Cornmission realized i there klould be exceptional c8ses when this would I I not be sufficient iength, however this phrase I { was not inserted in the policy. i The following resolution was presented: . i A Kotian was made to adopt Resolution No. 415 i granting the variance as requested and as shown I : on Exhibit 'ID" attached hereto for the follorving i : reasons : I 1. The terrain makes it difficult to divide I : this property. I I 1 2. This would be a desirable solution in I i dividing the property. I approved of this solution for the use of this V I : property. i Said lot split is hereby granted on condition i i that all requirements of Ordinance Plo. 9136 and I : the City "Panhandle" lot split Policy be met by f i the applicant, with the exception that center link : of said "Panhandle" being 214.69 feet, and that i i said new lots be surveyed and monumented, and I t : street improvements constructed in Hoover and i Adams Streets, and that reports thereof be furnished i to the City. t I I i UTION GRANTIiJG A VARIANCE OW PROPERTY AT THE i tc, Hoover Street. I l I I 1 I t property owner; discussion of constructing a I I b 8 I I I - I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I 8 I + I I I t I I 1 3, The majority of the adjacent property ovme[s I I 1 I /- I I I I I I * Planning Commission Resolution No. 415. A RESOL-: Munn i EASTERLY SIDE OF HOOVER STREET BETUEEN HIGHLAND i DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET, was adopted by title ; and further reading waived. I Lamb I 1 I I I I I I ! TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (Continued) 6 lcts, Zone I i R-1-7.5 located biesterly of Highland Drive and I : Northerly of Buena Vista Nay. O\;vnGr: City of i Carlsbad. i Mr. Thornton explained the proposed parcels and i I that they were not a subdivision. The City is i i in hopes of disposing of tfiis propertg to absorb : t some of the costs for the exteY1sioi.r of Las Floresl I Drqive extension. He explaineti that Parce'i 1 was ; : substandard .in size and has ;'I23 stj;ttre feet in i ~nt area iastead of the re(4u.i i*3< ?~C!O square feet, I I I I I * I 1 I &# I I I I I I I ! I /" t i and 50 feet at the 20 foot setback line on Chu- i parosa May and asked that variances be allowed : I on Parcel 1; and Parcel 6 which has a lot front- i i age of 67.89 instead of 70 feet for the develop- I : merit of these lots. I I I The Planning Director stated that most of the I I proposed parcels were all over 7500 square feet I : and some of the parcels are 11,000 square feet. : The Secretary read the reports from the various i departments and agencies and the letter from the i City Engineer requesting variances. b I I L4r. Thornton explained the future cul-de-sac :Morning Glory Lane turning circle radius being i I reduced from 50' to 45'; that it would not be a : ; full circle there. The property to the South is I owned by Nr. Sparks who is not interested in : dedicating property or putting in improvements. i The end of l4orning Glory Lane will be barricaded.: Holiday Flanor has two cul-de-sacs similar to this! ; and they lend themselves well. The City .Is plan-! I ning to develop Morning Glory Lane and Buena I I I Vista !Jay simultaneously and to have all of the i utilities in. i i The Commission reviewed proposed Resolution No. I : 413 incorporating the recommendations from the i I various departments and agencies. :The Planning Director and the Cornlr,ission were in i agreement that underground utilities should be : I installed. I i The matter of having public hearings on the I variances was discussed, The City Attorney I explained that in the past the variances were i granted at the time the subdivision was approved.! : t!e sta.ted that the point brought up was valid and! i a public hearing could be held on them. The : Commission could adopt a resolution of intention i i or the City could apply and make a formal appli- i : cation. There are no parcels created until this : i tentative map is approved. !After further discussion a motion was made to ! adopt Resolution No. 413 recommending approval : of the proposed parcel map - tentative map 4 I subject to Item 14 statin? that pauanxfhgikkhfex ill : shall be underground, and that the usual variance! I 4 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 4 I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I : I I I I procedure be followed on Parcels 1 and C. Resolution No. 413. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD: 1 8 I 4 I I I : CITY PLAPiNIldG CO~4HISSIOW RECOr".IT.iENi)IFIG APPROVAL i OF THE PROPOSED PARCEL 14AP - TENTATIVE MAP, was I i read in full and adopted. I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I 1 !A short recess was called at 9:20. The Commis- ! : sion reconvened at 9:28 P.M. I I ! I I i OLD BUSINESS : ! i (a) Report - re: Request for vacation-..of i :portion of Valley Stre&. I I I I I ! Secretary McCarthy read the report from the con- I i mittee Conposad of Commissioners Palmateer and i : Freistadt, a;ld Chaired by Cornm,issioner KcCerthy i ! I I I I 1 '. L f : that the Planning Commission should recommend to I i the Council that they initfate the proceedings : t necessary to close that portien of Valley Street i under the terms that (a) The School would deed i I' to the City the strip of land bordering Valley : i Street on the North, between 3agnolia and Andrea,! iwhich is approximately 175' vJide, (b) This land I I and the sixty feet of the closed street would be : i approximately three acres and should be dedicated! : as a City Park, (c) James Street should be ex- i i tended to the North if the adjacent property I & : owners are in general agreement with the plan, an9 i the Governing Board of the school would support ; ; this program; (d) Valley Street would not be I I work was completed to rtagnolia; (e) If and when ; ; James Street is extended far enough to the North,: possibly to Buena Vista, the City should consider: : making Highland Drive and James Street one-way i I streets to facilitate traffic. I I I Dr. Harris Taylor stated that he. v!as in agreement! : with this re ort except that he was not happy I i After some discussion on Item (d) Dr. Taylor i stated that the Governing Board of the Carlsbad I : Union School District, believing in the General i i Plan recommendation that school and park sites be: : developed together, is will ing to sell to the I i City for one dollar, 2.3 acres of land located : : between the Nagnolia School and the !!alley Junior: i School sites for the purpose of developing a park: i The 6oard wishes in return the vacating of Valley: ; Street from just north of Andrea Avenue to Magnolya i Avenue. If Valley Street is vacated, the Carlsbad : Union School District will support the extension : of James Dr. between Tamarack and Magnolia Ave- :nues. They wished to see a fully developed park : I which would enhance the appearance of the two I : school sites adjoining it and, therefore, vrould lbke i the City to agree to some stipulations which he : : outlined. I There was some discussion on Item (d) of not i closing Valley Street until James Dr. extension i : is completed to blagnolia. 1 1 : In discussing the street opening on James Drive, i Mr. Thornton stated there are 2 or 3 property : : owners who did not want to participate and that I : one of the property owners at Highland and Hag- : : nolia has his property for sale and therefore may: I be interested in participating. There is a $24,000 storm drain the City ktil1 have to have in! : this area. I I i In discussing the development of the park, Dr. J ; Taylor stated that he feels a reasonable length : of time for the park to be completed would be : : June 30, 1967, and discussed the improvements the! school desired. I 1 The Planning Director stated that it was his understanding at one of the earlier discussions i I that the park would be just graded and planted. ; I Dr. Taylor stated that was when the school was I i retaining the rights of property, but if the I I : land is deeded to the City for a pl;Slic nark, i the scilorml cannot see using tkeir fupds. closed until the James Drive Street extension I I I I i I with Item (L: P . I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 _" + I I .t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I""""""""""""""""" . 4 ..I I I I 1 I I l a I .I - """""~""""""-""""""""~" " :After considerable discussion on vacating that portion of Valley Street, the Commission agreed i to delete Item (d) and change Item (b) to read, : ! "This land and the sixty feet of the closed stree), i would be approximately three acres and should be : : dedicated and improved as a City Park by June 30,: i 1967''. I I I I I I The majority of the Commission wanted Item (e) f i left in the report, I I The Commission agreed thrtt the Committee report i i be sent to the Council, together with the letter I i from Dr. Taylor, for their next regular meeting. i I I I I I I i (b) Subdivision Flap Act: Arilendment to Providb i for Parks for Recreational Purposes (Continued). i i The Planning Director reDorted workina Dn this : i and asked permission to take this off"the agenda i : The Chairman granted permission to take this item: i off of the agenda. at this time, and felt they are making good progress. I I I I I z- I (c) GENERAL PLAN -- Mr. Paul Meal from DblJM i was present and stated they are prepared to I I ; correct the two pages on the streets and would i take care of the errors, and would see that the ; : copies at the City Hal1 are corrected to show i ! Holiday Park, Hosp Grove. He stated that he was : : not aware that the South Carlsbad State Beach was: i omitted from the map and that he would have the I i map reprinted to correct the errors and ommissionk. ; lie stated that colors are difficult to pick up. The Secretary reported receiving letters on the i i General Plan and read letters from the following:: 12/14/65 Paul !,!. Munncke, 3985 Stella i*larjs Lank : urging the adoption now of the proposed General i i Plan slating that he is in accord with the City ; : I.ia71 at its present site, a mall development for i dovntown, commercial development at and near the : i 4 corners of the ramps of the freeways, also at i : the new El Camino Real. He believes the llaster : : Plan a valuable tool for the Commission's use i now today. Ten years from now it will be the i foundation on which another ?$!aster Plan will be i : developed. I I 11/30/65 Petition circulated by the A1 tons and : signed by property owners on Adams Street stating! ; it was their feeling that higher density zoning should be along Adams Street. I 1 i 12/9/65 idortimer I./. and Ruth A. Bondy, 1150 Pink, [ wished to strenuously object to any recommendatiob : as set forth in the Master Plan which would i prevent the use of the area on the East side of i ; Pi0 Pic0 between Pine and Oak for ei ther motels, i restaurants or other roadside services. They fel$ : the contemplated freeway widening should increase: i tourist interest in this area and properties I I ; along Pi0 Pic0 should be developed so as to bring: in highest tax returns. I I !12/14/65 Gerald C. McClellan, P. 0. Box 212, i opposed the adoption of that portion of the Mastet i Plan which provided for the extension of the i Tamarack Avenue to El Camino Real as a major I I 1 6 I I r I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I L 4 .. - -8- I I I I I I I :""~""""""""""""""""""""""*"""""""-"""""~~- I thoroughfare and asked the Commission to review i this portion of the blaster Plan. 1 I i The Chairman explained that the Commission had i I done considerable study on this Plan and felt I i there was a need for a southerly east-west road, I and this was up to the Engineering Department ; ! and pointed out that this is not a precise plan. i Hr. Thornton stated that Hillside will be the i i street for the southerly route. Tamarack would I : be the best East-blest direct route. I I \ The Commission discussed recommending this plan i i to the Council with the map corrected and the I corrections on Pages 40 and 41. I I i Commissioner Lamb stated that he would make his I : usual minority report as he is convinced there i should be multiple dwellings on the East side of i : the Freeway and the Civic center should be moved ; I out and that area should be made R-T. The /lest I jdid not believe the Commission would all agree so! !he stated that he would write his usual minority : i report. East of the Freeway, beauty can be at- i : tained by apartments and trees. He questioned : i rezoning the property back to R-1 from R-3 and i I pointed out that much of the property is vacant. : : He also objected to the Gas Company property 1 i being toned to a utility zone. !Attention was called to the fact that there is I :enough area in the downtown area that is already I i zoned 2-3 and commercial. I I !The Planning Director stated that they are talkin4 :about low medium density; standard R-1 allows ap-.' !The Planning Director suggested that instead of i approving this plan tonight that he study this ani :correlate this with Mr. Heal and at the next I i meeting have everything before them. i The Chairman asked Yr. Neal when these changes I would be made back to them and Mr. Neal stated : i that it would be impossible for him to get the i : changes here in two weeks. I I !The City Attorney explained that the General :Plan cocrld be adopted by the Commission that I I i night subject to specific changes and corrections; !After further discussion, a motion was made to 1 :adopt Resolution No. 41t adopting a General Plan ifor the City of Carlsbad, California as prepared : : by Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall. And i i Economic Analysis and Projections for City of I I :Carlsbad General Plan, dated 1965, as prepared i i by Daniel, Glann, Johnson and iflendenhall, subject i I to Exhibit "A", which contains changes, deletions: i and additions to the above mentioned portions of : Isaid General Plan and which changes, deletions anb : additions shall constituteportions of the General: i Plan in case of conflict. I I 1 I t I I I I I I I I I I I 6 I r I side of the Freeway should not have any R-1. He ; I I I 8 I I I * I I I /- I I proximately 4 families per acre. + I 1 I I I I * I & I I 1 * L I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I 1 *. 1 . - I I I I' ,. I" I I I I I I ',, +' '8, y,, I I ~"""""~""""~""~~~""""""~~"~~"~""~"""~""~"~"""""""""""""""~,"" : Member ,&\@.,e\p i01. I I ',,,A I i::1 1:: I under Professional Administrative District, deletb :::;;: "with some professional and administrative offices :;::It lll; :::I:, I 2. Page 40 - Under Residential Collectors 1 ::;;;: :;::I: 4 :1*111 1 3. Page 41 - Under Residential Collectors I ;i;ii; ;::'I; I @14:ll I:::II I1 I (a) Professional and Administrative I 1:: :;'::: I#* I ::;::: I ;:;:It 111 I (b) Holiday Park. 4 I ;;11:: I (c) Relocation of Hosp Grove Park. I i ; I.: I I@ I (6) South Carlsbad State Beach Park. I Iliiii I (e) Area between Palomar Road and I I ::::,I 1'::: : Poinsettia Road as low medium density along the i ::::;I I ocean. 9 I :::::: I (f) F4ediurn density residential and cornrnerb :::i:: cia1 center adjacent to El Camino Real relocated : :::::; : to the north of illarron Road. I ;:;Il8 #:I I I I I :;;:I: i AFID that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded I :;1:4; - p:::: : to the City Council for its attention in the I I /;I:: 11 I I :::*:I : Munn ; i :xi : : i Resolution Uo. 416. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING! Palmateer : :xi xi i i : COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, il"dcCarthy : I : ; !x: I ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN, was adop'ted by title : Sutherland ;xi : i : only and further reading u!aivcd. i Lamb : ; : :xi I Commissioner FvlcCarthy abstained since he was not : Ii:i:t i present at the pub1 Sc hearing held at the Magnolib I;:::; *I I School on i!ovemter 30, 1965. I :I:::: / The Chairman requested that the election of Chair: i::::: i man be placed on the agenda for the next meeting : : under New Business. I I i I '' ' ', '\, ' ', ', ', 1 ', \\ ', '\ '. I I I I -9, I I N a me '8, '& ',, "$&, i I I : of '.,@' *.*g$,+.. '8 ',p, ++ ; ; 1. Page 19 - Under the second paragraph 1 I located adjacent to the civic center." : delete Chestnut Avenue. : delete Jefferson Avenue. i District bounded by Jefferson Street, Grand i Avenue, Hope Street and Home Avenue. I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 4 I I I 4. On final map indicate: I '8 I I I I I 1 1:flI I 1 I I :I :*I I I manner prescribed by law. I I I I I : I'lcComas : : i x! : : I i Frefstadt !xi i x: i f 1 1;:;:; I1 ::I,:: lII1 I:!::: I I ;I;::: I ;::::: I 1:;::: I I I iiiiii : By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at i I::::: i 11 :05 P.CI. I I 11: I 4 :::;:; i ;I:::: I 1:;I;l I I I ;1411@ :;::;: I ;l:~:~ I:@:*: I 1;;:;: b I :;;:': I I :ii;:: ::: I I ii:::; I I I ::;::: I I I ;:::i: I I ::::I; I I ;:::I: I I I dsl:; ::::;; ::;:;I I I :::I:: I I I iii:ii I I I ::;::: I t :::I,: I I :I/:; I::!:: I I I I 1::::; I I I :::pi: I I I t ::I::: )Ill 1 i 1 I ;:::I: ;;so1 I I I /:;:: I 1 I ::::i: I I I I ;::;:; ;::;I; I ;I' #;:;I 41 I I I::::; I I 1 I I I - I : ADJOURNMENT: I I I I I Respectfully submitted, I ,(Y&f&L." &A*- I I I t I DOROTHY SOUSA OSBURN Recording Secretary I I I I I I I I I I I :*I1*; I t I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :I1 I I ;*v;1; I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I