Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1968/08/05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 5, 1968 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date at 7 p.m., Monday, August 5, 1968, in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, York, Stewart, Gregson, Rice, Adams, and Guyer. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, City Attorney Lindb erg and Assistant Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Rice-Adams) Minutes of the meeting of July 15, 1968 be approved, as mailed. MSUC (Adams-Gregson) Minutes of the meeting of July 22, 1968 be approved, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: Reduction of front setback from 25' to 15' - Del Mar Avenue between E Street and Davidson - R-3 Zone Director of Planning Warren explained this was Commission-initiated at the request of the staff, which came about as a result of the approval of a variance in this block to reduce the setback on one lot to 15'. Mr. Warren submitted a plot plan of the area noting the location of the proposed change. He stated that a change of setback to 15' was approved by the Commission for the new zoning ordinance for local streets such as this one, and the change will take place on these streets along with the adoption of the ordinance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Hobart Garth, 862 Ash Street, stated he owns one parcel on this street and urged the Commission to approve this setback change. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 528 Resolution of theCity Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (Adams-Gregson) to the City Council the Change of Front Setback for Del Mar Avenue Between E Street and Davidson Street Findings be as follows: 1. Reduction in setback from 25 feet to 15 feet will allow for a setback which is more consistent with those established in the immediate area. 2. A 15 foot setback is now recognized as a standard by the City for R-3 zoned areas, not fronting major streets. 3. A variance allowing a reduction to 15 feet has already been approved for one of the lots in this section of Del Mar Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning - Property along south side of Sweetwater Road, west of intersection with Central Avenue - R-1-B-20-D to R-3-B-2-D --Augustine The application was read in which a request was made for a change of setback from R-1-B-20-D to R-3-B-2-D for that property located on the south side of Sweetwater Road just west of the intersection with Central Avenue. The property has 492' of frontage on Sweetwater Road and comprises two acres. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted that the property was triangular in shape and is located within the 50 year flood plain. Mr. Warren remarked that the only multiple-family development in the Valley abuts the golf course on Bonita Road across from commercial development. The staff recom- mends denial because: (1) the General Plan places subject property in an open space category; (2) no acquisition of this property is presently contemplated by the City for the golf course, and therefore, it should be placed in the low- density residential classification; (3) to rezone it to R-3 at this time would be spot zoning. Director Warren stated that a zoning plan for the Valley is presently in progress and any action on this property should be done after the study is completed. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of their application were Mr. K. Augustine and Mr. Robert Augus- tine. They stated: (1) Bonita Wood Subdivision is approximately 1000' away from this proposed development and would not be affected; (2) apartments would enhance their view; (3) engineering and site development costs are estimated beyond the relm of single-family use; (4) Corky McMillan proposed medium density residential and has over 200 acres for development (south of Bonita Road, east of Acacia Avenue); these developers always save their prime acreage for commercial use which means that Mr. McMillan will be putting in a service station on his site; the property north of subject site will be eventually filled and developed with condominiums; the~me is now for developments such as this for the Valley; (5) it would take 3' to 6' of fill to bring this site level with the road and ready for development; (6) the development will bring in 40 families and they would be spending approximately $100,000 a year in Chula Vista plus the tax benefits that the City would get. Speaking in opposition were: Rear Admiral Kyle E. Bull, Birchbark Lane, speaking for the Bonita Woods residents; Lara Good, 4610 Sweetwater Road, representing the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association; Jack Stewart, 3379 Bonita Woods Drive; Lt. Frazer, 4845 Bram Avenue; Lyle Zinser, Bonita Woods. They stated their reasons as: (1) there are 73 homes in the Bonita Woods development of 60 acres or one home per one-half acre--this proposed development would bring in 40 families on less than 2 acres of land; (2) the people settled in the Valley because they wanted the cuuntry atmosphere--this cannot be achieved with apartment complexes; (3) the City of Chula Vista should buy this property as part of the golf course; (4) there is a dangerous curve at the intersection of Central Avenue and Sweetwater Road and this development would create a greater traffic hazard; (5) this rezoning would start a precedent as the owners of the parcel across the street will want to develop apartments also; (6) action on rezoning this land should wait until the study is made on prezoning the entire Sweetwater Valley; -2- (7) no definite action on this matter was taken by the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association, because it sounded so ridiculous, but they want to go on record as opposing this request; (8) this site is subject to flooding and will require considerable fill. The Chairman asked for a show of hands of those attending that opposed the request. Mr. K. Augustine declared that there are only 4 or 5 families in the Bonita Woods Subdivision that will be able to see this development. As to the traffic hazard, it isn't the road that is hazardous, it is the people who drive it that are unsafe. This property is in the City--the people who are protesting live in the County. A letter from Merle Palmer was read in which he stated his support of the request. There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Guyer declared that he concurs with the findings of the staff. A committee has just been formed to study the V~l~ey, and this is the proper place for them to start off. Director Warren discussed a statement he made--that the Valley can accommodate all types of housing, but that care should be taken as where to place them, and the staff does not believe that this i~ the proper place or time to put in this particular development. Member Stewart remarked that nothing that can come out of this study committee will convince him that apartments should be placed in this particular area. He agrees with the Planning Director that apartments ~houtd be placed next to and form a buffer for commercial zones. Member York felt it would be premature to consider this request before the zoning study is completed. He suggested they deny it without prejudice. Member Adams maintained it would be spot zoning and the proposed denity would exceed the desired density for the area. Member Gregson asked if the City has made any plans for acquisition of this property. Director Warren stated nothing has been done officially; the City is considering acquisition of property to the west of Rohr Park. MSUC (York-Guyer) The request be denied without prejudice based on the following facts: 1. The General Plan designates this area as golf course--open space. Since no acquisition of this parcel is presently contemplated by the City, it should be assumed that the proper designation for the property would be Low Density Residential since this is the classification of the property closest to it (across Sweetwater Road). -3- 2. An R-3 spot zone would be created if this request were approved. 3. R-3 zoning is inappropriate in this portion of the Valley because of the existing, although sparse, development and present zoning in the vicinity. While there presently exists R-3 zoning abutting the south side of the golf course on Bonita Road, conditions are quite different in this area from the subject area, i.e., the extensive commercial development on Bonita Road. Until a more detailed Community Plan is developed for Bonita, R-3 zoning should generally be confined to the business area. 4. A Committee has just been formed to inaugurate a zoning study of the entire Valley. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ - Property at northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and K Street - R-1 to R-3 and C-1 - Louis C. Tompkins The application was read in which a request for rezoning from R-1 to R-3 and C-1 was made for the property at the northwest corner of Fourth Avenue and K Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the area, the adjacent land use and zoning. He stated the land is presently vacant, has 240' of frontage on Fourth Avenue and 620' on K Street. He noted the two streets terminating, and the northerly end of the property: Fig and Guava Avenues, and commented that the applicant is proposing to extend Guava Avenue to K Street and will leave Fig a stub as it presently exists. Director Warren explained that the applicant had discussed the C-N zone for this corner but that the staff advised him against it because of the size of the parcel; however, the Commission can recommend the C-N zone, if they so desire. The subdivision to the north that was approved about two years ago left Fig and Guava Avenues as stub streets, because it was felt that this area would go single-family residential. Mr. Warren delineated the reasons that the staff recommends denial of the request. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Louis Tompkins, 1065 Camino del Rio, representing the owners of the property, stated they wanted to put C-N and apartments in here, but the staff informed them that they would have to put the whole parcel in the C-N zone which they did not want to do. After much study, they find that a service station would be suitable use here, also a 7-11 Store which will be handy for the people in the area. Mr. Tompkins added that they will be building two and three bedroom units for families, since most of the apartments today are being built for adults only. He remarked that they could extend Fig Avenue down and keep it single-family residential west of this street which would make a better zoning pattern. Those opposing the request were: John Smith, 777 Guava Avenue; John Thomas, 783 Elder Avenue; Ray O'Donnell, Principal of the Chula Vista High School, and Richard Schott, 358 San Miguel. They stated as their reasons: (1) anything as close to a school as this property is should be developed R-l; (2) felt secure in buying a home in the area that it would be developed with single-family residences; (3) the developer of the subdivision to the north wanted to buy this property and continue the single-family residential use; (4) there are 17 service stations in the 3 mile area of this location--there is no need for another station at this site; (5) O'Donnell--it would be a great temptation for students to leave the campus and come over to this site with the store and the -4- service station. It is impossible to supervise the students leaving the school grounds, especially the students in this age group; (6) the people in the area had a meeting as to whether they would come en masse but decided they would wait and turn out at the Council level instead, should the request be granted, and they would appeal. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member York asked about the condition of the homes across Fourth Avenue. Mr. Warren stated that some were older homes, and that logically, they could expect a request for rezoning on that side. The homes south of K Street are in good condition. Member Guyer stated that he concurs with the staff's recommendations. Member Stewart remarked that because ithe property is adjacent to a school is not sufficient reason to rezone it to C-1 and R-3. Schools are a compatible use in an R-1 zone and this would be a rezoning from the R-1 to R-3 and C-1. Member York remarked that he is opposed to the C-1 zoning and not especially to the request for R-3. MSUC (Guyer-Rice) Request be denied based on the following reasons: 1. The General Plan designates the property as Medium Density Residential which is equivalent to the R-1 zone. 2. An area of spot zoning would be created if this request were approved. 3. Adequate commercial zonin~ exists in close proximity to the area (both Third Avenue and Broadway). 4. During the past 15 months, the Planning Commission and City Council rezoned from C-2 to R-3 two parcels of land on K Street just east of the subject property. This would imply an overabundance of commercial zoning in this area. 5. A new single-family subdivision has been constructed during the past year or so on adjacent property and thus the usual argument that "the land is too expensive for R-1 development" does not appear to be valid. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council within 10 days. PUBLIC NOTICES Mr. Jack Thomas, 783 Elder Avenue, asked the Commission to give consideration to sending out notices beyond the 300' limitation set by the City. He felt it should be set for at least two blocks. Director Warren explained that sending out notices to property owners is not a legal requirement; this is a courtesy of the City. If you go beyond the 300', it becomes a budget problem. The 300' is an arbitrary figure used by a number of cities. -5= City Attorney Lindberg added that mailed notice is far more effective than publication of notices. The basic law of the State requires only publication of the notice, and many cities have dispensed with mailing. In rural areas, where many homes are far apart and not within the 300', it becomes the judgment of the Planning Director as to whom he should notify. Those people receiving the notice can notify their neighbors. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezonin~ - Property behind 772 Third Avenue- C-1 and R-1 to R-3 - Drs. Williams and Felt The application was read in which a request was made for a change of zone from C-1 and R-1 to R-3 for that property west of Third Avenue, north of K Street. Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location of the property, the adjacent land use and zoning. He noted that two parcels are involved: southerly parcel containing .57 acres and having 25' of Third Avenue frontage which widens to 125' in the rear, and the northerly parcel containing 1.5 acres, having 30' of frontage on Third Avenue widening out to 165'. It seems only logical to rezone the parcels to R-3 even though they are boxed in by commercial. The General Plan places it in a medium density classification, but there is a trend for higher density use along Third Avenue. For this reason, the General Plan should be re-evaluated and altered accordingly. The staff recommends approval of the request for the northerly property with the exception of the 30' access which they feel should retain its C-1 classification to maintain an orderly zoning pattern since the zoning and land use on either side of this strip is commercial. To rezone it would be creating a 25' strip between two commercial parcels. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. C. C. Alley, realtor, stated he was representing the applicant and would answer any questions. Mrs. Widenski, Garrett Avenue, questioned the access for those people residing between Third and Garrett Avenue. Chairman Hyde explained that the developers would have to provide access for this either from Kearny or Third Avenue. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. The Commission concurred that the rezoning would be logical and that the frontage should remain commercial, as pointed out by the Planning Director. Director Warren suggested that they attach the "D" zone to assure compatibility with the adjacent residential area. RESOLUTION NO. 529 Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending MSUC (York-Gregson) to the City Council the Change of Zone for Property West of Third Avenue, North of K Street (behind 772 Third Avenue) Findings be as follows: 1. The General Plan designates this area as medium density residential except for the Third Avenue frontage which bears the high density residential and =6- thoroughfare commercial designations; however, four recent Planning Commission and City Council decisions concerning this area will result in General Plan alterations in the vicinity of the subject property. These decisions are: (1) the rezoning from C-2 and R-I to R-3-D of 1.5 acres located west of the subject property on the north side of K Street between Third and Fourth Avenues; (2) the rezoning of .36 acres of R-1 zoned land located contiguous to the west side of the property described in #1 to R-3-D; (3) the rezoning from C-2 and R-1 to R-3-D of 2.9 acres located on the south side of K Street between Third and Fourth Avenues; and (4) the rezoning from R-1 to R-3-D of 5 acres located west of Third Avenue between K and L Streets. From the above, it is evident that a clear-cut trend to multiple-family development has been established in the vicinity of the subject property and in the opinion of the staff, the zoning map and the General Plan should be altered accordingly. 2. Therefore, justification exists for R-3 zoning in this area and the Commission recommends approval of this zone for the northerly property with the exception of the 30' access which should retain its C-1 classification in order to maintain an orderly zoning pattern--the zoning and land use on either side of this 290' strip is commercial and rezoning this narrow lane would create a 25' R-3 strip between two commercial parcels. 3~ The presence of the take-out restaurant (Jack-in-the-Box) directly in front of the southerly parcel, which utilizes all but 25' of the Third Avenue frontage, precludes any possible commercial development of the subject rear parcel and thus it would appear that the resulting irregular configuration of the zone boundaries could be justified. PUBLIC HEARING: (cont'd) Rezoning - Properts both sides of Orange Avenue, 700' west of Hilltop Dmive--M-1 to R-3-B-3-D - Jafro, Inc. The application was read in which a request was made for a change of zone from M-1 to R-3-B-3-D for 19.5 acres of property located west of Hilltop Drive and south of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company right-of-way. Director of Planning Warren stated this matter was continued two times at the request of the applicant. He submitted a plot plan noting the area to be rezoned, the adjacent land use and zonings. The applicants are proposing to construct duplexes which will be split for individual sales; this is similar to the project being developed at the southwest corner of Quintard Street and Hilltop Drive, which the Commission approved as a p~lot program. Mr. Warren then discussed the need for low-cost homes in the city, and the meetings he had with representatives of F.H.A. and the San Diego City and County Planning Departments. He added that if projects of this type are to be approved in this city, it should be on the basis of some amendment to the zoning ordinance, not through a variance appli- cation. The developments will be duplexes and will be approximately the same density as in a normal R-2 zone; the only difference being that the lots are split in half and each sold separately. The General Plan places this area in a medium density classification. It is presently zoned M-1 and it is not likely that industry would take place here. The Director then listed two alternatives the Commission could take: (1) to rezone the property to R-2 and amend the R-2 section of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the splitting of the duplexes as pro- posed subject to a conditional use permit; or (2) rezone the property R-3-B-3 -7- as requested and grant the variance as requested. This rezoning request is followed by a variance request and a subdivision map. The staff recommends the first alternative, and that the other items relating to this request be continued to that date. City Attorney Lindberg commented that on numerous occasions, the Commission has considered variances to achieve modification of lot sizes and various other regulations. It must be recognized that variances are subject to serious challenge when used, and where there is no ha~hip, exceptional circumstances, etc. The approach suggested by the Planning Director is a sound approach and would permit the necessary control, and it is obvious that a greater diversi- fication is required in some of our areas today. Reduced lot sizes in some cases could very well be the solution, and this amendment to the R-2 section could be the tool by which to achieve it. Member York questioned the mechanics of processing if the amendment is approved. Director Warren indicated that there has to be a flexibility in the amount of the time involved. The staff would suggest a public hearing be called for August 26, and then it goes to the City Council for adoption. This could be done in about 60 days. He then noted the petition of protest submitted signed by 82 property owners; this is in addition to these petitions previously submitted. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jack Gardner, one of the owners of the property, stated they would not be in favor of rezoning this area to R-2 unless they could be assured that they will be permitted to put in this development. Member York explained that if this amendment is adopted, he could be permitted this project. City Attorney Lindberg explained the proposed ordinance in more detail. He added it would be wise to tie the matter together so that the R-2 zone would not become effective until the filing of the subdivision map and the approval of the conditional use permit. However, time-wise, once the City Council adopts the ordinance, the applicant can go ahead with his processing. Mr. Lindberg added that the matter would have to be readvertised--it cannot be continued. Member York suggested they go ahead with the amendment to the R-2 section and deny this application without prejudice. Mr. John Morgan, partner in this development questioned whether they would have to submit another map for the R-2 amendment. Mr. Warren stated it would have to be revised because some of the lots are not the standard lot size. Mr. Morgan asked if their proposed project would be allowed in an R-3 zone. City Attorney Lindberg stated that they could make a similar amendment to the R-3 zone, but it would not be as simple as the R-2; it would require more consideration with the staff. Mr. Ray Morgan, 1443 Hilltop Drive, reminded the Commission of a similar request they turned down on July 15 for the Frome Subdivision. He discussed the surrounding areas which are zoned R-1 and indicated that if this request is granted, the Commission will receive similar requests for rezoning. He added that Orange Avenue will be a connecting link between the two freeways and it is not right to put in multiple-family developments to increase the traffic flow here. He requested that the area be rezoned R-1 to make it more compatible with the surrounding developments. Mr. Robert McKay, 1439 Hilltop Drive, discussed the pilot program of this type of project approved for the area north of this property remarking that it will be quite a while before any study could be made on this development since it has not been built yet. He asked that the Commission consider this very carefully and wait until they can see the results of the pilot program before taking any action on this particular request. Member Rice suggested a 90 day continuance remarking that the Commission is quite interested in the pilot program and they could observe the develop- ment during this interim. Mr. Gardner asked that the people be apprised of the uses that could go in here under its present zoning (M-l). Director Warren explained this and stated that the staff fells that M-1 zoning in the area is not appropriate, and that ultimately rezoning would have been initiated. Some type of residential would be more compatible. We must recognize that single-family units can take on several forms and that all remaining vacant lands should not be devoted to detached units in the middle of little lots. Mr. Jack Morgan, one of the protestants, stated the people would prefer industry going in as opposed to multiple-family residential; there would be less density for one thing. Mr. J. McCrea, 1535 Jade Avenue, agreed that this would be a better development than "a bunch of run down houses." Mr. Gardner asked for the 90 day continuance. City Attorney Lindberg indicated that this matter will have to be taken off the calendar and readvertised, since the Commission cannot give him a date certain. The matter should be filed and at such time as the tools are available, the staff can place the matter of rezoning back on the agenda. The variance should be filed permanently and the tentative map resubmitted. Everyone in the area will be renotified when the public hearing will be called to consider the amendment to the R-2 zoning with the filing of a conditional use pe~it for this type of development. There bein9 no further comment, either for or aginst, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (york-Gre§son) Request for rezoning be filed and a hearing be called to consider an amendment to the R-2 section of the zoning ordinance which would provide a more appropriate procedure for approving a project such as that proposed. This hearing to be called for August 26, 1968. -9- PUBLIC HEARING: ( ont d) - Variance - Property both sies of Oran 700' west of Hillto~ Drive - Renuest ~ .... ~.~A~e ~ve~u~ Jot size from 7000 square feet to 3000 square feet, side ~a~d from 5 feet to zero, lot frontage from 50 feet to 25 feet, and reduction of offstreet parkin9 requirement from l-l/2 to 1 space per unit - Jafro Inc. MSUC (York-Gregson) The request be filed. (See rezoning request) Subdivision (Cont'd) - Tentative Map - Holiday Estates, Units 5 and 6 MSUC (York-Gregson) Action on this map is deferred pending the outcome of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to the R-2 section permitting the duplex-type construction as proposed. In the event this amendment is not adopted, the Commission will reconsider the map at a later date. To be set for hearing - Prezonin.g of property bounded by [~uintard Street S.D.G. & E. Co., right-of-way, Tobias Drive & Hilltop Driw. to R-3-B-3-D Since this matter is similar to that previously heard for Jafro, Inc. Director of Planning Warren asked that it be set for hearing for the meeting of August 19, 1968. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Call a public hearing for August 19, 1968 to consider the item above. Subdivision (Cont'd) - Tentative Map - Princess Manor, Unit #6 Director of Planning Warren explained that this ?tem was continued from the July 22 meeting and once again, a request has been made to continue it to the meeting of August 19. A revised tentative map has just been received by the staff and they have had no time in which to study it in order to make any recommendations. MSUC (York-Rice) Tentative map be continued to the meeting of August 19, 1968. Request for extension of time - Tentative Map of Flair Subdivision Director of Planning Warren explained that the map was due to expire September 15, and a request has been made for an extension of the tentative map to complete work on the final units. This map was the one that involved a variance for a reduction of lot sizes to permit the retention of approximately l0 acres of natural canyon area. There are two parcels involved here: 8 acres of canyon area are being preserved along the northerly edge of the subdivision, and 2 1/2 acres adjacent to the southwest corner of the subdivision. Mr. Warren remarked that the staff has had some success in the slope planting, and they will continue to work toward the retention of that canyon along the northerly edge of the subdivision. He discussed the canyon area along the easterly edge of the subdivision and indicated that the staff has reached the conclusion that this canyon should be eliminated altogether and just work on the northerly one. Mr. Warren added that the subdividers could -10- revise their map carrying the lot lines down into the canyon which would not increase their lot yield. This proposal has been made to the Director of Parks and Recreation and he is in agreement; there are no legal problems involved. The staff recommends that the extension be granted and the map be revised as delineated and submitted to the Commission for approval prior to submission to the City Council. ' City Attorney Lindberg asked that they include a recommendation to the City Council that they quit claim that property to which the city presently has a deed. MSUC (Guyer-Adams) Approval of extension of one year period of time on the tentative map on the condition that the portion of the easterly canyon be deleted and the lot lines carried down into the canyon with a revised tentative map being submitted to the Commission for approval. Include in this recommendation to the City Council a provision that they quit claim that property for which the City presently holds a deed. Discussion - Council Referral - Fire Department use of properts at East "J" Street. ' Director of Planning Warren explained that the Council, on considering the zone change at 70 East J Street, received a report from the Fire Chief indicating that this property would be desirable for the expansion of the Fire Station facilities and recommended its purchase by the City. Therefore, the function of the Commission in this case is the determination that this property for the expansion of the Fire Station would be in conformance with the General Plan. MSUC (Adams-Rice) Acquisition of the property at 70 East J Street for the expansion of the Fire Station facilities is in conformance with the General Plan. League of California - August meeting The memo was read in which it was announced that the August meeting of the League of California Cities will be hosted by the City of Del Mar on Friday, August 16, and will include attendance at the races. Director Warren requested that the Commission give their indication as to whether or not they plan to attend. Member Adams stated he will attend. Discussion - Proposed Sweetwater Valles Study City Attorney Lindberg stated the Commission will retire to executive session for this item which is to select a number of residents in the Valley to serve on a committee to recommend a prezoning pattern for the area. The session will be held strictly to that and not to the aspects of the study itself. -ll- The Commission then retired to executive session. When they reconvened, Chairman Hyde announced the names of the committee chosen by the Commission. He stated a motion was made during the session to limit the total number of the committee to 14 plus the Chairman of the Commission will act as an ex-officio member. This number should be amended to 15 to include a resident of the Sunnyside district, which will be picked by the Committee. MSUC (York-Rice) In view of the number of residents of the Valley interested in serving on this committee, it was necessary to limit the number to 15; however, any one member who misses three consecutive meetings without being excused will be replaced. The Commission discussed whether other Valley residents will have an opportunity to speak at these meetings. Member York agreed with Member Stewart that anyone having thoughts on this prezoning study should speak to a member of the committee about it. Director Warren felt that the rules whereby the committee will operate will have to be determined by the committee and $t$ Chairman. He would suggest that the Commission not place any restrictions on this committee to assure that the voice of the Valley will be heard. They should encourage these meetings to be public meetings, and recognize that the committee is the official advisory body and the Planning Commission would be the ones to take formal action. He reiterated that the Commission should do nothing now that would discourage any participation of the Valley residents. The Commission concurred. Vaction Leave for Commissioner Member Gregson stated he will be leaving for his vacation on August 17 and will return on October 1, 1968, and asked to be excused for this period of time. MSUC (Rice-York) Approval of vacation leave for Member Gregson from August 17 through October 1, 1968. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (York-Rice) Meeting be adjourned to the meeting of August 19 and August 26, 1968. Meeting adjourned at 10:lO p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~Jennie M. Fulasz Secretary