HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1965/09/08 - ORIGINAL
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
September 8, 1965
The regular meeting of the Planning Commisslon of the City of Chula Vista, California,
was held on the above date at 7 P.M., in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, with the
following members present: Stevenson, Stewart, Comstock, Vaden, Adams and Guyer.
Absent: Member Johnson. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner
Terrell, and Principal Engineer Harshman.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Vaden-Adams) Minutes of August 16, 1965, be approved, as mailed.
REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING: A. L. Reneau~ Jr. - 825 Broadway - R-1 to C-2
The application was read in which a request was made to rezone property located at
825 Broadway from R-1 to C-2.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, zoning, and
adjacent land use. He noted the parcel already had a C-2 depth of 125 feet, and
that the applicant is asking that the remaining 475 feet of this lot be rezoned to
C-2 for the future expansion of his adjacent business (South Bay Chevrolet Company).
Mr, Warren then discussed the history of the existing zoning pattern and delineated
alternate methods of developing the adjacent areas.
The Commission discussed the depth of the commercial zoning along Broadway. Director
Warren noted that with the exception of the Chula Vista Center, no other areas along
Broadway are zoned C-2 to the depth proposed; however, he cautioned against applying
an arbitrary depth. The depth chosen should be based on need.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Charles E. Brown, realtor representing the applicant, spoke of the history of this
company and the need for expansion. He stated the property to the south has had a
commercial use to the same depth now for approximately 15 years (the nursery), and
in view of this, the applicant's request seems logical. There is, presently, a
dwelling on the rear of the property which will remain there until such time as there
is a need for the site.
Mr. Richards, manager of the adjacent nursery, questioned what type of buildings would
be allowed on the lot, if rezoned. Mr. Warren said the applicant would construct
something allied to his business, such as car storage, etc., but that anything allowed
in a C-2 zone would be appropriate.
Mr. Darrell Fields, 844 Cedar Avenue, (northwest corner Sierra Way and Cedar Avenue),
spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning, stating that he could see no reason why this
should not be rezoned since the adjacent nursery enjoys a commercial use extending
to the back of their property.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Adams remarked that the Commission should scrutinize this very carefully;
that he was not in favor of extending a long strip or "finger" of commercial
through the center of a block, such as this. He added that the nursery is a non-
conforming use established before any zoning took place, and he felt it was a
temporary use as there will come a time when there will be a demand for this
property and the nursery will sell out. Mr. Adams added that the rear portion of
this block lends itself to a residential development, and he feels it would be very
unwise to rezone this strip all the way to the back.
Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that 300-400 feet was the maximum depth of C-2
zoning establlshed along Broadway; he is also against this long "flnger" of commercial
development intruding into the residential zone. He added the Commission has been
trying for years to stralghten out the rezoning on Broadway, and he would be in
favor of rezoning this lot to a commercial depth of 370 feet, and also rezoning
that small portion south of "K" Street to match this depth.
Chairman Stevenson felt that any rezonlng should involve a larger area and suggested
the staff study this entire block with a recommendation of rezoning to an equal
commercial depth. He then questioned whether a store could go in if the l~ne was
held to a depth of 370 feet.
Director Warren commented that the study was a good suggestion, and he would assume
that the 370 foot depth would be adequate for a store or building.
Member Vaden discussed the lots facing "K" Street (south side) declaring that he
felt they were not suitable for residential lots, and added that he would be
opposed to the lack of a buffer in this area. Director Warren commented that at
one time there was a feeling that this could be developed residentially; however,
he felt this area would hold more of a potential for multiple-family use instead
of residential.
MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Actlon on the request be tabled until the meeting of October 4.
The staff is directed to study the entire area with the goal of recommending a
more reasonable zoning pattern for the whole block. Following this presentation,
at the next meeting, the Commission will set a new hearing date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING: First Free Will Baptist Church - 644 "G"
Street - Request to Develop R-3 Property for Church Use
The application was read in which a request was made to use the exlsting dwelling
at 644 "G" Street for church services pending construction of a church building
on the premises.
Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location and adjacent
land use. The property contains 25,500 square feet, and the proposed church plan
will be an "L"-shaped building. At present, they are requesting the use of the
dwelling for their church services, and after the church is built, they will use this
dwelling for the parsonage. At present, they can provlde enough parking spaces;
however, their ultimate plan takes the parking into the setback area. Maintaining
the house as a permanent dwelling complicates the layout. Mr. Warren then sub-
mitted another parking layout drawn up by the staff which changed the parking
somewhat, and would suggest that the Commission consider th~s layout. Whichever
site plan is favored, more study will be necessary.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
-2-
Mr. Edgar Culnan, 644 "G" Street, stated this was his home which he is selling,
subject to this approval. There are two small buildings on the property which
will be removed. At the present time, the church has 40 members and their goal
is 200. This site on "G~' Street holds great potential for them in view of the
fact that there are 3 trailer parks and a few apartments in the area. He talked
to the next door neighbor, and there was no objection. Mr. Culnan added that the
applicant would like this use approved for a one-year period, with a renewal for
another year; this would giver, them time to arrange their financing. Part of the
permanent church building will be a two-story structure, with one story being
used for classrooms. He further added that the applicants would build a basement
with one-story, if the Commission so desires.
Mr. Gayle Fick, 352 Broadway, spoke in opposition, stating the church would destroy
the quiet street; their parking is not adequate, the people will be parking on
the street rather than in the lot; people driving to church generally park wherever
they want to - in private driveways, etc.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was declared closed.
Member Vaden commented that a church here would be much better than an apartment
building in view of added traffic, etc., and this is zoned for multiple-family use.
Member Adams felt there was no difficulty in approving this for a temporary use;
however, it is a minimum size lot for a church.
Vice-Chairman Stewart stated the parking, as proposed by the applicant, would not
work and the people would be parking all over the street - the purpose of offstreet
parking is to relieve this. He added that if the applicant is willing to take
the staff's suggestion on parking, he would strongly favor the proposal limlt[ng
it to a period of two years and then renewing it after this.
Member Comstock declared he has just completed a study of church sites and the
recommended minimum site for a church is one acre. This parcel is about one-half
acre and quite a bit under the minimum recommended site. Mr. Comstock brought out
the possibility that this church unit could, in time, find the site inadequate for
their purpose and then sell it to another group.
Director Warren discussed his proposed parking layout stating it was worked out
based on the information the applicant submitted. He remarked that he was not
sure that even this plan was the best possible one; that the site was a minimum
one for a permanent church site and suggested the Commission not approve it for a
permanent use until the applicant presents different plans to the staff. Mr. Warren
then indicated the possibility of the applicant having to put in street improve-
men ts.
Mr. William Harshman, Principal Engineer, stated that under the existing ordinance,
they are not required to put in any improvements - their building construction
would have to exceed $5000. first. Also, if more than one-half, or 51% of the
block has improvements, then they would be required to put theirs in.
Mr. Culnan stated the applicant was aware of the fact that when he built his per-
manent church, he would put in the improvements; this would incidentally amount to
exactly 50 % of the block.
MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Conditional use permit be approved, subject to the following
conditions:
-3-
1. The permit approved for a period of two years, at which time this matter to
be brought back to the Planning Commission for review.
2. Adequate parking be provided now for temporary use, and the parking area to
be oil-surfaced with decomposed granite.
3. Parking spaces to be marked.
4. The site plan for expansion and new building is not approved and new plans
must be submitted for approval when expansion is contemplated.
Findings be as follows:
1. That granting this conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare as the volume of traffic would not
generate traffic ~n such volumes as to present a problem on "G" Street.
2. The characteristics of the use proposed are reasonably compatible with the
types of use permitted in the surrounding areas. On a temporary basis, subject
to Commission review, the proposed use will be compatible with adjacent trailer
park and apartment use. Activities w~ll be indoor and within normal llving hours.
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING: Otomatsu Yoshihara - 366 Broadway - Expansion of R-1 Use in C-2 Zor,~
The applicatlon was read in which a request was made for permission to construct
an addition to the home.
Director of Planning Warren submltted a plot plan noting the location, zoning, and
adjacent land use. He explained the addition would be 16' x 27' and since this
is a non-conforming use, the applicant was required to apply for a variance.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Member Vaden remarked that he wished all variances coming before the Commission were
like this one; that there was exceptional circumstances here: the logical expansion
of conditions, no detriment to the neighbors, etc.
It was noted that two letters favoring the request was received.
There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Vice-Chairman Stewart commented that at the time the residence was constructed, there
was nothing against buildin§ a residence in a commercial zone, but that now there is
an ordinance prohlbit~ng th~s.
MSUC (Vaden-Adams) Approval of variance. Findings be as follows:
1. There are practical differences and unnecessary hardships within the meaning
of the ordinance as amended which would result in the strict compliance of the
provisions of sa~d ordinance.
2. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the property
herein involved or the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to
property or class of uses in the same zone. The dwelling is in good condition
and cannot be compared to many non-conforming uses. The dwelling is at the rear
of the property and not associated with adjacent commercial uses. The owner finds
it necessary to maintain his residence in this location to help care for the grow-
ing of the plants.
3. That granting this variance ~s necessary for the preservation of the substantial
property right of the applicant. Without this variance, the applicant would be
deprived of the right of a logical expansion of his dwelling which will, judging
from its condition, remain on the property for some time.
4. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property improvements in the zone or district in which said
property is located since it is located at the rear of this property, is not visible
from the street, and ~s sufficiently far from adjacent commercial uses.
PUBLIC HEARING: S. D. Western Corporatlon - "K" Street~ East of Bank of America
R-3 Use in R-1 Zone -
The application was read in which a request was made for permission to construct
a 27-unlt apartment building on property located on the south side of "K" Street,
332 feet east of Third Avenue for a distance of 100 feet.
Director of Plannlng Warren submitted a plot plan noting the location, adjacent
land use and zonings. The property measures 100' x 290' and is zoned R-1. The
property to the east is the recently constructed apartment complex which the Commission
approved by variance; that complex was developed with a density of 4200 square feet
of land area per dwelling unit, has underground utilitles , and in all, a very nice
development completely compatible with adjacent s~ngle-family development.
The plans for this particular proposed development show a two-story structure with
27 units. Director Warren added that the staff has met with the applicant and
discussed the adjacent development hoping to arrive at a compromise here; however,
none was reached. The staff also had emphasized the need for more green area on
subject site. Mr. Warren stated the staff would recommend R-3 zoning for this
property; however, the Commission should look to a compromise in density. Mr.
Warren noted that no landscaping plans were submitted, and much of the entire area
was paved.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Albert Schauser, representing San Diego Western Corporation, stated the price
of the land was .extremely high, and in order to get the proper return from it,
they need the density requested. He declared they were willing to go into any type
of landscaping the City might require and would even volunteer to put in 3 feet of
landscaping at the edge of the parking area. The size of the apartments would be
500 square feet for 1 bedroom and 800 square feet for 2 bedrooms. As to the fencing,
they plan to construct a fence at the east end of the development and will follow
through with the same type fence that is presently constructed for the apartments
to the east.
Mr. Bill Reed, realtor associated with Whittington Realty, stated Mr. Whittington
was the one who developed that apartment development to the east of this property.
He said Mr. Whittington has no objection whatsoever to this h~gh-density apartment
going in next to his development; that Mr. Whittington and his partner, Mr. Ramm
had an option to buy this particular parcel of land but the cost was too high;
therefore, they built on the less expensive parcels behind the 5 lots fav~ng "K"
Street. The applicants are paying $1 a foot for the land, and Mr. Reed added, he
would llke the Commission to note that eventually, this apartment will be
looking down on top of a market if Thrifty-Mart builds, sometime in the future.
Mr. William Harshmen, 224 San M~guel, stated the apartments that were recently
constructed by Mr. Whittington satisfied the residents in the area because of
their low density. What is proposed here is 1 unit per 1000 square feet of land
area whereas Mr. Whlttington's apartments have a density of 1 per 4200 square
feet. Mr. Harshman asked that the Commission impose the architectural control
zone on this parcel and limit the density to be more compatible with the residential
characterlst~cs of the area.
There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared
closed.
Member Adams remarked that he felt this should be handled by rezoning and not by
variance, as the planning rule goes: "you shouldn't do anything by variance that
can be done by rezoning.- He added he does not agree with the density; that it
should be at least 2000 square feet of land area per unit instead of 1000 square
fee t.
Vice-Chairman Stewart asked whether the staff was satisfied with the parking layout.
Director Warren indicated there may be a problem with one or two of the spaces, but
that the applicant managed to provide the required spaces on the lot. Mr. Warren
noted again that most of the entire parcel was paved, but the applicant did agree
to put in some landscaping in whatever limited areas might allow it.
Member Vaden commented that the only advantage for a variance here would be the
time element - it would speed up the process; however, he felt that proper pro-
cedure would be rezoning. Chairman Stevenson noted that this was a single parcel
and not a large area and that justification for a variance might be found.
The Commission discussed imposing the "D" zone, and Director Warren stated the
Commission could impose with a variance whatever conditions they would deem reason-
able. He added that the staff still feels it should be rezoned; that here a
variance, which should be used whenever the provisions of a zoning ordinance cannot
be applied, is proposed only to expedite the process.
Chairman Stevenson suggested the possibility of the Commission approving this
variance based on architectural control and 2000 square feet of land area per unit.
Mr. Reed declared that 2000 square feet per unit just couldn't be done; that builders
are paying one dollar per square foot and must build to the maximum. He reminded
the Commission that this parcel abuts commercial property and possibly a market.
Chairman Stevenson stated the Commission is more concerned with the surrounding
resldential development, not the cost of the property.
Member Adams remarked that in this case, the Commission can not be concerned win
the sale price of the property; they are dealing with good planning as it relates
to this part of the City. He stated it should definitely be rezoned, instead of
approving a variance, and it should be rezoned to R-3-B-2-D.
MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Denial of variance based on the fact that the Commission
concurred that the property should be rezoned rather than approved on a variance,
and that the contemplated density of development was incompatible with adjacent
residential use.
'6-
MSUC (Adams-Stewart) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating
RESOLUTION NO. 374 Their Intent to Call a Public Hearing On October 4,
1965, to Consider Rezoning Property on the South
Side of "K" Street, 332 Feet East of Third Avenue for
a Distance of 100 Feet, From R-1 to R-3-B-2-D
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING: (Cont'd) Proposed Ordinance
Establishing Architectural Review
Director of Planning Warren summarized the matter stating this hearing was continued
from the meeting of August 2; that the Commission has held 2 or 3 public hearings
on the matter and have had one workshop session. He stated the staff has received
some comments and suggested changes from Vic Wulff which have not, as yet, been
discussed with the Commission. Mr. Warren added that before a final recommendation
is sent to the City Council, the Commission should meet once again in workshop
session and concur upon the proposed changes; this should be done prior to the
September 20 meeting.
Chairman Stevenson questioned whether the changes were such that the proposed
ordinance would have to be readvertlsed. Director Warren answered that the City
Attorney stated that the changes could be made without readvertislng.
Member Comstock commented that it was interesting to note from the audience that
only one person was present for this hearing; the others were not interested enough
to come back.
Member Vaden suggested that a definite date for a wod~hop meeting be established
as soon as the City Attorney returns. Director Warren noted this was an advertised
public hearing tonight, which the Commission can continue and that a workshop can
be held either next Monday or Wednesday.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Frank Ferreira, 3715 Putter Drive, stated that many of the builders were not
aware of the fact that th~s particular meeting was changed to Wednesday, because of
the holiday. He added that they were all waiting for a revised copy of the ordinance
incorporating any proposed changes. Chairman Stevenson indicated revised copies would
be sent them after a workshop meeting is held.
Mr. Richard Kasper, representing Princess Park Estates, Inc., stated that at the
last hearing, the Chairman stated that this continued hearing would be held only to
accept "new" information, and that is one reason why many of the builders d~d not
show up. He added that in the last 3 years, Princess Park has built llOO homes, in
excess of $16,OO0,000 and having to get architectural approval for all of these
homes would be almost impossible; that his company again wishes to go on record as
opposing the proposed architectural control ordinance.
MSUC (Vaden-Adams) Hearing be continued to the meeting of September 20, 1965, and
a workshop meeting be set up for Monday or Wednesday of next week.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN - La Bonita Town and Country Apartments
A letter was read from Mr. R. W. Wilson requesting approval of a 2½' x 8' sign
presently erected at the La Bonita Apartments. He stated the sign on the roof of
the building would be removed. Chairman Stevenson commented that this was the
-7-
action the owners took in conformance with what the Commission had requested.
Director of Planning Warren explained this sign needs Commission approval because
it is in the "D" zone. The staff would recommend approval based on the condition
that the sign be removed from the right-of-way.
Member Adams questioned whether the present signs on the walls, plus this sign,
would add up to more than 50 square feet, the maximum allowed in this "D" zone.
Director Warren stated he would have to check this out, but that the applicant
indicated that the sign on the roof and the walls would be taken down.
MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Approval of the sign as submitted in the letter dated
August 20 (sign measuring 2½' x 8'), subject to the following conditions:
1. The sign be moved back out of the street right-of-way.
2. The present sign now on the top of the marquee to be removed immediately.
REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - 1190 Industrial Boulevard
A letter was read from Jose Jesus Anton, requesting deferral of public improvements
on property located at 1190 Industrial Boulevard to which he has moved a house.
He said that improvements have not been put in on adjacent properties, and also
the fact that he has a great deal of money to pay out for sewer connections should
entitle him to this deferral.
A letter from the Division of Engineering was read in which they recommend that
this request be denied since the installation would neither cause a "defective
condition"~or be "extremely impractical" - two reasons on which they base deferrals.
They also stated that more than one-half of the block has already been improved.
Director Warren stated the staff concurs with the Division of Engineering.
Member Comstock questioned whether it was mandatory that improvements must be in-
stalled on a block that has been 51% improved. Mr. Will~am Harshman, Principal
Engineer, remarked that this was usually left up to the discretion of the City
Council. He noted that this would be the first time since the adoption of the
ordinance that improvements would be taking place in this area, but that improve-
ment plans have been prepared for this area.
MSUC (Stewart-Comstock) Denial of request based on tM fact that improvements plans
for this area have beep prepared, and that more than one-half of this block has been
previously improved. The Commission concludes that in reviewing the provisions of
the City Code, there is no justification for deferral.
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION CONCERNING PROPOSED REZONING IN COUNTY - Mrs. McVe¥
A letter was read from Mrs. McVey summarizing the proposed rezoning in the County
to multiple-family zoning for that property located south of "L" Street between Fourth
and Fifth Avenues. She stated this was before the County Planning Commission and
was sent on to the Board of Supervisors without recommendation. On behalf of the
residents in the area, she again asks that a representative of the Planning Depart-
ment attend this Supervlsor's meeting and present the City's protest in person.
Director of Planning Warren stated the notice was sent from the County a little over
two months ago concerning this proposed rezonlng for this 22½ acres. At that time,
he sent in a letter of protest which is routine if the area falls within the City's
-8-
General Plan and if it conflicts with the Plan. The residents asked at that time
that he be present at the hearing to elaborate on the staff's comments, but the
Commission felt it was unnecessary to take further action on it.
Member Adams commented that at first he opposed this rezoning, then after hearing
Mr. J. D. Peters state, at the last meeting, reasons why this should be rezoned to
multiple-family, he changed his mind. However, he has recently visited the site
and found it almost completely vacant property, much more suitable for single-
family residential or duplex development than multiple-family. He felt the staff
should send a representative to the hearing strongly protesting this action.
Mr. John DeLaney, 466 Moss Street, spokesman for the adjacent residents, stated a
number of residents sat through all-day sessions at several of the hearings, and
at the last meeting, the vote was split two to two; thus the "no recommendation"
to the Supervisors. This next meeting will be October 13, and although a letter
of protest was sent by the Director, it did not give them the support they needed;
a person appearance by a representative of the City would be much more effective.
Member Comstock declared he was against sending a City representative to the Board
of Supervisor's hearing protesting land that is in the County and may never be in
the City. He felt the letter stating the City's protests was adequate, but perhaps
another letter to the Board of Supervisors re-emphazing the Commission's feelings
would be desirable. Mr. Comstock added that the staff is presently understaffed,
and it would prove a hardship on them to send someone to this meeting if it might
mean regular appearances in the future.
Director Warren stated the staff never attends a Board of Supervisor's meeting
unless authorized by the Commission. When adopting a General Plan, it is assumed
that the areas in question will someday become a part of the City. Mr. Warren
added that it was true that there isn't enough personnel in Planning to handle the
department's own matters; however, he feels a representative present at the hearing
to answer questions, etc., would be much more effective than a letter. In comparing
the procedures with our Commission, Mr. Warren noted that we do not read letters
anymore, just noting that they were received, and perhaps the County does the same.
Vice-Chairman Stewart noted that the last letter of protest was sent to the County
Planning Commission and that this will not be sent on to the Board of Supervisors.
He suggested another letter be sent to the Board; that this area is in the General
Plan and the Commission should take a definite stand on it. He suggested a copy
of the letter be sent to the District Supervisor.
The staff was then directed to send another letter of protest to the Board of
Supervisors with a copy going to the District Supervisor.
TO BE SET FOR HEARING - Permanent Zonin9 of Certain Properties in Southeast Portion
of the City
Director of Planning Warren noted on the map the two areas to be permanently zoned:
East Paloma r Street Annexation, located at the east end of Palomar Street from
interim R-1 to permanent R-1 and establishing setback on Oneida Street at 45 feet; and
the Small Annexation located at the southwest corner of Second Avenue and Quintard
Street from interim R-3 to permanent R-3 and establishing setbacks at 25 feet on
Third Avenue, Quintard Street and Second Avenue.
-9-
MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating
RESOLUTION NO. 375 Their Intent to Call a Public Hearing for October 4,
1965, to Consider Permanent Zoning for the East Palomar
Street Annexation, Located at the East End of Palomar
Street
MSUC (Guyer-Comstock) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Stating Their
RESOLUTION NO. 376 Intent to Call a Public Hearing for October 4, 1965,
to Consider Permanent Zoning and Establishment of Set-
backs for the Small Annexation Located at the South-
west Corner of Second Avenue and Quintard Street
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Jay Push - Hilltop and Naples Shoppin~ Center
A letter was read from Jay Pugh, Rancho Associates, requesting approval of a new
business at 25 Naples Street - an auto parts and supply store.
Director Warren explained this shopping center was approved by variance, and any
new business needs Commission approval.
MSUC (Stewart-Vaden) Approval of an auto parts and supply store at 25 Naples Street
Golf Cart Repair Business on Third Avenue
Member Adams asked the staff to investigate a large sign sitting out in front of
the property advertising this business, also the display of carts, boat, etc. The
property is at 648 Third Avenue. Director Warren stated he discussed the displays
with the owners of this business, and they stated they owned the property and the
carts, boat, etc., were their own personal property which they had a right to dis-
play for sale.
Mr. Warren indicated the staff will check further into the problem.
Sign at Crest and Telegraph Canyon Road
Member Vaden said he was asked by several neighbors in this area to question why
there is no street light or street sign at the corner of Crest Drive and Telegraph
Canyon Road. He asked that the Engineering Division look into this.
Resignation of Member Comstock
Chairman Stevenson read Planning Commission Resolution #373 commendlng Member Com-
stock for his services as a Planning Commissioner and wishing him success ~n his
new activities.
Member Comstock expressed his pleasure in havi~g~served as a member of the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
MSUC (Comstock-Vaden) Meeting adjourn to September 20, 1965, with a workshop meeting
to be set up for next Monday or Wednesday.
Respectfully ~ubmitted,
×Jennie M. Fulasz /
Secretary