Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1976/05/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA May 24, 1976 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, Calif,~rnia was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Rudolph, Starr, Floto, Pressutti and Johnson. Absent (with previous notification): Commissioner Smith. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Beam and Secretary Mapes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Johnson-Starr) The minutes of the meeting of May 10, 1976 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Katherine Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, spoke in tribute to Mrs. Dorothy Rudolph, me~a~ of the Pldnning Commission for the past five years, pointing out that ?~before her appointment to the Planning Commission she displayed great ~nterest ~n planning matters affecting the City of Chula Vista and became a member of a study group, later known as the South Bay Citizens Planning Com- mittee. She praised Mrs. Rudolph for her continued study and enthusiastic approach to all matters confronting the Planning Commission. She expressed the opinion that Mrs. Rudolph's resignation from the Commission and move to the ~tate of Tennessee to establish a new home will be a considerable loss to the C6mmission and to the community as a whole. Commissioner Rudolph expressed her gratitude for the tribute paid to her. Clay Morud, 32 Plymouth Court, addressed the Commission with regard to a petition filed with the Planning Department on this date, containing approxi- mately 400 signatures, and requesting that R-1 zoning be considered for the property on the north side of Quintard Street, on each side of Tobias Drive. He reviewed the history of zoning on the property, pointing out that in 1966 the Planning Commission recommended R-1 zoning for the area in question. That recommendation was later overruled by the City Council and the land was pre- zoned R-3-B-3 prior to annexation of the property to Chula Vista. Mr. Morud noted that again in 1973 it was recommended that the property be re- zoned to R-1 but that recommendation was rejected by the Planning Commission, which recommended R-3-G-P zoning with guidelines restricting the maximum density to 10 to 14 units per acre and requiring that each lot contain a mixture of one and two story structures. That zoning was adopted by the City Council and is the existing zoning on the property; however, the present development plan con- tains all two story structures. Mr. Morud requested, on behalf of the signers of the petition, that the Commission give consideration to their request and set a public hearing to consider rezoning the property to R-1. -2- May 24, 1976 Raleigh Kuhlman advised that he also owns property in this area. He pointed out that a portion of the property covered by the EIR has subsequently been reevaluated and that a supplemental EIR report is under preparation. He sug- gested that this motion wait for the forthcoming EIR report. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendment to Municipal Code to establish minimum height requirement in R-3-H zone Director of Planning Peterson reported that some months ago the City Council considered development plans for the Park West Apartments on property across the street in back of the Alpha Beta store, which is zoned R-3-H. The R-3-H zone allows the highest density residential development in the city. The in- tent of the Council in adopting the ordinance to establish the R-3-H zone was to encourage high rise apartment construction in selected locations. Considera- tion of plans for the Park West Apartments made the Council aware that there was no minimum height requirement in the R-3-H zone as that plan was for a three story structure. The Council therefore referred the question to the Planning Commission to establish a definition for "high rise" and minimum height requirement for the R-3-H zone. Research revealed that in Chula Vista a building of 5 stories should be considered as high rise since the basic R-3 zone permits buildings up to 45 ft. or 4 stories in height. The proposed de- finition therefore stipulates a high rise apartment is a structure of 5 stories or more, and an amendment to the ordinance establishes a minimum height of 5 stories in the R-3-H zone. Considering the overall scale of the City, it also seems appropriate to consider 5 stories as "high rise." This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Starr asked the extent of the area now zoned R-3-H. Mr. Peterson advised that it is presently very limited, including the Zogob and Kiffe property, for which development plans have been approved, the Congre- gational Towers, and the Fredericka Manor property. MSUC (Starr-Rudolph) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-76-26 and the findings stated therein this amendment to the code will have no significant environmental impact, and certifies the Negative Declaration. MSUC (Starr-Rudolph) The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance to define a high rise building and establish the minimum height in the R-3-H zone at 46 feet or 5 stories as stated in the report to the Commission. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendments to Landscape Manual Current Planning Supervisor Lee reviewed the proposed changes to the Landscape Manual, which include requirements for applicant's contaot with the utility companies regarding the landscaping of a project; better quality control in public and semipublic open spaces; the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Public Works regarding type of street tree and installation; clarification and revision of requirements relating to the protection of land- scaping in parking areas; and standards regarding usable open space areas in multiple family developments. -3- May 24, 1976 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Pryor, 49 Plymouth Court, asked if a vacant lot which has been fenced would require curbing around the fence. Mr. Lee advised that these specifications are applied~nly'~areas developed for commercial, industrial, or multiple family residential use. They would not be applied to vacant property. MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Nega- tive Declaration on IS-76-28 and the findings stated therein, the revisions to the Landscape Manual will have no significant environmental impacts, and certi- f~sthe Negative Declaration. MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of revisions to the Landscape Manual as stated on Exhibit A in the report to Commission. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Prezoning and rezoning 18.25 acres, north of "E" Street, east of Hilltop Drive, from R-1 and R-3-G-D to R-3-P-13 - City initiated Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that the major portion of the property is in the city and zoned R-1 and R-3-G, with the "F" District attached to that portion of the property lying within the flood plain of Sweetwater River. He pointed out that this area was one of the three sections which were the sub- ject of Council discussion recently because of the increase in density applied with the elimination in 1969 of the "B" Modifying District. The property was zoned for 14.5 units to the acre prior to the change in 1969. The present R-3-G zone permits 17.4 units per acre; this represents a bonus of 3 units per acre over the density established in 1969. Mr. Lee reported that a prospective developer has presented preliminary plans for R-1 development for the area west of Hilltop Drive and multiple family de- velopment for this area under consideration. In working with this developer the staff has suggested relocating the zone boundary line to relate it to the topography and to the existing grove of trees on the slope. He noted there are just over 12 acres of relatively level and buildable land; under the present R-3-G zoning the developer could compact his development into that area and con- struct 23 units to the acre on that portion. Applying the 17.4 units per acre density (R-3-G) to the buildable area would result in a total of 214 units; dividing this yield by the 16.1 net acres in the site results in an overall den- sity of 13.3 units per net acre. This figure was rounded off to arrive at the recommended zoning of R-3-P-13, which also conforms to the General Plan range of 12 units per gross acre. Mr. Lee called attention to the conditions to be incorporated into the Precise Plan for development which would include preservation of the existing eucalyp- tus trees, along with the resculpturing of the slope area to the north, and the replanting of the remaining slope. In addition the design of the development would have to consider the noise from 1-805; special attention would be given to the site plan and architecture of the project to create a pleasing appear- ance at the gateway to the city; and filling would be required to avoid flood- ing of the portion of land presently at or below the 100 year flood level. -4- May 24, 1976 Mr. Lee called attention to the findings in support of this rezoning and pointed out that Section 19.56.041 of the Code requires that at least one of four find- ings related to the application of the "P" zone must be made. In that regard, he suggested that the Commission consider that the property is unique to the area by virtue of the topography and that the application of the "P" zone would insure the preservation of the existing topography and vegetation, and further, that the basic underlying zone, R-3-G at present, does not allow the City the appropriate density control needed to achieve proper relationship with the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. Commissioner Rudolph asked for discussion of the traffic pattern which would result from the closing of Hilltop Drive north of E Street. Mr. Lee advised that it was a recommendation from the City Traffic Engineer that Hilltop Drive be closed due to the hazardous condition at its intersection with E Street. The proposed new street through the project would intersect Bonita Road at a point where visibility is much better; this may require installation of a traffic light at that intersection, based on the volume of traffic. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Raymond Prisbella, 75 Bonita Road, expressed agreement with the proposed down- zoning, but added that residents in the area feel that apartments are not con- sonant with the R-1 development in the area. He felt there are alternatives to multiple family development for the area. Mrs. Ethel Pryor, 49 Plymouth Court, spoke in opposition to allowing apartment development, especially right in town as this is; as there is plenty of land around us. She expressed the opinion that it is greed for any owner of property right in town to want to build anything above R-1 development; she cautioned that soon the whole town will be in high density with more crime than the city can handle. She reiterated she is opposed to any high density development. Newton Chaney, 292 Sea Vale Street, expressed disbelief that development would be allowed that close to freeway 805. He felt a negative declaration could not be issued on the project based on noise alone. He pointed out that the General Plan tries to avoid placing multiple family development next to single family dwellings. He suggested duplexes as a buffer between single family homes and apartments. He asserted the negative declaration is not valid, as the extra families from this development will crowd Rosebank School; the traffic should be considered; and the "H" Modifying District should be applied. He added, this is R-1 zone. Director of Planning Peterson explained that the project under consideration tonight, to which the negative declaration applies, is a decrease in density on the property and it's clear that a reduction in density will not adversely affect the environment. When development plans are submitted for approval an environmental impact report will be required. Mr. Lee pointed out that although the "H" District is not applied, condition 2 for application of the "P" District specifies that no building shall be per- mitted on the slopes. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Starr-Rudolph) The Commission finds that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-76-24 and the findings stated therein, the change of zone will -5- May 24, 1976 have no significant environmental impacts, and certifies the Negative Declara- tion. MSUC (Starr-Floto) The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council rezone approximately 16 acres of land located north of E Street and east of Hilltop Drive from R-1 and R-3-G-D-F to R-3-P-13, and change the prezoning from R-3-G-F to R-3-P-13 for 2.3 acres located north of E Street and adjacent to the 1-805 freeway, subject to the conditions in the report to the Commission and based on the findings as stated in the report and the two additional findings presented orally by Mr. Lee for the application of the "P" Modifying District. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-1 on Green-Vellin§a Projects Director of Planning Peterson acknowledged the controversy and interest among the neighbors concerning this proposed development. He pointed out that comments in this hearing should address the adequacy of the environmental impact report as it deals with streets, schools, sewers and any other possible impact. He noted that any development plans for the property will require another public hearing and that is the time to express opposition to the development ~tself. However, he asked the Commission to be tolerant of testimony that addresses the zoning or the project rather than the adequacy of the EIR because of the degree of neighborhood controversy and because some of the residents feel that they have not had an opportunity to make their feelings known. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid reported that this is a focused EIR cov- ering the topical questions which the Environmental Review Committee found to be of concern with the development of the property. He noted that the project is composed of two parcels, located at the northeast corner and northwest corner of Quintard and Tobias. The proposed development at the northwest corner consists of a 12 unit apartment structure and 7 duplex structures, for a total of 26 units. The project at the northeast corner currently is proposed to in- clude 9 duplex structures; however, the proponent has proposed to modify that development plan and a supplemental EIR to this basic document has been issued by the Environmental Review Committee for public review. Both of the EIR docu- ments must be certified for that project at a later date. Mr. Reid pointed out that several issues became apparent in the public review of this document. The first concerned the population projection. It was pointed out that the average family size in duplexes in the whole of Chula Vista as compared to this area is too low, as this area has a higher household size. From information contained in the mid-decade census it was determined that the duplexes in this area had a family size of 3.7 instead of 2.5. It is therefore proposed that the total population as portrayed in the document be increased and such factors as sewage flow and park needs also be increased to reflect the higher population projection. Mr. Reid acknowledged the drainage problem in this area and reported that is noted in the EIR, and that with facilities proposed as part of this project the situation will likely be improved. He further noted there is a school capacity problem, especially at the junior high level, although the elementary school is also nearing capacity. This in- formation is included in the report. -6- May 24, 1976 The report also includes information from a traffic count taken recently; this, however, does not reflect the higher count occasioned by athletic events at the schools. It is noted that sewer facilities are presently over capacity; in a recent capital improvement program budget a relief project has been proposed. In all likelihood those facilities will be provided before this project is occupied. Mr. Reid reported that the only written comment on this EIR received to date is from the Environmental Control Commission. He advised that the written input and any testimony presented at this hearing will be added to the Environ- mental Impact Report along with responses from the staff as necessary. Mr. Peterson reported that a petition containing 397 signatures was received by the Planning Department on this date with a request that it be read at the hearing. He read the petition which constitutes a request that the proposed project area be rezoned from R-3-G-P to R-l, and further that a moratorium on building apartments in that area of Castle Park be applied. Commissioner Starr questioned whether, in light of the fact that the sewer facilities are presently inadequate, it would be legally possible in the event apartments are built to make a hookup to that system. Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt affirmed it would be legally possible but it is not Public Works' practice in a situation like that to increase the load on a system that is already overloaded. The City Council has indicated approval of funds for the proposed sewer project, although the budget has not been formally adopted. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Margaret Schutte, 1376 Tobias Drive, spoke in protest of the proposed project and in support of the petitions circulated for rezoning the property to R-1. She called attention to the noise to be expected from the addition of 300 people in this project, contending that apartment dwellers, who are not family people, tend to create more noise. She expressed the opinion that taxes to be paid on the proposed development would not pay for the additional services re- quired by the residents there and that an additional tax burden would be placed on the present residents. She stressed the traffic hazard and increased air pollution, the health factor in an overcrowded community, the problem of in- adequate sewer and drainage facilities, and the problem of vandalism in that area due to the concentration of apartment complexes and the shortage of police personnel. Raleigh Kuhlman, 12 Quintard Street, discussed the matter of school enrollment, stressing that overcrowded classrooms are not conducive to quality education. He felt trailers are a poor substitute for a real classroom. He also spoke of the amount of traffic in the area and its effect on air quality; the overloading of the sewer system; and the shortage of park land to adequately serve the resi- dents of the area. Newton Chaney, 292 Sea Vale Street, pointed out that an environmental impact report is always prompted by some causative agent, in this case, proposed de- velopment plans for the property. He did not agree that this is not the time for discussion of those plans. He contended that the environmental impact re- port criteria is not adequate, and contended that the reports always seem to -7- May 24, 1976 find in favor of the development and very seldom for the neighbors who are op- posed. He suggested there may be too much R-3 zoning in the city and asked the last time any property was down-zoned from R-3 to R-1. He was advised that such a recommendation was made by the Planning Commission two weeks ago. Bob Hastings, member of the Environmental Control Commission, spoke at some length presenting a minority report to that Commission's action of accepting this Environmental Impact Report. He stressed that they had no choice of action but to accept it. He also addressed the matter of schools, sewer, drainage, traffic, overcrowding and crime. He concluded that it would be a direct adverse affect on the environment to allow the project as presented to go through. Katherine Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive, addressed the Commission to point out to the people in the audience that many of the problems in the Castle Park are the result of the lack of restrictions in the County. She spoke of efforts to annex to the City of Chula Vista and contended that annexation is the only way by which the problems of the area will be solved. Felicitas Cofer, 68 Provence Court, spoke of the problem of flooding in the area due to poor drainage facilities. She contended that the construction of apartments detract from a single family area. She asked that no more apartment construction be permitted in the area. Gale McCurdy, 1369 Tobias, drew a diagram on the blackboard of all the major streets in the area and indicated thereon the location of the many apartment complexes. He concluded that in view of all the apartment complexes it is a little dense in that area. Mrs. Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, expressed the feeling that any more apartments in the area is a hazard to the health and safety, and to the children of the area. Lois Rockwell, 73 Prospect Street, resident in Chula Vista since 1949, contended that an environmental impact report cannot be called complete without input from the law enforcement agencies in Chula Vista. She read the questions and re- sponses in a short questionnaire which Chief Winters answered for her. She referred to crimes of vandalism and theft in the area and indicated there are not enough police officers to insure prompt response when a call is made. She asked that the community be built so that it may be looked at with pride in 10 or 15 years, rather than with guilt at what was allowed to be created. Mrs. Charles Cypher, 1404 Hilltop Drive, also spoke of crime and the drainage problem in the area, pointing out that every time it rains they are flooded in. Clay Morud pointed out that the County has recently rezoned some R-2 property in the area to R-l. He spoke of the drainage problem which exists now and felt that additional development will increase the problem. He pointed out there is a traffic problem on Quintard due to poor visibility and that building more struc- tures will add to the problem. Ethel Pryor, 49 Plymouth Court, gave a list by year of the number of official accident reports on record for the area of Tobias, Hilltop and Quintard, which ranged from 1 to 3 per year for the years 1963-1971, and numbered 4 or 5 a year from 1972-1976. She added that more density in the recent five years has added to the pollution of the air caused by exhaust from car~as well as to the number of accidents. -8- May 24, 1976 Ray Vellinga, 5109 Hilda Road, proponent of the development, discussed the public improvements that would be required with the development and that would upgrade the area. He contended that vacant lots are a blight to the area and a well planned project can improve the property aesthetically and the neighbor- hood value. Ron Johnson, 87 Georgina Street, one of the developers with Mr. Vellinga and a resident of Chula Vista for 17 years, expressed appreciation for the recommen- dations in the EIR and in discussions held with the staff in its preparations. He asserted he would use those recommendations in the best way possible to have an investment which he, as a resident of the city, could be proud of. Bob Hastings, 1465 Max Avenue, pointed out that since the air pollution control devices were installed at Brown Field the City of Chula Vista has exceeded the federal guidelines for the amount of pollutants that are admissible. Any in- crease of the population or density in Chula Vista is going to increase that adverse effect on the environment. Assistant City Attorney Beam pointed out to the audience that the City is pro- ceeding in a manner legally required by State law. If the City fails to follow the legal requirements of both CEQA and the Administrative Guidelines the City could be liable to a suit brought by any citizen or by the developer. He pointed out there seems to be a feeling by some of the residents that this is the time this project can be stopped. He advised that should the Planning Commission fail to adopt, with amendments as deemed necessary, an EIR for the project, they can take no action whatsoever. That would include an action re- commending any downzoning of the property. He stressed that the Planning Com- mission must first proceed with environmental review before taking action of any kind on the project. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rudolph noted that questions were raised with regard to air quality, crime and accidents. She believed the EIR included a consideration of the effect on air quality. She questioned whether crime and vandalism in an area is a subject for an EIR and whether, along with the traffic study, an ac- cident report is appropriate in the EIR. Mr. Reid advised there is no mention of that type of information in either the State guidelines or the City's environmental review policy, although traffic increases are noted, and air quality is reviewed if there is a significant impact. He reported that the main air pollution problem is from hydrocarbons producing oxides in the atmostphere and it was determined this project would produce .00325 metric tons per day indirectly. This is not considered a sig- nificant impact as compared to the tonnage in the air basin. Chairman Chandler expressed the feeling that points brought up during the public hearing should be addressed in the environmental impact report and for that reason he suggested setting consideration of the final report at a future date. He suggested that in view of concern expressed with regard to sewers and drainage facilities, those problems should be further addressed in the report. Commissioner Floto suggested that information also be included concerning the increase in crime due to the increase in density. -9- May 24, 1976 Commissioner Pressutti suggested clarification with regard to schools and the impact on taxes. He felt that some erroneous statements had been made by spokesmen from the audience, due probably to their lack of information about such things as ADA support for the schools, and other funds generated by the mere presence of a child in the district to support his education, with much of the funds coming from the State. He felt that a little more information regarding the actual impact and the fact that there is presently a trend of decreasing enrollment in the schools. Mr. Reid asked if response to questions not included in the EIR guidelines might be included in the staff report to the Planning Commission rather than incorporated inth~EIR, referring to matters such as crime and accident reports. Mr. Beam indicated that such information, although not mandatory, is available and permissible to be included in the EIR. MSUC (Pressutti-Johnson) Consideration of the adoption of EIR-76-1 be scheduled for June 14, 1976. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-2 on widening of F Street from Fourth Avenue to Church Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that this report deals with three alternatives for the improvement of F Street: Restriping the existing pavement and eliminating onstreet parking to provide one lane in each direction and a continuous left hand turn lane; selective widening of the street to pro- vide left hand turn pockets, free right hand turn lanes, and eliminate much of the onstreet parking; or full widening tp provide two travel lanes in each di- rection, left hand turn pockets, and eliminate 16 onstreet parking spaces. Mr. Reid noted that the analysis indicates there would be little change in noise levels in the area regardless of which of the three alternatives is implemented. He reported there is no violation of the CO standard in Chula Vista today, which is the primary pollutant associated with linear type of sources. He advised that the Environmental Control Commission has recommended adoption of the EIR, subject to inclusion of their comments. Commissioner Starr asked if approval of the EIR in any way signifies the Com- mission's approval of the project itself. Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt advised that this project is in the Capital Improvements Program and that it is also a Federal Urban Aid project. He noted that at the last Commission meeting, the Commission considered the C.I.P. for the coming fiscal year and found it to be in conformance with the General Plan. He indicated that a public hearing will be held before the City Council to determine which of the three alternatives to implement. Chairman Chandler opened the public hearing. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, expressed the opinion that of the three alter- natives listed, alternative No. 2 is misleading and it is irresponsible to list it. He contended that widening F Street from Fourth to Church would lead to the future widening from Ash to Fourth. He challenged the statement that "the olume will increase to 24,000 vehicles per day whether the project is built or - not," as absurd, stating that if the street is not widened 24,00 vehicles a day -10- May 24, 1976 would not want to use F Street, nor could they even if they wanted to. He ex- pressed the opinion that widening F Street would encourage vehicles to use that street and cause a deterioration of the viability and living environment of the "F" Street area. He concluded that alternative #1 would be the proper course to follow. Mrs. Marjorie Watrous, owner of property on Church Avenue, stated that as an environmentalist she, too, hates to see trees removed, but she felt a project which might revitalize the downtown area is long overdue. She also felt there would be no less onstreet parking than presently exists since that is one of the problems of the area. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rudolph questioned why in this EIR there was no discussion of the Town Centre Redevelopment area, and if an additional alternative might not be to wait until there is a plan for that area and coordinate this project with that plan. Mr. Reid pointed out that the widening of F Street was discussed in the circula- tion element of the downtown redevelopment EIR, so this is in a sense supplemen- tal to that basic Center City EIR; however, this document must stand on its own as it is being sent to State and Federal agencies for their consideration also. Chairman Chandler asked if widening the street would not require the removal of a portion of the store buildings. Mr. Lippitt affirmed that the entire widening is within the existing right of way; no additional property would be acquired; the park way width would be narrower and where the sidewalks presently extend to the curb they would become narrower. Commissioner Starr voiced his opposition to widening the street and his prefer- ence for retaining the character of F Street as it presently is. After some discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Pressutti that the Commis- sion adopt EIR-76-2 and recommend to the Council that it pursue Alternative 1 as the most appropriate of the three alternatives indicated. Assistant City Attorney Beam advised that he felt such action is a little pre- mature at this meeting, since the Commission is required to consider comments offered in the public hearing. Fie suggested directing the staff to incorporate those comments into a final EIR to be presented for Commission recommendation. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The Commission moves that the hearing be closed and that the final EIR, with the testimony and discussion presented tonight, be scheduled for consideration of adoption on June 14, 1976. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson called attention to his memo directed to the Commission concerning the necessity of setting a public hearing to consider definitions and standards for boarding and lodging houses or communal houses, and the suggestion that such hearing be scheduled for June 21 in place of the normal study session. -ll- May 24, 1976 MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The Commission directs that a public hearing to consider amending the ordinance with regard to boarding and lodging houses be set for June 21, 1976. Mr. Peterson noted that this will be the last meeting to be attended by Commis- sioner Rudolph due to her family's plans to move to Tennessee. He read a com- mendatory resolution signed by the remaining Commissioners, himself, and the secretary, which praised Commissioner Rudolph's dedication to the needs of the community during the five years she has served on the Commission. Commissioner Rudolph expressed thanks for the resolution and the standing ova- tion by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes, Secretary~ HM:ph