HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-07-14; Planning Commission; Minutesi CITY OF CARLSBAD : Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION i Date of Meeting: July 14, 1964 ; Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M.
I I I
Council Chambers
I Palmateer , Grant, Lamb, McComas and Sutherland. Alsd : present were City Atorney Wilson, City Engineer ,Rathbuni I and City Planner Melton. I
I I I I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
: were approved as corrected.
I I I I I I I
I * I I I I I I I I I I
1 I
:ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1964 - 1965. I
Secretary Grant announced that he was acting as Chairmad
:pro tern and that nominations were open for a chairman. :
i Chairman. Commissioner McComas nominated Cornmissi4ner : md. Commissioner Grant nominated Commissione! :Lamb. By proper motion the nominations were closed. :
i Commissioner Sutherland was elected Chairman by a
!majority vote.
: Vice-chairman. Commissioner McCarthy nominated
!Commissioner McComas. By proper motion the nominatidns i were closed.
I
I I I
I I
I f I I I I 1 I I I , I
I I 4
I I I 1 I I
Commissioner Mc Comas was elected Vice-chairman.
Secretary. Commissioner Lamb nominated Commissioner: i ?&Carthy. Commissioner McCarthy nominated Commissibner : Lamb who declined. Commissioner McCarthy nominated i
:nominated Commissioner Grant. By proper motion the :
jnominations were closed. Commissioner Grant explained i
;that he would be glad to serve as Secretary but that he : i would be away on a trip. Commissioner McCarthy stated :that he would be glad to serve during his absence as :Secretary. Secretar Grant was re-elected and Comm.Mc i
:WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
!Parks and Recreation Commission - Marron Park.
:Resolution adopting Marron Park as a City Park and FastolI :range. The memorandum was ordered filed. , I
i ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
: (a) There were no oral communications from the : audience. : (b) The City Planner reported on the action taken by the: i Council on Flanning Matters at the meeting of July 7 1964;
jand introduced Dr. Roy W. Palmateer , a new member of t&e
;Commission who was appointed to replace Chester A .War$. :He stated that the Council will appoint a new Commissioney :to replace John T. Palmer who resigned. The Council i approved a reclassification from R-3 to C-2 on property O$
:Cedar Ave., submitted by Young and Bower.
I I I I
I I
: Carthy was elected r o act as Secretary in his absence. I I
I I
I I I * I
I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
* I
I
I
I I 4 I
I I I I I 1
I
I I I I
I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I k I * * I I ,
I I !
r
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I i
1 I I I I I I I I I 1
l
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I
PUBLIC HEARINGS: I I " - I I
(a) REC;L,ASSIFICATION, continued - To consider 7 loti
from R-l.-?.@ and R-1-15,000 to R-1-7500 on property 8 I
located on both sid.es of Park Drive between Adams Street:
and Hillside Drive. Applicant: Kamar Construction Co. , i
et al.
The City Attorney explained that the Commission needed ai
majority for voting and although only 4 present at this ;
meeting were qualified to vote on this matter, they would i
need a majority of 3 votes on this request. The other I I
Commissioners present could not consider this as they i
,bere not present when the hearing was first heard. I I
I I I I I
I I
Secretary Grant explained the reasons for continuing this : hearing and read the recommendations of DMJM who felt i that areas zoned 7500 square feet should have areas set ;
aside for green or park areas. I I I I
Chairman Sutherland announced that since the hearing was!
re-opened the Commission would now hear from the appli-f cant or his representative and any others who wished to swak in favor of this reclassification. t I I
MIKE FOXTUNATI, 954 Tamara-ck Avenue, stated that he!
is with Kamar Construction Company and felt the comment$ from DMJM were ambiguous when they suggested that any-; thing under 10,000 square feet should have park areas. I He pointed out that the land to the north (Brigg's) is zoned :
7500 and land to the south is zoned 4,000 square feet I I (Shel-ier Cove); and this land is undeveloped and full of : weeds. He stated that they would stand on their original
request for R-1-7500 square feet.
JERRY RQMROTIS, Kamar Construction Go. explained :
I I I I I
i that 12 of the lots they have planned would be in excess of i ; 75.130 sq ft.
i The Chairman zrmounced the Commission would now hear ; from those opposed, I I
: Ther-e.were no pex-cons present drtsiring to speak in i opposittion.
! The public hearing was closed at 8:OO P. M.
i The City Planner stated that he had submitted 2 maps to I the Commissioxr and explained that this property would :
i require a lot of cuts and fills for this size lot and he did i
\not recommend approval of zoning one-third of this property
to 7500. The City does not have an adequate ordinance fo$ i cuts and fills and he felt there is a great deal of damage : : done by cuts and fills.
1 1 I I I I
I 4
1 I I * I 1 t I I I I I I I I
I I I
I ,
* I I I I I I
I
I
I After due consideration, a motion was made to adopt
Resolution No. 363 denying request for change of zone for!
:the following reasons: I I I I 8
I I I
I I. rhat there a3-e some unasua1 topographic cnaracted
istics of the land which would not warrant the reductiofiiwi ; lot size requested in application.
:is presentlyzoned larger than 7500 squareafeet. I 3. That the land is largely undeveloped and the approval
I I
I
I I 2. That the immediate and sarrounding this property !
e I
I I I I I I I 4 I I 6 I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I v I t I : I 6 I i I i I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I P I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
as it is subsequently developell.
Plan of the City and this zoning is premature as it may be: i::11
incompatible with the uses that will be proposed by this : Engineering firm.
The ~~liow'ing resolution was presented: I McCarthy: : !xi : : : Palmateer i I : : Planning Commission Resolution No. 363. A RESOLUTION th7rlandIx: 8l::l* , :"i
R--I-lo and R-1-15,000 to R-1--7500 SQUARE FEET, wa4 Lamb I ;xi+ ; 1 adopted by title only and further reading waived, : McComas i : :x; i i
(b) RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 50 - of the +I;:
1l:;l; ;;;:i;
ll#:l;
1 1:::
I I ::::I;
I ;::::,
I '11;:; I
4. That there is a study being conducted for the Mastir 1::;:: 4::::
1::::: I:::::
.( I :l:t;l
I :'::I::
I
-. I , .. .
11
G APPLICA" ZONE FROM! &an I :x: ;
Plannin Commission to consider zone change from R-1 i
to R-P fkluded is rdzlassification application submit- ;
ted by Maurice S. Eaird) on all property fronting on I :;I I
Arbuckle Place be4;wecn Jefferson and Madison.
! .!ll!! The Secretary revieaed Resolution of Intention No. 50 i
and certified that legal notice was given in the paper and:
to thegpRez-tpwners in the area. The owners of the ;
property to be reclassified were also notified by letter i
and one owner had returned the notice. Marjorie Cole, :
1171 Kipling Ave. Los Angeles, indicated that she was :
in favor of this reclassification. I I
The Chairman announced that the Commission would now:
hear from those who were in favor of this reclass€ficati4n.
MAURICE BAIRD, 2785 Jeffecc,on St. stated that he ;
would like to speak in favor Df this reclassificatim and h;
felt that this property was held tack from development i
because it was not reclassified when the surrounding :
property was. He reported that he had lived there for :
30 years and had circulated a petition a little over a yead
ago and had 7 names in favor of giving dedication of thei$
property for street right of way.
The Chairman announced ?,be Commission would now head
from those opposed. I I
There were no persons present desiring to speak in op-
position. I I
I I
I I
I I I 1
I 0
1 "1; I I The public hearing was closed at 8:19 P.M. I I l'l:;: I::l ;;;1;1
I l.!ll 1 The City Planner pointed out the property to be rezoned : on the map and stated that the resolution of intention was!
adopted when he was on vacation or he would have had : some comments to make as the property on the North- east corner of Arbgckle Place and Madison goes to the : center of the street and hase-ver btzen dedicated to the i
the City for street right of way.
The Chairman asked for a report from the City Engineer:
and he stated that he had no formal report at this time, I
bct that any intensely used areas should haw a minimum
0 I * I I
! street width 9f 60'. 1 I I 1 I I
MR. BAIRD stated that this was originally called Arbuckte
court and their property went to the middle of the street.: : The pro erty o,wners had since given an easement to the! : County f or street right of way, and that he would be will4 i ing to give 10' for additional street right of way. I I I I I 0 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I !
El Camino Real and Carlsbad Highlands Map 2647 and i
S. of Alder. Owner and Subdivider: Holly Brae Estates :
Corp., Dr. J. Blair Pace, Pres. 4 I I
I The Secretary read the recommendations of the City I
Engineer and the Fire Chief, and a communication tele- ;
ph.one from Jack Whiteman from the San Diego County i Health Department, recommend.ing that this subdivision :
be disapproved because they have not received sufficient i
information from the Holly-Brae Estates Corp. with ; rel.ation to percolation tests to determine whether septic i
tank installations will be satisfactory, otherwise they ;
would recommend approval of this subdivision provided I
each building constructed in the subdivision is connected ;
to the City Municipal sewer disposal system. I I
DON HOLLY, Licensed surv.eyor, stated that he under- i
stood that the right of way has been changed to 30' instead
of 28' and they will have underground utilities. The only i
means of access from Alder is not object to the subdivi- !
sion, nor to the road being 10' from his house but he did
not wish to move the house. Some of the percolation test$ have not worked out too well. They are working out ex- I
ceptional extraordinary circumstances and the results are:
incomplete. Mr. Holly asked that the Commission recorn:
mend approval of this contingent u.pon the approval of the :
Health Dept. , that when sewers are available the subdivit
sion will connect to the sewer system at that time. He I
explained the trouble outside of the expense is thatwhen i
the septic tanks are allowed to stand they fill up with
dirt. I I
I I I
I
The subdivision committee, Commissioners Lamb and I
McCarthy, gave a report of their findings.
Considerable discussion was given to the entrance and i
street to this subdivision and the view at the intersection ;
at; Al.dar Avenue; widening of Holly-Brae Lane; redesign $f
street and making Lot 1 smaller. I
Dr Pace stated that he has had this property fa some timd
and it is expensive property with a good view. He spent :
considerable time with the City Engineer and City Planner(:.
He did not feel it is economically feasible to have dry :
sewers at this time as they may not be used for 4 or 5 :
years and gophers cause damage to them. He explained tiat
the bank is so high the existing house cannot see over it.
The owner of the house is a stock owner in this subdivi- :
sion and he wants part of Alder raised. The entrance als4 includes over 50' of paved driveway. The homes will be :
nice $40 to $50,000 homes. The lots on El Camino Real i
will. have too much growth potential to be developed now. I
The easement along El Camino Re a1 belongs to him. He ;
does not mind giving the extra 12 feet for street right of : way. He stated that El Camino R ea1 is a narrow winding
road and when it is widened itwill be widened on the airporit
side. He wants to build on lots 2,3 and 4 which pass the
percolation tests required for septic tanks. All of the 1/2
acres lots will have parking on their own property. They ;
I I I I I
I I
I
I
6. ...
r
f
I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I
I -5-
will enrich Carlsbad 2,s a commmit;r.
MR HOLLY stated that the Health Dept. requires a mini-: : mum of 15,000 square feet for septic tanks. Dr. Pace is;:.. ,., * .- i buying property for gaining access to this subdivision an? : I' he believes the people would violently oppose reducing : : the lot area. Adequate sight distance will be maintained! : according to the City, County and State Division of €3 gh-; I ways requirements.
i After further discnssion, a motion \.;as made to adopt Re.; * . : solution No. 368 recodmending approval of this subdivi- : i sion subject to the recommendations of the various depatt- : ments and agencies, except the following listed restric- : : tions:
I I
1 I 1
I I I 1 I
I I
I I I ;::;I:
I I I. All utilities shad be placed underground. I I ;::+
I I 4:;o :I1 18
I 2. The street vJfc?,tki 'Shall be sideried to the maximum i Ill 11 I 1:::::
:;1:44 1) : of 15,000 square feet. I I I::::: I 1 1:::::
I I 1I::l;
I 3. That minimum adequate sight distance tlt and ad- : 81 ::ll;I !:!!;:
:::Ill I1
I ::::I;
1:::
1 4. No building permits shall be issued on lots 7,3 9, i ::::::
I ::e I :::: ;:;;;:
. ;::::I
I 1::;::
I I i:::::
I 6. Items 7 on pages. 2 and 3 of the City Engineers re4 t::::; ;::;::
I :::::;
I :::;::
I
I I I
possible extent leath$ Adjaceht lot no. 1 with a minimbi
I I jacient to the intersection on Alder Ave. and Holly-Brae i i Lane shall be provided to meet the requirements of the : ;;llll : City Engineer.
I I
I and 10 until smitary sewer and water service are availabte :::i:: : in El Camino Real i 5. Dry sewers will not be required at this time, but t<e : entire subdivision shall be connected to the sewer syste4 . !%,-:-.. ',. . * I 1 :
I
I I :I
I I I ;:i;i: II I'
I I1
when they are available. 1
I I I I I : port shall be eliminated.
: The following resolution was presented: i McCarthy : i :x; I
41 i Resolution NO. 368. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAQ Grant ; :xi": i i
PLAN~l~~COMMISSION RECOMIvIENDING AP- : Sutherland I : :x! ;
AL OF HOLLY-BRAE SUBDIVISION, was adopted Lamb ;xi ;x: ! : i McComas : I :x: : :
*l#t:
I
I I I
I : Palmateer i : :xi ;
i by title only and further reading waived.
i A recess was called at 9:35. Reconvened at 9:55 P.M. :
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - OCEAN VIEW - 23 loti : Pi-A-10 located on property South of Seacrest Estates; i
easterly of Donna Drive and Norhterly of Chestnut Avenue. : Owner: Carlsbad Investment Corp.
$1
I I
I ::I:,; I I iiiii:
I !I::::
11;:: :::, 8:;
I ::;::: I-
I
I1 :,I::: ;:: :::;::
I
I I I I L I I I * I * I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I !
I
The Secretary certified that notices were mailed to the
cwners of adjacent unsubdivided property and to the vari;
aus ckpartments and agencies.
The Secretary read the recomrnendationa of the various i
departments and agencies.
The following items of correspondence were read, signeq by 33 property owners, objecting to the road ose.hing'from
Lot 59 of Seacrest Estates No. 2 which they felt is in
violation of the deeds restrictions of the subdivision; it i would create an unnatural flow of traffic from the new :
subdivision to the inconvenience of Seacrest Estates sub:
division:
I I I I 8
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I
1. Edward NECann
2. Richard E. Stamg, M.D. , 3490 Chertej: Oak Dr. 1
3. Mr. and Mrs. Chas. P. Walker, 3475 Charter Oak Sr.
4. Lawrence W, and Afton B. Patrick 3495 'I II 11;
5. Mr. .ard Mrs. Don L. Wilsorl 6. David and Phyllis J. Freistadt, 3325 Seacrest Dr. i
7. L.E. & M.R. Veigel, 3521 Charter Oak Dr. I I
8. Dean Allman, 3460 Hillcrest Circle 9. Herbert L. Cole & Patricia A. Cole, 3345 Seacrest ar.
10. Jack L. & Valarie R. Forman, 3510 Charter Oak
11. Dr. & Mrs. Stuart Scherr, 3335 Seacrest Dr.
12. Clark 0. Stacy, 3275 Meadowlark Lane, Seacrest est:,
13. George R. & Harriet 0. Metzinger , 3324 Ridgecrest
14. Jack H. Br Ethel K. Hearn, 3455 Ridgecrest Dr.
15. Petition signed by: I I
Henry A. Starks, Lot 82 Ruth L. Starks, Lot 82 I I Allan 13. Salm Lot 67
Henrietta B. Salm Lot 67 H. Elizabeth Hendry Lot 88 John K . Fisle r Le 49 Frances V. Fisler Lot 49
16. Telegram - Patrick W. Nolan
17. Gregory W. Losa, Lots 57,60,61 and 62 of Seacrest i
Estates No. 2.
The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear! from the applicant orhis representative and any others : present desiring to speak in favor of this subdivision. i
PAUL S. SWIRSKY, Attorney at Lay:" . stated that he re- i
presented Carlsbad Investment C0j.p. and is in favor of :
this subdivision and it does comply with all of the regula:
tions of the City and they are wi!.!.ing to put in all of the :
improvements, He asked that after the adverse oral co*-
munications are made that he be permitted to rebut. I I
The Chairman announced the Commission would now hea2
from those opposed to this subdivision. I I
The following voiced objection to this subdivision because!
of thz entrance through Lot 59 and felt other access shouW
be provided in order to better serve the community, al- i
though they were not opposed to the subdivision itself: :
I I
I I I
I I 1
I 1
I I I
I 1 I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I 5 I I I
I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I +
1.
2.
3.
4. 5. 6.
7,
8 31 9.
Earl H. Thompson, Attorney at Law, 3485 RidgecrestiDr. l;~l;l
appeared as a property owner and also for the proper4y
owners in Seacrest Estates.
T, Bruce Smith, Attorney at Law, 3470 Hillcrest Cir.; :::i::
L.W . Patrick , 3495 Charter Oak Dr.
Dr. R.E. Stang, 3490 'I
Kathryn Markey, 3455 Charter Oak Dr.
Jane Sonneman
Ed M. McCann, 3485 Charter Oak Dr.
Mrs. Robert Johnson, 3490 Seacrest Dr.
::i:::
::a:::
I ::i:::
I ::: )I1 I 11:
It II I I I::::;
I I #::;Il 81
I :::I:;
I I :::;:I
I I :::I::
I ;It::*
I
I
l I I
, 1::l:: J.H. Hearn, 3495 Ridgecrest Dr.
IO. Mrs. Don Vlilson, 3445 Ridgecrest Dr.
11. Geo. S. Hancock, Jr.
12 ~ Mrs. Stan Carroll, 3450 Camden Circle
13. Richard E. Geyer, 3435 Seacrest Dr.
I I I I k I I I I I I I I 1
I There was considerable discussion on whether it would be:
Legal for them to use Lot 59 as ingress and egress to thi4
proposed subdivision as it would be in viol.ation of the deetIs
and restrictions of Seacrest Estates Subdivision. The Ci&
Attorney stated that in his opinion, the Commission could: I
I I 1
1
.* , .
approve the tentative map if they cnose to do so, except ;
for Lot 59, as he felt the legal argumnt was a judicial i
decision, and this could be approved subject to the sub- ; divider getting a decree fron the court. Although the i matter could be settled when the final map is filed, he ; felt it was better to settle this at this time.
BRUSE SMITH objected to the increase in traffic if the i only access is through Lot 59 because of personal safety to their childern and themselves and this narrow 28 1/2'! street was not designed for a major street and would tie ; into 36 1/2' street and the proposed street does not line up with the street ordinance. When the people bought the:
property in Seacrest they knew that the Land might be de- .
veloped in the back and traffic would have to go through t$.:
north end of the subdivision. The deed restrictions do : provide that the subdivison can be added on to. If Donni Drive could be completed from Basswood to Chestnut it would provide access to this proposed subdivision as we14 as reducing traffic on Monroe by the High School.
I I I I I
I I !
I ;:;:I:
::;1:1
::;:la
@*I ::I
::;*;I :::::: :;4:: ::::;:
1:: I:;,; I I I :
;;1:1* IO ;;:;;: 11 :::;;:
$8 l:iii!
:: :;4:::
.I'
MR. SWIRSKY, speaking in rebuttal pointed out that ever9 ::;;:I new subdivision with a new street requires that the new ;
street be connected with the old street. At the time Sea-!
crest orginally submitted their tentative map, the entire :
Brae ranch was included. The only objective that was i
raised was from the people on Basswood as they felt it ;
would increase the traffic down on their road. The City f; ,.< . .; :;-
felt this would be a good development. Two units have : 1:;;;:
been developed. Anyone who bought. a lot in the first sub:
division knew that they would be faced with other subdiviS
sions going in. The Commission's job is to consider wh<k . is good planning, He explained that unhi tunately the I
gentleman who owns the property which would complete ; ::I:;;
Donna Drive is not ready to develop his property, but I
when he is ready, this will provide another access to I ::;:;I
Ocean View Estates as well as Seacrest Estates. He als4 ::;:::
pointed out that the Commission did not have to sit in a : 81;
judicial capacity as the final map will require clear title I
and the Title Insurance Company are willing to insure thip
lot. It would be a development of vacant land in the City;!
the highest and best usage of the prcperty; creates a meaps
of supplying adequate water system at this time. The Cay can bring the line down from the reservoir which create4 another potential entrance. Donna Drive will be opened :
and will tie in with an existing intersection. The developi-
ment does not conflict with the Master Plan and creates I
no problems with the Police and Fire Departments, and :
he asked the Commission to recommend approval of this i subdivision. The City Planner explained that this is a new Subdivision: map and the subdivider paid the fees for submitting the ; map. The map is marked revisedin orderto distinguish it!
fron the map that was submitted over a year ago. He ;
pointed out that they planned to bring water down from th$
reservoir tank above this subdivision. It was his under- :
standing that the property owners on Donna Drive do not
want to sell all of their property until the life expectancy:
of their crop is used and they are about 1/2 through. He!
felt this was good planning to have access through Donna : ii:;:;
Drive also. This area will be a low density area. All ;:;!:I $ 1 1,
good planning have streets no longer than 700 feet circu-: I ll~l~;
lation pattern and drainage.
1 I
11;::
I i:;:::
! ,ll!:!
I
I
I I 01
people on Basswood were concerned with the invasion of:
privacy when Seacrest went in. He believes tnat when
Seacrest was developed they should have left Lot 59 for : street access to this land-locked piece of property. The: Commission are advisory agencies as specified by the i State, and tentative subdivision maps are . not normally ; set up f &earings. He discussed the approval of this i map an CY no reason for denying it, as the Commission are suppose to ctnsider it and redommend approval subject : to certain conditions. e I
After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt i
Resolution No. 369 disapproving the tentative rhap of i
Ocean View Subdivision for the following re asonh: I I
1. That the property owners adjacent to this property:
were unanimous in disapproving this subdivisidh as it :
is not in the best planning to have the only acce4s thxougb Lot 59 in Seacrest Estate,s to this proposed subdivision because it will incyease %He traffic in an area &signed for limited traffic.
I I
I I
I I I I I 2. That it appears that it may be an invasion of pro- I
perty rights. and deed restrictions and it is not the pro- ;
per use of the land to use lqt 59 for a str .et. Q eni 3. A narrow street coming into a sub&vls&n w%h twd
'fhb-$!oflowlng resol&?lon was pg'sented: e sacs is not od plannln McCarthy i Palmateer
Resolution No. 369. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINGGrant
-ROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF : Lamb OCEAN VIEW SUBDIVISION, was adopted by title only and McComas further reading waived. : Sutherland
I
OLD BUSINESS:
(a) Report from M-1 Committee. Commissioners La&b
and McCarthy reported that they had not come to an agrei-
menton what they felt should come under this zoning.
Commissioner Lamb stated that he is against doing the i industrial plan until DMJM have finished their study of :
the City. I
The Chairman asked Commissioners Palmateer and Mc i Comas to assist Commissioners Lamb and McCarthy on : setting up M-1 zoning and instructed them to have a re- I
port at the next regular meeting. I I
(b) Reports from the M-1-A Committee were presented
0 I
I I
I I I
to the Commission for their consideration. I I t I I
The Question was brought up that a memorandum was i
sent to the Council two months ago requesting a joint :
meeting with the Council and Commission and no action i
was taken on this matter. I 9
l
(e) Election of Officers for 1964-65 was taken care i
of at the beginning of the meeting. I I
: (d) Appointment of Director and alternate to San Dieg4
County Planning Congress.
By common consent of the Commission Secretary Grant :
was appointed the Director and Chairman Sutherland was:
appointed the Alternate.
ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion the meeting was adjobrned at
at 12:30 A M
Respectfully submitted,
1 #
I I I
1
I I 1
I I I I I I
..
Recording Secretary I I I I I I
I l:~l!l