Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1969/04/07 MINUTES OF A REGULAT MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 7, 1969 The regular meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on the above date in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Guava Avenue, with the following members present: Hyde, Macevicz, Chandler, Stewart, Rice, Adams, and Putnam. Absent: None. Also present: Director of Planning Warren, Assistant Planner Lee, Zoning Enforcement Officer Hodge, City Attorney Lindberg, and Assistant City Engineer Gesley. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Adams-Macevicz) Minutes of the meetings of March 17, 19 and 24, 1969, be approved, as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 1469 Melrose Avenue - Request to erect a directory pole sign in a C-N zone - Princess Manor Shopping Center (R. B. Moore) Assistant Planner Lee submitted a plot plan noting the location of the shopping center at the northeast corner of Melrose and Oran9e Avenues. The property is zoned C-N which allows each business to have an attached sign, up to 50 square feet maximum size, and one 50 square foot freestanding sign for the center. The applicant is proposing to put up a pole sign (freestanding) which will be placed 42 feet from the north property line measuring 174 square feet. He is also requesting a reduction of front setback from 5' to O, and an increase in the height of the sign from 20' to 35'. They propose to stack ten separate signs on this pole identifying the different businesses in the center. The staff is recommending denial of the variance request since they believe the sign excessively exceeds the requirements of the C-N regulations and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify the increase in the sign area and height. T his being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ray Keough, representing Q-R-S Signs, stated the people in the Center are having a great deal of trouble with passers-by finding their businesses. They have no way of advertising other than in the newspaper. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. Member Rice remarked that this is a nei9hborhood shopping center and it is not intended to draw business from outside the community. He added there was no justification for the sign which is meant to attract people from other areas. Director Warren stated that the developers were aware of the sign provisions at the time the Speedee-Mart went into this center. The staff explained that the ordinance permits one freestanding sign; they said they understood this and decided to give it to Speedee-Mart. This was approved with the understanding that when they requested other signs, the Speedee-Mart sign would have to be replaced. Member Adams stated he agreed with the recommendations of the staff and the comments made by Member Rice. -2- 4/7/69 MSUC (Chandler-Adams) Variance be denied for the following reasons: 1. No exceptional circumstances exist on the property to warrant the increase in sign area and height. 2. The proposed sign does not comply with the purpose and intent of the C-N zone which states that all uses are to be compatible with and compliment the surrounding residential area. 3. The sign area and height restrictions provided in the C-N zone are sufficient to serve the needs of the area. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal this decision within l0 days to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING - Variance - 614 and 620 G Street - Request for reduction of rear yard setback 15' to '5' - Kuebler and Linthicum Assistant Planner Lee submitted a plot plan noting the location of the area in question. The applicants are requesting a reduction in front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet; a reduction of rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for the most westerly parcel, and for permission to use 10% of the required parking spaces for compact cars, for a proposed 38-unit apartment complex. Mr. Lee noted the size of the parcels and the existing setback in the area. A reduction of front yard setback from 25' to 15' was granted to Mr. Linthicum in 1968; however, no work was done on the site and the application has since expired. The staff is recommending approval of the request with the conditions that plans be submitted to the Planning Department for approval, approval of landscape and irrigation plans and signs. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Lawrence Kuebler, the applicant, stated he had no objection to the conditions as recommended by the staff. He discussed the proposed parking and the need for 10% of :he spaces for compact cars. Director Warren noted one letter received from Mr. Fick, 352 Broadway, favoring the request. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. A landscape and irrigation plan for the front setback and parkway area shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any building permits. The location and species of all existing trees within the parkway area shall be indicated (additional street trees may be required). 2. The plot plans submitted are schematic and approval of the setback reduction is con- tingent upon the re-submission of plans and actual Planning Department approval of same. 3. Any signs located within the front setback area shall require staff approval. -3- 4/7/69 Findings be as follows: a. That the strict application of the zoning regulations or requirements would result in particular difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. A 15 foot setback is being contemplated in the City's proposed Zoning Ordinance for multiple family use. A required 25 foot setback would represent an unnecessary hardship for this lot, since a 13 foot parkway will be maintained as well. The 15 foot rear yard would require the applicant to observe a setback non-consistent with the adjoining property. The allowance for compact spaces has been granted to numerous other apartment buildings in accordance with provisions proposed in the new Zoning Ordinance. b. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood. The existing setback on the north side of G Street is set at 5 feet across from this area. The property directly west of this site observes a 0 setback. The new Zoning Ordinance provides for 10% of all parking spaces to be compact size. c. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. The reduced setbacks will not be detrimental to the area since smaller setbacks exist in the area. The 10% allowance for compact spaces is consistent with the needs of the development. d. That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan will not be affected by this variance. PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed amendment to the ~ross density provisions in the supplemental "D" zones Director of Planning Warren explained that this matter was initiated by the Planning Commission after an interpretation of the provision by the City Attorney that this Section 33.52 of the zoning ordinance was permissive rather than discretionary on the part of the Commission. Mr. Warren then read the proposed amendment, which he said would remove the existing loophole in this ordinance and permit the Commission to reduce some of the lots in an approved subdivision by as much as 25% provided that the - overall net density of the project is that which the underlying zone requires. -4- 4/7/69 Director Warren further explained that the ordinance now provides for a 25% density bonus under the Planned Unit Development, and the gross density provision permits a density bonus unconditionally. Member Stewart commented that this was the intent of the Commission when the ordinance was originally drawn--to make this provision discretionary on the part of the Commission. City Attorney Lindberg explained that, as the ordinance now exists, if a subdivider came in with a map that meets the gross density requirements, then the Commission has no alternative but to approve it. This being the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to the RESOLUTION NO. 566 City Council the Adoption of an Amendment to Section 33.52 of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Gross Density Provisions for Supplemental "B" Zones PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment regulating height of signs in comercial and industrial zones Director of Planning Warren explained that the City Council, in February 1969, adopted an emergency ordinance pertaining to the height of signs in commercial and industrial zones. This is a temporary ordinance effective for 90 days. The amendment would spell out the height of the signs in these zones to be the same as that for buildings. The staff now recommends that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the ordinance be made permanent. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending to RESOLUTION NO. 565 City Council the Adoption of the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on a permanent basis, Amending Chapter 33, Sections 33.34, 33.37, 33.40, 33.43 and 33.55 of the Chula Vista City Code, all Relating to the Regulation of the Height of Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Prezoning Plan for the Sweetwater Valley Director of Planning Warren submitted two maps of the prezoning proposed for the Sweetwater Valley: one as recommended by the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee, and the other as modified and recommended by the Planning staff. He explained that at the last meeting held on March 19, the Commission reopened the hearing to hear comments on the property known as the Barron Ranch (north of Sweetwater Road, east of Sweetwater Manor and west of Bonita Golf Highlands Subidivision). At this same meeting, the staff recommended three or four other changes in the Plan to less restric- tive zoning, and for this reason, the matter had to be readvertised. -5- 4/7/69 Mr. Warren then noted the areas of change: (1) an increase of commercial zoning in the vicinity of the proposed freeway interchange, east of Bonita Mesa Road and north of Bonita Road; (2) property directly east and south of the McMillan Subdivision just east of Acacia Avenue; (3) certain areas presently proposed for A-8 zoning which the staff is recommending placed in the R-3 zone; (4) an area north of Sweetwater Road known as the Barron Ranch for which the Committee recommended R-3 zoning--the staff recommends R-l-15. The reason for this proposal is that the staff feels the 15,000 square foot lots is still a low-density zoning and would be compatible with the existing character established since the smaller lots can be placed on the more level land which can leave the canyon and natural topography as is. Director Warren noted the petitions of protest received relating to this area. The petitions of protest, signed by 163 residents representing 94 properties, were read; also a letter from the Sweetwater Valley Civic Association. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Stanley C. Frenzel, 838 Delaware, Imperial Beach, pointed out his property as that immediately east and south of the McMillin Subdivision (east of Acacia Avenue and south of Central Avenue). The zoning proposed for his property is R-l-15; Mr. Frenzel requested it be placed in the R-l-lO category since the contour of his land would permit such a development. Mr. Frenzel added that there is no objection from any of the adjacent residents to this proposed zoning. Member Rice remarked that the Commission could not propose this change--they could not recommend anything more restrictive unless it was readvertised. Mr. Glenn Guerin, Chairman of the Sweetwater Valley Planning Committee, objected to any change from the recommended R-l-15 zoning, since he felt the adjacent residents would object to this requested change to R-l-lO. He added that it should be considered further before a vote is taken on it. Commercial property in the vicinity of Glen Abbey (north of Bonita road and east of Bonita Mesa Road) Mr. Delbert Hepp asked that the R-3-T proposed prezoning on the south side of Bonita Road in this vicinity be prezoned to commercial. Director Warren declared that this particular item was closed at the March 19 hearing; under consideration tonight is the proposed commercial zoning on the north side of the street. Member Chandler questioned the necessity of adding another 5 acres of commercial zoning to that al ready proposed by the Committee. Director Warren explained that the area added here has an existing commercial zoning in the County. Mr. Guerin, speaking on behalf of the Committee, stated that there was no objection to the addition of this commercial acreage. -6- 4/7/69 Barron Ranch Properts Mr. Bruce Johnson, 5526 Pray Street; John Pettit, 5652 Pray Street; Pat Spies, Allen School Road, Bonita; Glenn Guerin, 4145 Acacia Avenue; and Jim Parchman, Sylvia Street, Bonita, spoke against the proposed prezoning to R-l-15. Their reasons were: (1) the County zoned it for one-half acre lots and the General Plan of Chula Vista calls out one family per acre for this property--why the change to the higher proposed density? (2) with the anticipation of the freeway coming into the Valley, there will be more commercial and R-3 zoning requested, and this should be centered around the interchanges as should all forms of higher density developments--not in the middle of a rural area; (3) they all want to see a compatible development when this ultimately comes about, so it is better to zone for a lower density and then increase it at the time development plans come in; (4) the utility installation must be considered--there is a booster pump plant here, and the Water Company states that their easement goes all the way up to the property with a turn half way up; (5) the drainage problem should also be given consideration since there will be grading, cut and fill before development takes place; (6) the development will not be compatible with the existing developed areas: on the east is a subdivision of one-half acre and larger lots, and on the west the properties are subdivided into one-half acre and one acre lots; (7) prezoning this to R-l-15 lots would devaluate the adjoining properties; because once you start reducing lots, then you reduce the number of buyers willing to buy one-half acre lots; (8) from the photos passed around the Commission, the topography of the area was noted; (1) the purpose of zoning is to maintain the established character of an area--to prezone this to R-l-15 lots would not be compatible; (10) the Committee voted to recommend R-20 and the people in the area supported them in this proposal--they strongly urge the Commission to consider the recommendations of the Valley Planning Committee; (ll) the people who signed the petition want this property to remain in one-half acre lots--they specifically purchased their own homes in this vicinity because they wanted more acreage; (12) Sweetwater Manor will have a traffic problem, because once the subdivision is built, the traffic will be cutting into Margaret and Sylvia Streets; (13) it will be the same type development as that on the north side of the freeway, and this is what they want to keep out of the Valley. Mr. Robert Miles, 314 Rose View Place, owner of the property, stated he has been fighting this zoning for eight years now. He discussed the high cost of developing the property--engineering costs, grading, etc.--and remarked that every developer has to "cost out" which can only be done in this case by reducing the size of the lots. He requested that before the Commission takes action, a greater study should be made of this area. He added that although he previously requested R-l-lO zoning for his property, he could live wi th R-l-15. A-8 zoning in the Sunnsside Re~ion Mr. Delbert Hepp asked why this prezoning plan was being proposed against the people's wishes (Sunnyside residents)--they asked to be deleted from the Plan. Mr. L. E. Morrison, 5103 Sweetwater Road, Bonita, stated he has 45 acres in the Valley which he purchased 6 years ago, and he plans to put in some type of recreational area here. Along with the Sunnyside residents, he, too, wants to be deleted from this plan. There being no further comment, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. -7- 4/7/69 Member Macevicz expressed his feeling that the Sunnyside region should be deleted since this is the wish of the people. Member Rice discussed the areas in Sunnyside presently left in the Plan and noted the zoning on these properties was left pretty much the same as they exist in the County. He added that the owners of the large area proposed for R-E prezoning extremely to the east of the planning map (north of San Miguel Road to Proctor Valley Road, and east of the flood plain area delineated on the map) asked to be left in the Plan, there is no reason to delete them. Member Putnam agreed, adding that if they were excluded, it would leave the easterly portion of the Valley in a chopped up pattern. Member Stewart declared that the problem gets more complex at every hearing. He discussed the initial proceedings of this prezoning plan, the reason for it. He noted the difference of opinions between the fellow paying the taxes on the property wanting small lots, and the adjacent residents wanting the property to be developed in larger lots. Any action taken by the Commission or the City would not resolve anything, and Member Stewart added, they should not compromise any further. If the Commission goes any further in prezoning, they will only aggravate the situation. He further stated that the Commission should prezone only those areas with which there is substantial agreement. Member Hyde agreed, maintaining that considerable progress has been made but that there are these areas of disagreement, and perhaps in time, these controversial sections will be cleared up. The Commission then decided to take the prezonin9 map in different segments and vote on each individually. PREZONING MAP dated March 19, 1969 - Chula Vista Planning Department AREA #1 (Area from the westerly boundary of the map includin9 the proposed commercial zoning north of Bonita Road and all of that area extending to the eastern limits of Glen Abbey cemetery and south to the Chula Vista City limit line--prezoned C, R-E, R-3-T and R-l-lO) MSUC (Chandler-Stewart) Area #1 be recommended for the prezoning as shown on the map. AREA #2 (South of Bonita Road beginning at the eastern boundary of Glen Abbey cemetery to Otay Lakes Road--prezoned R-E-40) It was noted that the area in back of Allen School designated R-E, the commercially zoned areas directly south of Bonita Road (the shopping centers) and the R-3-G zoning on the map (La Bonita Town & Country Apartments) are presently in the City and are not included in the prezonin9 motion. MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Area #2 be recommended for the prezoning as shown on the map. Area #3 (East of Otay Lakes Road, excluding Bonita Bel Aire Subdivision, to the southern limit line of the prezonin9 map, just east of Acacia Avenue, south of Bonita Road--prezoning: R-E, R-l-15 and R-3-T) MSUC (Chandler-Stewart) Area #3 be recommended for prezoning as shown on the map. -8- 4/7/69 AREA #4 (Beginning just east of Acacia Avenue, Central Avenue to Sweetwater Road on the north, including the flood plain area and extending to the easterly boundary line of the prezoning map, south to San Miguel Road and including the Bonita Haven Sub- division and McMillin's Subdivisions to the south--prezoned R-l-lO, R-l-15, A-8, and Director Warren discussed the area of dissension. MSC (Stewart-Macevicz) All of the area delineated in Area #4 be deleted from the prezoning plan. Member Chandler questioned Mr. Maurice Nixon's property, stating this property owner wished to be left in the Plan. It was commented that Mr. Nixon signed the petition requesting to be deleted also. Member Stewart remarked that Mr. Nixon is not being denied anything; if he wished to annex, he would get his prezoning. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Macevicz, Chandler, Hyde and Putnam NOES: Members Rice and Adams ABSENT: None ~REA #5 (South of the South Bay Freeway to the easterly limit line of the Williams Ra-~-~-~, south to the delineated flood plain area as delineated on the map--designated R-E and R-l-15). Motion made by Member Chandler that the Barron Ranch be prezoned R-E and recommend approval of the rest of the Area #5. Member Adams seconded the motion. Member Rice suggested all of the area from the Barron Ranch east be deleted from the Plan. There was opposition from the people in the audience who lived in the Bonita del Sol and Bonita Highland Subdivisions, stating they wished to remain in the Prezonin9 Plan. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Members Chandler, Adams and Macevicz NOES: Members Hyde, Rice, Putnam and Stewart ABSENT: None MSC (Stewart-Rice) Delete the Barron Ranch from this area and recommend the balance of Area #5 prezoned as shown on the map. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Stewart, Rice, Hyde, Adams, Putnam, and Macevicz NOES: Member Chandler ABSENT: None -9- 4/7/69 AREA #6 (South of the South Bay Freeway from the easterly boundary of the Williams Ranch, but excluding the Williams Ranch, all of that area remaining north of Sweetwater Road--designated R-l-15, R-E-40, R-E). MSUC (Stewart-Rice) Recommend the adoption of the prezoning for Area #6 as shown on the map. AREA #7 (From the western boundary of the study map, south of Sweetwater Road, including the Bonita Mesa Subdivision prezoned R-l-lO and including the Bonita Golf Course and the flood plain region to the south to the City limit line on the east-- designated A-8 and R-l-lO). MSUC (Chandler-Rice) Recommend the adoption of the prezoning for Area #7 as shown on the map. Director Warren requested that the staff be given time to drawn up a new map, noting the deleted areas and the Area pattern as recommended for adoption by the Commission. MSUC (Stewart-Putnam) The staff be directed to draw up a new map and place this on the next meeting of the Commission for approval. The Commission further discussed the large area at the extreme east of the prezoning map in the Sunnyside Region prezoned R-E (from the flood plain area to Proctor Valley Road). They concurred that this area should be left in the Prezoning Plan since the owner specifically requested it. MSUC (Rice-Stewart) The above described area be left in the Prezoning Plan and recommend R-E as delineated on the map. Area #5 is hereby amended to include this area. ~equest for approval of master plan - Park Hill Methodist Church - 545 East Naples Street Director of Planning Warren submitted the proposed master plan for the church site. Four acres are involved in this site which includes a new sanctuary, dining and office facilities, as well as school buildings. The seating capacity for the main sanctuary is 450 persons with parking shown to accommodate 112 cars. The present ordinance requires parking for 90 cars whereas the new zoning ordinance would require parking for 128 cars. Since the site is large enough to provide for the increased parking, the staff believes the applicant should conform to the standards as set forth in the new ordinance. The staff recommends approval of the plan with the final plans for architecture, site layout and landscaping to be approved by the Director of Planning. Chairman Hyde asked the City Attorney about the legality of the condition. City Attorney Lindberg stated the requirement was a legal one and added that he was sure the applicant would want to modify his plan now to reflect this change. Mr. Robert G. Edwards, representing the church, stated there is no problem with the proposed conditions. -1 O- 4/7/69 MSUC (Rice-Putnam) Approval of the master plan for the Park Hill Methodist Church with the following conditions: Parking designed at 1 space per 3~j seats (128 spaces), unless a building permit is issued prior to the adoption of the new ordinance. Final plans for architecture, site layout and landscaping to be approved by the Planning Director. Subdivision - Final Map of Palomar View.Hgights Director of Planning Warren submitted the final map of the Palomar View Heights Subdivision noting the location as on the north side of Palomar Street just west of Nolan Avenue. A total of six R-1 lots are designed for the 1.95 acre site. The staff recommends approval of the map since it is in conformance with the tentative map, and subject to the conditions of the Engineering Division. MSUC (Rice-Chandler) Approval of the final map subject to the following conditions: The final map shall not be submitted for Council action until all fees are paid and all necessary bonds, agreements, deeds, letters, improvement plans and easements, as required by the City Engineer, have been delivered to the City. City Council Referral - Proposal to purchase for park purposes approximately 47 acres of land north of Telegraph Canyon Road between Hilltop Drive and Interstate 805 Director of Planning Warren submitted a plot noting the location of the property in question. This item was before the Commission previously when it was being considered for a hospital site. He explained that the Parks & Recreation along with the Planning staff are about to undertake preparation of a Parks and Recretion element of the General Plan, and will be giving specific study to the detailed park land needs at that time. The determination as to the need of this site for a park should be made by the Parks and Recreation Commission, but the staff would recommend that the Commission find that the acquisition of the site for public park purposes would not be in conflict with the General Plan. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Submit to the City Council the findings that the acquisition of the site for park purposes would not be in conflict with the General Plan. City Council Referral - Consideration of setback alon9 E Street on the northeast corner of Corte Maria Director of Planning Warren submitted a plat showing the location of the property in question. In March, the Commission had a request for a "move-in" for this property which has since been abandoned by the applicant. At their meeting of April l, 1969, the City Council referred the matter of the setbacks on the property to the Commission for consideration. The setback along E Street was originally 25' - until E Street was realigned. When setbacks are established by map, they do not move with the right-of-way line; they remain stationary. The staff recommends that the Commission call a hearing to establish the setback in this area at 20 feet. MSUC (Putnam-Rice) Hearing be called for April 28, 1969. -ll- 4/7/69 To be set for hearin~ - Proposed amendment to the Zonin~ Ordinance authorizin~ the staff to include additional matters in notices of public hearings Planning Director Warren referred to the staff's comments regarding this item. After receiving an application, the staff, on several occasions in the past, has seen the necessity or advisability of expanding the request prior to setting it for public hearing. In reviewing ordinances from other cities, the staff found the provision which authorizes the Director of Planning to make additions when determined necessary. This seems appropriate in that the process is not delayed and the Commission has the prerogative of deleting the areas if they so choose, following the public hearing. The staff recommends that the City Attorney be directed to prepare this amendment and that it be set for hearing. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) The City Attorney be directed to prepare the amendment and it be set for hearing for the meeting of April 28. To be s~$ for hearin~ - Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regulatin~ billboards Director of Planning Warren referred to the Commission's mailing concerning billboards which was prepared by the City Attorney. The City Council has been trying to get something going on this matter. At the present time billboards are allowed only in industrial zones. The new zoning ordinance as proposed prohibits billboards and sets up an amortization period for non-conforming billboards. The City Attorney indicates it may be impossible to eliminate them from the City. City Attorney Lindberg suggested the Commission first hold a workshop meeting on this. The explained the Collier-Z'Berg regulations which the Commission could simply accept or provide for an addition thereto that they could add other restrictive areas in the nature of scenic highways, and that the Commission would also move to eliminate the non-conforming billboards located in zones where they are not permitted. The Commission discussed the dates for a possible workshop meeting to consider this item, and concurred that the hearing should be set for the 28th. MSUC (Putnam-Chandler) Workshop dinner meeting be set for April 14, and the public hearing to consider this item be set for either April 28 or May 5, 1969. School Bus Stops in New Subdivisions Director of Planning Warren referred to a letter received from the Safety Commission in which they suggest that a committee be appointed to consider this matter. They asked that one member from the Planning Commission serve on this committee. MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Member Pu nam be appointed to serve on this committee. Signs--New Zoning Ordinance Director Warren reported on the status of the committees studying the sign provisions in the new ordinance. Mr. Niek Slijk had reported that these are active committees, the Downtown Association and the Broadway Association. At one time, the Broadway -- Association met and reported to the Commission specific things that they wanted them to do concerning sign provisions. The Council has inquired as to what is holding up these sections. Mr. Warren suggested they make this part of a comprehensive program; acknowledge that something is wrong with the sign provisions and sooner or later, something will be done. -12- 4/7/69 It may be that the Broadway Association and Downtown Association should be working with some body, the staff or others, in the development of an overall improvement program. Several points would be involved: the improvement of buildings, undergrounding of utilities, tree planting, correction of sign problems, etc. Chairman Hyde felt this was a good starting point, and asked that this item be placed on the agenda of the Commission workshop. Prezonin9 Property south of L Street, west of Fourth Avenue Director Warren reported that an application was received for prezoning the above property to R-3; it is presently zoned R-2-A in the County. In this same area are two parcels zoned R-1 which are not included in this application. He asked whether the Commission wished to include these two parcels in the R-3 prezoning request. The Commission concurred that they did. MSUC (Stewart-Rice) The two properties zoned R-1 be included in the prezoning request for R-3 zoning. Hilltop and Naples Shopping Center Member Rice inquired as to the status of this Center. Director Warren stated the owners have been given three weeks to comply with the requirements imposed. At the end of this three-week period, he will report back to the Commission. Budget 1969-70 Chairman Hyde discussed the proposed budget as mailed to the Commission by the Director of Planning. He stated he concurs with all the recommendations and asked the Director if there were any items he specifically wanted support on. Director Warren indicated he wouldn't know at this point, until after he has had his session with Administration. One item they may wish to consider: some cities send one or two commissioners to the ASPO Conference every year; Chula Vista has never done this. The Commission indicated this item should be considered. Hazard Signs Member Putnam asked about the signs on the Hazard Building; there was some question as to whether these conformed to the Building Code, and they were to be taken down. City Attorney Lindberg stated he discussed this matter with Mr. Hazard, and he promised that something will be done about it. ADJOURNMENT MSUC (Chandler-Macevicz) Meeting be adjourned to the meetings of April 21 and 28, 1969 and to the workshop meeting of April 14, 1969. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. R~spectfully yours, .;? J"'~ne nie M. Fulasz, Sec~et~ry '?//~'