HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1986/03/11 Item 6 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 6
Meeting Date -3/11/86
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /..2 °-(Approving Encroachment Permit No. PE-066 for
sign at 281 "G" Street
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/City Engineer 9#/fiJ/
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
Mr. D. K. Jordan, owner of the property at 281 "G" Street, is remodeling the
existing structure at that location. He has applied for an encroachment
permit to allow him to place a sign partially within the City' s street
right-of-way.
Encroachments of this type must be authorized by Council , in accordance with
Section 12.28.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve a resolution authorizing the
subject encroachment.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The owner of the property at 281 "G" Street, Dan K. Jordan, is proposing to
remodel the older single family home into an office for his real estate
busi ness.
This property is in the Town Centre Redevelopment area. Thus, Mr. Jordan was
required to complete the design review process. The architect' s plans showed
the front property line to be about two feet behind the sidewalk. It was
pointed out by this department that the property line is actually 15 feet
behind the sidewalk. A condition of approval by the Town Centre Design Review
Committee was that the sign be placed at least five feet behind the property
line as it was shown on the plans.
When the property line was plotted correctly, the proposed sign was found to
lie approximately 4 to 4-1/2 feet into the City's right-of-way, though well
beyond the 5 foot distance as required by the Commission.
The owner contends that if set back farther, the sign would not be readily
seen and, hence, has applied for an encroachment permit.
Section 12. 28.010 of the City Code states that the Council may authorize
certain encroachments that do "not interfere or obstruct the overriding public
use for which said rights-of-way have been dedicated. " In staff' s opinion,
this proposed encroachment is in conformance with this provision.
Both the Planning and Community Development Departments were contacted for
their concurrence in this matter. Neither had any objections to the proposed
encroachment.
A transparency is available for Council viewing.
JWH:fp/PE066
WPC 1919E
d ;
16/the City Council of
Chula Vista, California
Dated
'1
tr •
t , .4 .
ti
' A 4
I - 11 • •
O
6
A - - ___ S/C . —. — d• r
LOCAT/OiCI
, • •
sm. ..
• • .. ..,. • . . • • ,
. 4 . . • . . . .
. • • . 4 .
. . • i a .
. . \
•
Cu/28
28/ "G " STREET
I .
iti W 4.I .0'11
0„ G ly1�� 1
G Li ST.
' PEAL ESTATE . 5'
Y
N 5T.
--- I,;
f I '11
V I C 1 Al 1 T `/ MA P
PE 066
DRAWN BY T I T L E
----Lli-:- --- - --,1%G,2O,4C,ir/c,UT E2/WI/ T for
DATE2-2� -Pi 28! '6 " Sz`reeZ Dan/or%n - Owner
t'
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 6
Meeting Date 3/4186 3////f6
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCA-86-5; Consideration of Amendment to Title
19 of the Municipal Code to include the 1985 Montgomery
annexation area in the design review process
Ordinance c2/11-2" Amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code to
include the 1985 Montgomery annexation area in the design
review process St MU k tALANG AND ADOPTION
SUBMITTED BY: Planning Directo4(L (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
REVIEWED BY: City Managers
On December 17, 1985, the staff report submitted to Council recommended that
an amendment to the Municipal Ordinance requiring design review provisions for
Montgomery be considered, rather than the Precise Plan Modifying District.
Prior to Council consideration of an amended ordinance, the report recommended
referral of the matter to the Montgomery Planning Committee for review and
comment. The report was accepted by City Council at that time.
On November 19, 1985, the City Council requested that staff prepare a report
outlining the steps for placing the entire Montgomery area within the "P"
Precise Plan Modifying District. The purpose for this request was to ensure
that some type of design control would be exercised while the County' s zoning
system remained in effect over the area.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a motion to enact an ordinance amending
Title 19 of the Municipal Code to require multiple-family residential
projects, major use permit, commercial and industrial projects within the 1985
Montgomery annexation area to undergo review and approval by the Design Review
Committee. The amended ordinance text reads as shown in Exhibits A and B
attached hereto.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
1 . The proposal to amend the ordinance was presented to the Montgomery
Planning Committee on January 2, 1986. Planning Committee members agreed
at that time to the design review requirement.
2. The Environmental Review Coordinator has found that the proposed ordinance
amendment is a non significant activity under Section 2.4.3.2 of the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
3. The Planning Commission at its meeting of February 13, 1986, voted to
recommend approval of the proposed ordinance.
Page 2, Item 6
Meeting Date 3/4/86
DISCUSSION:
The Municipal Code empowers the Design Review Committee to review and approve
plans submitted in the following instances: when they are for the
establishment, location, expansion or alteration of residential uses or
structures in the R-3 zone, or for multiple-family dwelling uses, commercial
or industrial projects or structures within the P Precise Plan Modifying
District. The Committee bases its findings and actions on the design manual ,
the official policy for the City' s architectural control program. In
addition, land uses subject to the conditional use permit process are
typically referred to the Design Review Committee for design review.
The proposed amendment would authorize inclusion of the Montgomery annexation
area in the design review process. The intent of the ordinance amendment is
to ensure that projects generated under the existing County zoning ordinance
are well designed, adding a positive note to the appearance of the community
and the city as a whole. With the exception of single-family dwellings, the
ordinance would require that most residential , major use projects, commercial ,
and industrial projects in Montgomery to be approved by the Design Review
Committee before development could proceed.
ANALYSIS
The primary advantage of the proposed amendment is that design control is
insured while work proceeds on the Montgomery Specific Plan. Once the plan is
implemented, other tools for controlling design may be utilized, such as
rezoning and the establishment of the P modifier.
The zoning text amendment is in keeping with Council policy passed in
September, stating the existing zoning would not be changed until the
Montgomery study was completed.
Implementation of the design review requirement will have some effect upon the
cost and processing time involved for plans submitted under the amended
ordinance, and may subject projects to environmental review.
Generally, project processing times will increase approximately 3-5 weeks to
allow for the design review process. Present application costs for design
review is $390.00. However, an increase is being recommended in the new fee
schedule. An additional deposit of $400.00 is required if the project must
undergo environmental review as well .
Since the design review process is a discretionary action, projects previously
exempt would become subject to the provisions of CEQA under certain
circumstances. The Environmental Review Coordinator has indicated, however,
that many of the projects subject to CEQA may still be categorically exempt.
For example, multiple-family dwellings up to 6 units, and office commercial
uses having no more than 4 structures, an occupancy load of no more than 30,
-- and up to 3000 sq. ft. , are exempt from environmental review.
Page 3, Item 6
Meeting Date 3/4/86
If it is determined that an initial study must be filed, the overall process
for design review could be extended approximately 1-2 weeks. Projects with
potentially significant environmental impacts would require longer review
periods to allow for preparation of an EIR. It is very likely, however, that
projects which require an EIR have applied for other discretionary permits
such as a conditional use permit or rezone, and would have had to undergo
environmental review in any case.
Adding the design review process to the multiple family, commercial , and
industrial areas of Montgomery will add approximately 1 ,000 acres to the
existing 3,000 acres of land now placed under DRC review. This additional
acreage will likely increase both the staff' s and DRC members' workload to a
peak capacity. A complete analysis of the actual fiscal impact of the
proposed ordinance change will have to be determined after implementation.
FISCAL IMPACT: To be determined.
WPC 2561P
CO J e
?Ikea- 4tii•Legrat 4,0(1(4/by the City Counw of
Chula Vista, California Chu,_
Dated Dated c5 -)/ --