Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/08/16 Item 10 . . . COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT I tern 1 0 Meeting Date 8/16/88 ITEM TITLE: Resolution/97(~ Authorizing the Rancho Del Rey Partnershi p to construct a porti on of East "W Street from approximately 100 feet east of Kernel Pl ace to approximately 500 feet west of Buena Vista Way and receive a cash or credit reimbursement against ~elopment Impact Fees SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~ REVIEWED BY: Ci ty Manager f . (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~) The Rancho Del Rey Partnershi p has requested authori zati on to construct a porti on of East "W Street and recei ve a cash or credi t reimbursement agai nst Development Impact Fees pursuant to Ordinance No. 2251 adopted January 12, 1988. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Ordinance No. 2251 established a Development Impact Fee to pay for transportation facilities in the eastern territories of the City. The ordi nance provi des that a developer may request authori zati on from the City Counci 1 to construct one or more of the transportati on faci 1 i ti es 1 i sted in the ordinance. The project for which authorization is requested is included in the list of Development Impact Fee projects and is generally described as follows: Improvement of East "W Street to a 6-1 ane prime arteri al from Kernel Pl ace to Buena Vi sta Way, a 1 ength of approximately 9,900 feet. It is anticipated that most of the major projects listed in the ordinance establishing the Development Impact Fee will be built by developers and/or assessment districts and that developers will earn credits against future fees at the building permit stage. There will be relatively few projects that will be funded di rectly by the Development Impact Fees. Shoul d the credi ts from future projects not be enough to offset the developer's front-end expense for a particular project, the City will reimburse additional monies to the developers at the time that the Ci ty feel s there are adequate funds to do so and that reimbursement will not delay needed future projects. d~~~ Chula Vista, California Dated W?'4-~ /"". ./.4' /' / ,.r.::;........ . . . Page 2, Item 10 Meeting Date 8/16/88 Attached is a copy of the request for authorization to construct which contains a description and cost estimate of the improvements along with other information and statements as required to be submitted to the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the Ci ty. Rancho Del Rey Partnershi p wi 11 advance all necessary funds to construct the project and will receive a credit or cash reimbursement in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 2251. The construction cost estimate for East "H" Street contained in the Development Impact Fee Report (December 1987) is $5,141,000. The Rancho Del Rey cost estimate is $5,772,019. The actual amount of credit or cash reimbursement will be determined by the Director of Public Works and be based on actual final costs. The Development Impact Fee Report will be modified to reflect the actual cost when the improvements have been completed. RLD:nr/ WPC 3906E , I .' / < i 4,- . ,. . . . 3/24/86 - 4/23/86 - 5/06/86 - 5/19/86 - 6/05/86 6/11 /86 - 6/17/86 - ~ 7 /8 /86 - >. ) 8/5/86 - . 9/2/86- Page 2, Item 10 Meeting Date~f6788 Variance filed by app1 icant to increase lot coverage from 40 to 61 percent and allow a third story. Planning Commission denied the variance request by a vote of 5-0. City Council denied the variance but indicated they might be willing to reconsider based upon the applicant's offer to redesign the house and work with the Design Review Committee on alternate designs. The Design Review Committee was unable to make a recommendation on the exterior building design because of a lack of detail on the plans. They suggested professional design assistance be sought by the applicant. He declined. The P1 anni ng Commi ssi on reconsi dered the vari ance request and denied it 6-0. City Council reconsidered the variance and adopted staff recommendation and resolution, 4-1. This action was to deny the vari ance request for the thi rd story and deny the lot coverage vari ance for 61 %, but approve a vari ance for 46.2%. The latter was based on conditions which called for removal of the accessory building, lowering the roof height to a maximum 30 feet to the hi ghest poi nt and the exteri or design bei ng reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. Staff was to work with the applicant on a redesign and come back to Council with cost estimates for implementation. City participation in the cost for design was expressed as a possibi1 ity. P1 anni ng Department report on process to se1 ect an architect for redesign of the house exterior accepted by Council. City Attorney to prepare an agreement to be executed with the applicant. City Counci 1 deci ded not to proceed with archi tectura1 redesign. Council unanimously revoked its previous partial variance approval and denied the lot coverage variance and story variance. The applicant was directed to lower the top of the roof to 35 feet (as depi cted on the ori gi na1 approved building p1ans);-remove the shed in the rear yard, open up the roof area over the swimming pool and remove the stair access and flooring to the upper level. The work to all be completed within 120 days of the lifting of the stop work order. Stop work order 1 ifted. All comp1 i ance work to be comp1 eted by 1/2/87.