HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/05/03 Item 16•
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 16
Meeting Date 5/3/88
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-88-22M - Continued consideration of
regulations for the processing of Land Use Proposals which are
inconsistent with Par~~t //Tw//o of the Montgomery Specific Plan
Interim Ordinance !~`~egTalating the processing of land use
proposals inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan
~L
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~v
REVIEWED BY: City Manager Q~;~~/ (4/5ths Vote: Yes x No )
The City Council, meeting in regular session on April 26, 1988, considered the
proposed interim ordinance, which would require proponents of land uses which
are inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan to submit applications for
the amendment of the Specific Plan in conjunction with their applications for
the establishment of the proposed uses.
The City Council members, during this consideration, discussed the equity of
the proposed ordinance, and expressed concern over those projects which have
~een substantially processed, or currently within the "pipeline." Council
fter the conclusion of its consideration of the draft ordinance, referred it
back to staff, and requested that the said ordinance be revised by the
inclusion of provisions which would protect the interests of proponents of
development projects which have been substantially processed by the City.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached interim ordinance.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Montgomery Planning Committee considered the original, draft interim
ordinance at this hearing of March 16, 1988. The Committee approved the
said interim ordinance, and recommended that it be adopted by the City
Planning Commission and City Council (vote 5-1, one absent).
2. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of April 13, 1988, voted 4-3
to recommend that the City Council not adopt the said interim ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
1. The revised, draft interim ordinance is designed to protect the growth,
development, design, and conservation policies of the Montgomery Specific
Plan, as well as the interest of proponents of development projects which
have been substantially processed by the City, even where the said
projects are not consistent with the Specific Plan.
r ~
U
• Page 2, Item 16
Meeting Date 3 88
2. The proposed revisions acknowledge that, subject to the Zoning
Administrator's determination of the prescribed findings, projects that
have tentative map, conditional use permit or Design Review committee
approval could proceed. For projects, for which applications have been
filed but not yet acted upon (at the time the ordinance becomes
effective), the Zoning Administrator would be empowered to render a
compliance determination with possible appeal to the Montgomery Planning
Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. This would obviate the
need for a Specific Plan Amendment for those projects.
3. At the present time, there are five developmental proposals within the
City's pipeline according to the Planning Department's survey (see
Exhibit A).
WPC 5092P
•
~~~
• ~ -
by t;s~ City Cc~~ncil of
Chula Vista, California
~~+nd -
,,
'~