1983 REG MTG MIN FEB 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeals P. C. Res. No. 1058 Mayor Huntoon announced that this was the continuance of the Public Hearing to consider the Appeal filed by Colton Piano Playhouse. Mayor Huntoon stated that he understands that the applicant has requested a continuance to the next regular meeting. Councilman Rios asked how many times can this be continued. City Attorney Edwards responded that as many times as a continuance is requested and granted by the City Council. Moved by Councilman Rios, seconded continue the Public Hearing Appeal February 15, 1983. Unanimous vote. by Councilwoman Cisneros, to on Index No. V-8-82 to PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: RESOLUTION NO. 4277 Pro -Growth City Policy Planning Director Aguilera reported the Planning Department has brought this item before the City Council in order that the Plan- ning Commission and staff may have direction when considering development proposals in the City. Mr. Aguilera stated the Council basically has three growth alternatives to consider; a policy of no growth, a policy of limited growth, or a policy that would encourage growth. Mr. Aguilera cited the City's General Plan as predicting that industry in Orange and Los Angeles Counties will be moving to the San Bernardino Valley and that the City can and should successfully compete for these industries in order to bring about more jobs, income, housing and prosperity for the City. Planning Director Aguilera recommended adoption of a pro -growth policy and adoption of Resolution No. 4277. City Attorney Edwards stated he concurred with Planning Director Aguilera with regard to the resolution being in proper order, and that if adopted, it will be a clear direction to staff and act as a signal to developers as to the attitude of this Council. City Attorney Edwards informed the Council they could take action one way or another on this matter, that this is something very distinctly in their descretion, and that staff would follow Council's direction. Council Members Garcia and Rehrer were of the opinion that this resolution was not necessary, that the Development Review Committee should look at each individual request and that the Council should not go carte blanche. Planning Director Aguilera replied that this would not change the existing requirements, developers would still have to meet every- thing now required. Mr. Aguilera stated the resolution is intended to be used to change the thinking philosphy of those charged with reviewing development proposals. Mr. Aguilera gave an example of a recent request considered by the DRC. Mr. Aguilera stated the request was for a lot split, the City's requirements call for a 100 ft. frontage in an industrial zone; this particular parcel would have had an 80 ft. frontage; however, because of the great depth of the lot the overall square footage exceeded our requirements. The variance was 20 feet not that great when you consider the overall square footage stated Mr. Aguilera; however, because of the current thinking of the DRC the lot split was denied. Mr. Aguilera said had the DRC been more liberal in it's thinking an approval would have meant a new industrial building being constructed providing for more employment. t 4 �