1996 AGN SEP 03 I22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CITY OF COLTON r 'N AGENDA REPORT FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 16, 1996 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVAL: DNaque Mait Mana er I�I /a.vvvFROM: amora Community Develo e irector SUBJECT: Appeal to the City Council regarding the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny File Index Number DCVS-18-96, a Request for an Architectural and Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, Major Variance, and Environmental Assessment for the construction of seven outdoor advertising signs. DATE: July 11, 1996 BACKGROUND: On June 25,1996, the Planning Commission denied Filed Index Number DCVS-18-96, a request from Oakridge Corporation on behalf of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for an Architectural and Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, Major Variance, and Environmental Assessment, to construct eight outdoor advertising signs (billboards). During the Public Hearing, staff informed the Commission that the number of signs had been reduced from eight to seven. After receiving public testimony, the Commission denied the request. Attached are the Official Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 25, 1996 (Attachment A). Upon denial by the Commission, the applicant was informed of the 10 day appeal period. On June 27, 1996, the applicant paid the appropriate fee, and filed an official appeal to the Commission's denial of the proposed project (Attachment B). DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Attached for the Council's review is a copy of the Staff Report (Attachment C) which provided staff's analysis of the proposed project at the Commission Hearing. As noted in the report, staff is concerned with the proliferation and concentration of the signs being proposed surrounding the Interstate 10 and 215 Freeways. Council will recall that Adams Advertising has been approved for at least six billboard signs in the same immediate area. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is not consistent with the intent and guidelines of the General Plan's Open Space Designation; the proposed project is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance; the proposed project may be considered compatible with the surrounding uses; and that the proposed project did not warrant a Negative Declaration. Therefore, on a five to two vote, the Planning Commission denied DCVS-18-96. ITEM 22