Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-21; Planning Commission; 05; SDP 83-11F |CUP 94-09 - Potential reconsideration of a Site Development Plan to allow for the expansion of the existing Claim Jumper restaurant and the construction of aThe tlty Ii Carlmad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION -"',J P.C. AGENDA OF: JUNE 21, 1995 Item No. ® Application complete date: NIA Project Planner: Gary Wayne Rich Rudolf Project Engineer: N/A SUBJECT: SDP 83-ll(F)/CUP 94-09 -Potential reconsideration of a Site Development Plan to allow for the expansion of the existing Oaim Jumper restaurant and the construction of a new restaurant on Pad "A". The proposed development is located generally at the northwest comer of the intersection of 1-5 and Palomar Airport Road. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission accept this staff report and take whatever action it deems appropriate. II. BACKGROUND During the Commissioner comments portion of the May 17, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the commission requested a report from staff and legal counsel regarding whether the Planning Commission had legal authority to reconsider the above-referenced item. This report provides a response to that inquiry and concludes that the item may not be reconsidered by the Planning Commission, however, the permit could be nullified subject to certain limitations. DISCUSSION Until the Planning Commission adopts new procedural rules, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2904, adopted July 19, 1989, controls the procedures of the Planning Commission. Section 45 relates to reconsideration. Subdivision (a) relates to reconsideration during the meeting in which the action was taken. Section 45(b) authorizes a motion to "rescind, repeal, cancel or otherwise nullify prior commission action" at any meeting subsequent to the meeting at which the action addressed was taken, and expressly provides that the effect of the motion to rescind is that the action shall only have the prospect of application, and not retroactive application, and further the action taken to rescind cannot operate to "adversely effect individual rights which may have vested in the interim." SDP 83-ll(C)/CUP 94-09 JUNE 21, 1995 PAGE 2 On April 19, 1995, the Planning Commission voted seven to zero to approve a Site Development Plan (SOP 83-ll(F)) and a companion Conditional Use Permit (CUP 94-09). The chairperson advised at the beginning of the public hearing that the Planning Commission's decision was final unless appealed to the Gty Council within 10 calendar days. The Planning Commission's decision was not appealed within that time period and the action has become final. Moreover, based on Planning Commission procedure No. 45(a) the item cannot be reconsidered since reconsideration must occur essentially at the meeting which the action was taken. According to Section 45(b) of the existing Planning Commission procedures the commission could consider nullifying its previous approval of either SOP 83-ll(F) or CUP 94-09 or both, subject to certain limitations. However, since both the Site Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit are required by State Law and/or City Ordinance to be heard in the context of a Notice of Public Hearing, the action to rescind, if taken, should occur in the same context. Accordingly, staff has placed the item on the agenda for the meeting of June 21, 1995 to merely determine whether the Planning Commission wishes to consider a future agenda item to potentially rescind its action of approval of both items on April 19, 1995. The action at the meeting of June 21 would be to solicit a motion and second and vote on whether to consider a Motion to Rescind at a future meeting in a public hearing context. If no motion is made, a motion is made but not seconded, or a motion is made, seconded but fails to pass, no further action needs to be taken. If a motion is made, seconded and passes, staff would be thereby instructed to properly give notice of a public hearing to consider rescission of the action of approval of April 19, 1995 at a future public meeting of the Planning Commission (July 5, 1995). If that motion is made and passes and the matter comes before the Planning Commission again in the proper Notice of Public Hearing context, and the motion to rescind or repeal the prior approval action is approved by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could then determine whether to deny the requested approvals or conditionally approve it with the same or different conditions as originally suggested. It should be noted that the applicant has filed for a Coastal Development Permit in reliance on the City's approval. The Coastal Development Permit was approved by the California Coastal Commission on June 16, 1995. If the Planning Commission decides to consider nullifying its earlier action, it will need to make specific findings supporting such action and it would need to consider any evidence and make findings with regard to the applicant's acquisition of vested rights in the interim. GEW:RR:lh JUNE 14, 1995