The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1976-07-14; Planning Commission; Minutes.. CITY OF CARt”E3AD . ” -, ’ MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : July 14, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS -.- - CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30’p.m. ROLL CALL A1 1 present. X Motion Minutes of June 23, 1976 - approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE X X X X X X X Present Ayes x x x x x r:,~,x Abstain X , APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 1262, Carlsbad Printing Company - approved. ix I Motion X x X/ x Xj X Ayes Abs tai n X 1 I I .Resolution No. 1263. Santa Anita Development Corp. Ayes approved. Motion Abstain I I involve themselves with the issues that we discuss that contrary to some opinions that have been ex- I ssed recently I hope that they continue tp pursue ry means of address if they disagree with any de- ion we might make. It is a right, and involved izens are what make a great city and it is a pity t some can’t tell the difference between organized izens and organized criminals and would try to dis- rage and discredit citizen participation.” i‘ I l 1 bdivision be designed to accommodate a future in- street system. The applicant worked with staff and resubmitted a plot plan that provides for a future interior street system. Mr. Plender also directed the Commissioners’ attention to the conditions submitted by the Engineering Department that were not included ir the Staff Report and that an additional condition re- garding preservation of the trees on the west property I line should also be considered. Harry Truax, Brian Smith Engineering, representative of the applicant said that they concurred with the Staff Report and all conditions. Jack R. Estes, 1199 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad spoke in favor of the proposed project and commended the Plan- ning and Engineering staffs in being fair to everyone. I I I 1i I .i .,I., rc CITY OF CN?t ?3AD -I MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding whether or not a developer could recover costs for im- provements that would also benefit an adjacent propert owner. A motion was made recommending approval of CT 76-6 per the recommendation and conditions in the Staff Report plus the conditions submitted by the Engineering Dept. and condition no. 10 to read as follows: "The existing trees on the west property line shall be saved where feasible". A minute motion was made for staff to look at City Policy (if there is one) regarding street, sewer, wate etc. improvements in a development by a particular developer wherein these improvements would also benefi an adjacent property owner - is there any way in which this developer can recover any of these costs? CASE NO. CT 76-7, JACK GLEASON, NEWPORT SHORES BUILDER Request for approval of a 378-lot subdivision on a 108 acre parcel. Commissioner Rombotis asked the applicant if Donald Ayres, Sr. was involved in this project in any way and was informed that he was, so Commissi'oner abstained from participating in this hearing. Assistant Planning Director Bud Plender advised the 'Co'mmission that CT 76-7 was essentiallv the same as CT 72-34. He also advised the Commissron that CT 72-3 Phases 1 through 4 was finalized by the City Council on July 6, 1976; therefore, that portion of the develo ment has been established. As a result, the Planning Commission should consider Phase 5 only, since it con- stitutes the only difference between the finalized map CT 72-34 and the currently applied for map CT 76-7 A new staff report with conditions for Phase 5 only was given to each Commissioner. The applicant was then asked if he had any objection to the Commission hearing just the Phase 5 portion of CT 76-7. Jack Gleason; Newport Shores Builders said that he would like for the Planning Commission to hear CT 76-7 Phases 1 through 5, in its entirety. - . - . .. . There was then a great deal of discussion among the Commissioners, Planning Staff, Engineering Staff and the applicant as to whether or not they could hear the entire case or whether it should be limited to Phase 5 only. A motion was made to continue CT 76-7 to the meeting of July 28, 1976 in order to give the applicant and staff time to re-evaluate whether the entire case should be heard or just Phase 5. NEW BUSINESS CASE NO. CUP-lOl(A), BANK OF AMERICA, EL CAMINO REAL Status Report Bud Plender told the Commission that Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution' No. 1214 regarding building permits had been complied with on June 21, 19 The staff will give the Commission another status rep0 in December advising them whether or'not the permanent structure is occupied and temporary structure has been removed. \ Yotion !yes Yotion 4ye s Motion Ayes Abstai'n CITY OF CARl"'8AD c # MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: July 14, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 3 ~~ ~ ~ CASE NO. SNC-1, CONFLICTING STREET NAME CHANGE - Mr. Plender told the Commission that the City's Street Naming Policy (City Council Policy No. 20) provides for the Planning Commission to initiate name changes . .in situations where street names are in conflict with one another. A work program outline was given to each Commissioner along with a Resolution of Intention No. 130 to hold a public hearing on Street Name Change Group 1. A motion was made to adopt the Work Program for Street Name Changes and to approve Resolution of Intention No 130. CASE NO. EIR-295, MAY COMPANY EXPANSION - Eric Larson brought up the question to the Staff and to the En: gineering Department about the mitigation measures contained.in the EIR regarding the Jefferson Street intersection with Marron Road and how it would affect the duck feeding area. There was much discussion among the Commissioners,. Staff and Tim Flanagan, City Engineer. A motion was made that staff report back to the Plan- ning Commission with a study and evaulation of the Jefferson Street intersection as it relates to Marron Road and as 'it relates to the ecology and environmenta aspects of the duck feeding area and that the staff consider numerous alternatives as to the development of that general area in terms of protecting the wild- life, fencing, parking, signs, etc. (sketches and recommendations to be included with report). SIGN VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT - Commissioner Rombotis felt that the Commission should study sign violation enforcement. He felt that the City should have an all out enforcement of violations rather .than on a selective basis such as with the Hadley's (each Commissioner received a copy of the letter sent to the Hadleys). He felt that many sign violations would be corrected through education. He suggested that the City work on voluntary compliance by working with the Chamber of Commerce in an education program. .. A minute motion was made directing staff to report to the Planning Commission with a general policy dealing with enforcing sign violations on a non-selective basis. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Workshop - The Planning Commission will be given a list of the projects that the Planning Department is currently working on and future projects. The Plan- ning Commission might wish to add additional items aRd also set priorities for some of the projects. Commendation Party for Dr. Packard and Bill Dominguez All Commissioners were remined that this party would be held at Chairman L'Heureux's home on July 25, 1976 at 4:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Motion Ayes Motion Ayes Abstain Motion Ayes Motion Ayes T .- X X X X 1 K X X K