Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />May 9, 1984 <br />Page 9 <br />Vice Chairman Wilson then asked about the parking requirements for retail and office <br />use. Mr. Glenn explained the parking requirements. He then asked Mr. Hirst about <br />the ownership of the parcels. Mr. Hirst indicated that the subject site consists of three <br />separate parcels. The first phase (which has two buildings on it already) is a single <br />parcel and is under separate ownership. <br />Commissioner Getty if the circulation pattern was taken into consideration as part <br />of the sale. Mr. Hirst said it was. Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Hirst if theoretically <br />the parcels were sold the circulation would remain the same as it ran with the land. <br />Mr. Hirst acknowledged that this was the case. He indicated that not shown on the <br />site plan is a 12' easement between the two Edgren houses that front on Old Bernal <br />Avenue. They propose that egress be allowed from the site through this easement. <br />Vice Chairman Wilson again addressed reciprocal parking. Mr. Hirst stated that while <br />it is understood reciprocal parking exists, it is not of record but they do have an understanding <br />about this use. <br />Vice Chairman Wilson then asked Mr. Swift the City's feeling with this regard. Mr. <br />Swift indicated that it is a difficult situation in that Desgin Review Board shows access <br />between the two roads and they can't close that off without getting a Design Review <br />Board approval change. Commissioner Lindsey asked if the purchasers of Phase 1 are <br />aware of this. Vice Chairman .Wilson expressed great concern with property changing <br />ownership with no recorded easements for parking and circulation. Mr. Swift indicated <br />that one property owner could try to refuse parking to someone other than their own <br />customers. Mr. Swift indicated that phase 1 doesn't have much rights to phase 2 at <br />all but phase 2 has more right to phase 1 and that the Planning Commission can condition <br />this phase accordingly. <br />Mr. Hirst agreed with Mr. Swift in that the original design review anticipated the flow <br />of traffic (that each phase would have use of the others parking). It wouldn't make <br />too much sense for one phase to close the other off from parking. Further the easement <br />to Bernal Avenue is of record even thought it is not shown on the site plan. They do <br />not have a problem adding a condition to cover this matter. <br />Vice Chairman Wilson asked about the possibility of adding a condition requiring easements <br />between the parcels. Mr. Hirst indicated that there is very little control over the first <br />phase with regard to requiring them to sign an easement. He believes this would be <br />very difficult to obtain. Mr. Swift indicated that this could be attempted and asked <br />Mr. Hirst whether or not any effort has been made with this regard and whether the <br />10% reduction possibility was calculated. Vice Chairman Wilson asked who owns Phase <br />1. Mr. Hirst indicated that the Early family owns it. Vice Chairman Wilson asked if <br />the Early family is aware of the easements between Phase 2 over phase 1. Mr. Hirst <br />said they are aware that the there will be vehicular traffic from one parcel to another <br />even though there is no recorded easement. Commissioner Lindsey felt the easement <br />should be recorded. Mr. Hirst felt this might be difficult to do. <br />Commissioner Getty asked if staff has any problems with the driveway and traffic coming <br />and going from Main Street or out Old Bernal Avenue. Mr. Glenn indicated that Mr. <br />Harris prepared the staff report and assumes the staff has no problems with the circulation <br />proposed. <br />Mr. Swift reflected on the circulation pattern from the old Post Office building and <br />the fact that the property owners have worked out a favorable situation to circulation <br />concerns. <br />-9- <br /> <br />