PC 05/09/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

ivi~1V UTES PLANNING COMMISSIC May 9, 1984 Page 10 Mr. Swift stated that in normal situations regarding a large project and the developer would want to subdivide individual buildings, the City would require a a mutual easement for parking but this development is slightly different; you can't force phase 1 to enter into an agreement but you can add a condition to phase 2 that the owner would endeavor to obtain a written easement. Vice Chairman Wilson indicated that when he read the staff report and reviewed the plans, there was nothing about the site being three individual parcels. Mr. Hirst explained that two sites front on Main Street and one runs all of the way across the rear of the property (the one with the two story building on it). This parcel was created probably 50 years ago. Mr. Swift indicated that perhaps parcel line removal should be required in the staff report because to do otherwise one could possibily approve a building over the top of a property line, however, if a lot line doesn't go through the middle of a building it may not be necessary. Mr. Glenn reiterated that staff had assumed the proposal was on one lot. Vice Chairman Wilson indicated he is confused on the issue. Mr. Glenn suggested that perhaps a condition should be added concerning the merger of the lots. Vice Chiarman Wilson had no objection to the square footage of the buildings or the parking but was concerned with the site being three separate parcels. Mr. Hirst stated that they would probably be looking a condominium conversion for some point. He suggested that a condition could be added to merge the parcels or that prior to any sale of the property, the City must be satisfied with cross easements. Vice Chairman Wilson stated that the City must be protected. Mr. Hirst indicated that the fact that this parcel is three legal lots is no secret and that it was indicated on the application but not on the plot plan. Mr. Swift indicated that if the parcels are considered separately, parking will also have to be considered separately and some of the buildings may not have the required parking. Vice Chairman Wilson then stated he feels this matter should be continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting (there will be no meeting 5/23/84) for Mr. Harris' return to clarify this situation. Mr. Hirst asked if the Vice Chairman would consider adding a 'merger' condition as this would be preferable to the developer. This matter does have to go before City Council. Commissioner Lindsey indicated he would like to see additional access to Bernal Avenue. Mr. Hirst stated there is no problem with adding this condition. Mr. Warnick stated he would like to make sure an egress is safe and possible onto Bernal Avenue as he has heard stories of a large tree possibly in the path. If added, he would like it subject to approval of the City Engineer. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner Lindsey that the negative declaration prepared for case Z-84-126 be recommended for approval inasmuch as project approval will have no significant adverse effect on the environment. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Getty, Lindsey and Vice Chairman Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Doherty ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 2474 was entered and adotped recommending approval of the negative declaration prepared for case Z-84-126 as motioned.