SU0014670 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No. PC: 11-7-85 S-84-6 Page 1 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: - Require improvements of 40 ' along Etcheverry Drive, and also require the 20 ' of improvements along MacArthur Road on the subdivision side. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The request is to change conditions on a major subdivision. The request was filed under Section 9-9106 , which allows for con- sideration of a change in conditions when the requirement or con- dition of approval of the tentative map are not reasonable or in need of clarification. The approving body may, upon written application of the subdivider or owner, modify such request, requirement or condition. BACKGROUND On August 2, 1984 the Planning Commission conditionally approved the subdivision. Dave Olmstead, representing the applicant, appealed a condition requiring terminal drainage. The Board of Supervisors, at its meeting of October 25, 1984, referred the application back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of storm drainage. From October 25, 1984 to June 6, 1985 the applicant worked with the Department of Public Works to revise storm drainage requirements. On June 6, 1985 the Planning Commission heard the subdivision application and considered the matter of storm drainage. The Commission approved the subdivision with community ponding as the method of storm drainage. The applicant appealed the Commission' s action to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors, on July 23, 1985, approved drainage by individual ponding rather than by com- munity ponding. The applicant now is requesting reconsideration regarding improve- ments to MacArthur Drive and Etcheverry Drive. The applicant' s opinion is that the Commission did not require these improvements as stated in the condition approved by the Commission on August 2, 1984, in condition 113. j. " See attached list of conditions. This states that full street width improvements be required on Etcheverry Drive; and MacArthur Drive shall be fully improved on the subdivision side, in compliance with County standards, with a setback of 42 ' width from the centerline of MacArthur Drive. The applicant and staff have reviewed the tape of that meeting. Staff ' s opinion is that along MacArthur Drive a 10 ' dedication and a 12 ' additional setback line were required. Also required, were