Planning commission continues Kid Ranch tentative parcel map to June 17 after flag‑lot questions

The Saint Helena Planning Commission on May 6 voted to continue consideration of a tentative parcel map for a 1.696‑acre property at 710 Kid Ranch Road after staff and the city attorney advised the commission the subdivision likely must be processed as a flag lot, which the application had not proposed.

The continuance came after the applicant said she and her team had spent roughly two months and about $25,000 preparing the subdivision with a shared‑driveway easement, only to be told 30 hours before the meeting that the city believed the lot must include the ‘‘flagpole’’ as part of the new parcel. Chair Ponte opened the public hearing and ultimately the commission set a date certain of June 17 to allow staff and the applicant to meet and, if necessary, bring a revised application back for further review.

City planning staff introduced the procedural issue. Director Maya DeRosa told the commission staff consulted the city attorney and determined the zoning code includes a provision requiring certain flag‑pole lots to include the pole within the parcel (transcript citation). Because that interpretation affects how the applicant configured the subdivision, staff recommended continuing the item so the applicant could either revise the plans or package conditional use permit (CUP) and design review materials together for an all‑in one hearing. DeRosa said July 15 would be a realistic single consolidated date but staff could try to accommodate a two‑step approach with a June 17 tentative map hearing followed by design review later.

Applicant Katie McDonald told the commission she had followed city staff direction and prepared the lot split with a shared‑driveway easement. McDonald said the change in interpretation—communicated very shortly before the hearing—had forced the team into an impasse and asked for clarity so they would not continue spending design and engineering funds only to be told to redo the work. Miles McDonough, who spoke for the applicants, described repeated, costly iterations and said prior city advice had at times reversed; he pressed for a predictable process.

Commissioners and staff walked through the practical constraints. Staff and the applicant noted that if the subdivision were processed as a flag lot the existing accessory dwelling unit on the front parcel would become nonconforming (the applicant estimated it would be about three feet from a new property line), and that the unbuilt frontage road providing alternate access would require about $400,000 of public work to open another access route. Commissioners emphasized that the commission could not act on a parcel map that did not meet the city attorney’s current interpretation of the code.

After discussion, Commissioner Lopez moved and the commission seconded a motion to continue the item to the June 17 meeting (the commission recorded that the continuation could be changed again if needed). The roll call vote on the continuance was: Vice Chair Warner — yes; Commissioner Lopez — yes; Commissioner Anderson — yes; Commissioner Furdick — yes; Chair Ponte — yes.

Next steps: staff said it will meet with the applicant the day after the hearing, review design and setback implications and discuss whether the applicant prefers a June 17 two‑step schedule (tentative parcel map followed by design review) or a consolidated July hearing. The commission and applicant agreed the date certain gives the applicant an earlier opportunity to return if revised materials can be prepared.

The commission did not take further action on the substance of the subdivision at the May 6 meeting and did not make findings on the merits; the item remains continued to a future hearing.