7C New Business 2000 0306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission AFT/UNAPPROVED Fary 24, 2000 Minute No. 2000-04 (Excerpt) Page 6 of 16 was "only" going to contribute proposed 21 more vehicles to the already-failing westbound left turn lane. Associate City Planner Weisbrod reiterated that the project was reviewed by Traffic Administrator Ray Davis who agreed with the traffic report that the proposed project would not significantly impact the existing condition. Secretary Hom said the issue could be discussed with the Traffic Administrator to determine whether there was a proposed project to mitigate the Existing Level of Service F condition at the on-ramp and whether the proposed project should pay a proportionate share of planned improvements. Commissioner Ravenstad said he agreed with other commissioners' comments. He said the logic of not widening the street did not make sense, especially when the precedent of requiring street widening had previously been established. Commissioner Ravenstad asked for clarification on the amount of control the City would have if at some future time the property was converted to a different use. He asked if the parking area, which was now designed to simply to store a high volume of cars, would be subject to a design review if the property converted to an office building project. Secretary Hom said that, since the project was in a redevelopment area, the Redevelopment Agency would be exercising the requirements of the Owner Participation Agreement. He said a change in use could trigger another Owner Participation Agreement that would address other design issues related to the new use. Commissioner Ravenstad noted that he was especially concerned that the large expanses of asphalt parking lot associated with this project might survive as part of a new project, even if it involved a different use. He asked if there were conditions that could be placed on the proposed project so that if, in the future, a different use was proposed, all of the zoning requirements throughout the entire site would have to be upgraded to the current requirements of the Zoning Code. Secretary Hom said that language could be added to that effect. He said that there were parking code requirements for different kinds of developments, and if a different use was proposed, those requirements would kick in. Assistant City Attorney Randolph said it was important to clarify that the property will be subject to the owner participation agreement which will require it to be used for a certain purpose, but that agreement will expire at some point. She said if the Redevelopment Agency is still existing at the time that the Owner Participation Agreement expires, then the agency can certainly require a new Owner Participation G:\ IINUTES.PC/2000/2-24-2000 2/29/2000 Al 61