7C New Business 2000 0306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission LSFT/UNAPPROVED uary 24, 2000 Minute No. 2000-04 (Excerpt) Page 7 of 16 Agreement. But she said the agreement was not one that would run with the land and be part of the property forever, and that there was a limit to what the City could do in terms of reaching forward on the land use controls on this site, given that it is a permitted use. Commissioner Ravenstad commented that San Leandro, as an old and established city, provided examples of projects where appropriate triggers were not added to planned land use so that forty years later the City is stuck with unwanted land uses. Assistant City Planner Randolph agreed, and noted that the General Plan and the Zoning Code were designed to some extent to address such situations. She noted that it was likely that any other proposed use for the current Chovanes project would almost certainly kick in a different parking lot tree requirement. Associate City Planner Weisbrod noted that there was also an S overlay zoning designation placed on the property by the Planning Commission about a year ago. Commissioner Ravenstad noted Commissioner Collier's remarks related to the left turn prohibition from Teagarden leaving the Marina Square Shopping Center, and asked why a left turn prohibition was necessary. He said especially for out-of-town visitors, the return to Freeway I-880 was very difficult. Associate City Planner Weisbrod said that matter would also be referred to Traffic Administrator Davis. Commissioner Ravenstad inquired as to the configuration of landscaping remaining after the sixteen feet portion at the front of the property was deeded to the City. Associate City Planner Weisbrod responded that there would be ten feet of landscaping remaining, which conformed to the requirements of the IG zoning district. He said there was no room for public street trees, and that the Sycamores along the Marina Boulevard and Teagarden frontage would belong to the car dealership. Commissioner Ravenstad asked whether it would be possible to create landscaping elsewhere on the property, including some kind of buffer landscaping along the back of the property. He said he realized that the project probably abutted onto other like uses. Associate City Planner Weisbrod noted that adjacent to the project was a tilt-up building with a twenty-five foot wall right on the property line. He noted that there was also a rail spur along the easterly side of the property. He stated that the project did include a row of trees designed to screen the back of the property and to serve as a backdrop to the car display area. G:\M1NUTES.PC/2000/2-24-2000 �� 2/29/2000