PC 06/22/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

would have to pay Mr. Grimes upward of $100,000 for his improvements to the property, whereas the City would not have received nearly that much money through his property taxes. As a citizen, Commissioner Hovingh is concerned about this possible scenario. In response, Mr. Grimes does not see the Railroad Street extension going forward. He also does not believe Spring Street will be able to accommodate the boutiques that are envisioned for the area. He is concerned for P1easanton, and he feels he will be improving Spring Street. He feels he must take a chance to better himself and his family and will handle that problem if and when it arises in the future. Commissioner Wright inquired of Mr. Grimes if the conditions were not modified as requested, would he continue with this project. Mr. Grimes reiterated his major concern with Condition 2 and its broad wording. He would like the Commission to set specific guidelines. Commissioner Wright advised that Condition 2 is a standard condition for all use permits, and one complaint does not mean instant revocation of a use permit. Considerable substantiation would have to occur, at which point changes and modifications to the use permit would be made, not revocation of the permit. The last attempt would be to cancel the permit. Mr. Swift also commented that staff interprets Condition 2 as described by Commissioner Wright. He stated that text can be added to Condition 2 clarifying the permit cannot be revoked without a finding of good cause. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Regarding the handicapped parking space, Mr. Swift stated the Commission will have to decide if stall #8 is as feasible as the law requires. Mr. Swift feels it can be found by the Commission, however, it must be 14 feet in width as opposed to the nine feet shown on the plans. That will also decrease the driveway area. By removing the landscape planter area, the proposed handicapped space will not be protected from cars turning around the corner. Staff feels that if the handicapped space is relocated to space #8, the landscape planter box would definitely be required. Staff also commented that there is a condition requiring a curb be installed between the landscaped area and the parking area, therefore, the gate will swing to the curbing, not the landscaping planter box. Mr. Swift advised that the code requires that five percent of the parking area be landscaped. Staff has always counted the landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot, not just within a parking lot. In that case, this lot has just over five percent landscaping. Mr. Swift advised the Commission that they have some flexibility to add or remove the landscape planter and relocate the handicapped parking. Staff disagrees with Mr. Estrada's opinion that it would be easier to get into space #8. Staff feels it would be more difficult, requiring almost a U-turn. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 22, 1994 -