CC Min 1996-03-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- - . . . In response to Council questions, Director Passanisi described the engineering department conditions requiring soil studies and soil samples taken next to the creek to examine the weight bearing mode of the soil. He added that the developers were L- required to pay for the studies and improvements and would be liable. City Attorney Schricker said the City did not have an indemnification policy because this would be a private transaction not involving the City, but the private owners would be responsible for the City's easement. Director Passanisi said that Fire Marshal Vella had stated the Fire Department had no problem with the design. Councilwoman Howard suggested the design problems and other concerns with this development might have been resolved early on if the project had been submitted to the Architectural Advisory Committee before it went to the Planning Commission. In response to Council questions, Director Passanisi advised that Redwood City zoning ordinances allow 2-story duplexes built on this site, as well as 2-story additions to single family homes. Variances would not be needed for these uses, and there would be no recourse for Councilor the Planning Commission, but to grant that use. In response to Council questions, Planning Commissioner Garcia said he voted "no" on the project because it required too many variances, it looked too crowded, it did not fit in in the neighborhood, there was not enough parking, traffic problems would be created right on the curve of Valota Road, and most of all, it appeared that the Commission had to decide between the lesser of two evils which did not feel right. '--' In response to Council questions, Planning Commissioner Giannini said he voted "no" for the same reasons as Planning Commissioner Garcia. He said he objected to only 3 parking spaces with no open space, it had a bowling alley look and was too dense. He added that this development just did not add anything to the character, ambiance nor value of Redwood City. MIS: CLAIREILA BERGE TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Councilman Claire stated it was a difficult decision in light of the need for more housing in Redwood City, but the Council had to make a decision on the design submitted to the Planning Commission and rejected by it. Councilman Claire said he agreed that the development was too dense and he could not find sufficient reasons to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. He expressed hope that the developers could work out an acceptable project with the Architectural Advisory Committee. Mayor Hartnett and City Attorney Schricker explained the options open to the Council, the need for specific requests if the project was remanded to the Planning Commission, and commented on the problem of designs created by committee. ~ MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Regular Meeting Minutes Page No. 153 March 25.1996 Page 10