CC Min 1996-03-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Councilman Ruskin also stated it was a difficult decision, and said he "found a competent developer, good people trying to sell their property for a good price and neighbors wanting to be treated fairly and not be deprived of the value of their homes." Councilman Ruskin said the decision made on this development would set a standard throughout the City. He cited density as the biggest problem and said this development just did not fit in this neighborhood. Councilwoman La Berge described how Councils have, over the years, been tightening requirements for construction in Redwood City, demanding better, to be as attractive a City as possible. She said this project was not up to Redwood City standards, and she was sure, even with the constraints of the size of the property, the curve of Valota Road and the creek, a more aesthetically pleasing, less dense and efficient project could be developed on that property. She said Doris Court and the new development at the end of Carleton Court were good examples of what could be done with planned developments in established neighborhoods. Mayor Hartnett said he was concerned that the project had not gone to the Architectural Advisory Commission before the Planning Commission had to make a decision on it. Mayor Hartnett said the normal course of action would be to remand this back to the Planning Commission for refining, but the developer has indicated that he would not change the number and size of units nor the 2-story feature. With that in mind, Mayor Hartnett said it would be a waste of time to ask for refinements since the problem was density. He thanked Mr. Wilson for the way he had conducted himself in such a straightforward manner, and thanked him for his willingness to change to a contoured street, improve parking, change windows for privacy and include other design features. Mayor Hartnett also said he believed Mr. Wilson's company could do good work in the City, but he could not support this project with the proposed number of units. ITERATION OF MOTION MIS: CLAIRE/LA BERGE TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE. MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-065 In response to Council questions, Director Passanisi advised if the developer submitted a new design with substantial changes, the development would go before the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission but would not come back to the Council unless a decision was appealed. MEMO 3/27/96 MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Page No. 154 Regular Meeting Minutes March 25,1996 Page 11