Laserfiche WebLink
precedent - setting, as we have other creekside projects in the process of being reviewed. ") <br />The Finger Avenue Project, which is 1.69 acres total, involves the subdivision of <br />three existing lots into nine parcels, upon which nixie large homes will be built along a new <br />private roadway. To make room, six existing structures are proposed to be demolished -- <br />three houses and three cottages. The nine homes contemplated to be built are two-story, <br />four - bedroom houses of 2800 to 3500 square feet. <br />Four of those nine new parcels are adjacent to the Creek. It is undisputed that two <br />of the lots will encroach within the 25 -foot setback along the Creek, and that Respondent <br />approved this plan despite the recommendation of its Planning Commission to the <br />contrary. In addition, the Petitioners claim that two additional parcels also encroach <br />within the 25 -foot setback of the Creek if the "top of the bank" is properly determined. <br />Petitioners assert that the Finger Avenue Project would require grading and fill within the <br />Creek setback, contrary to the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance. <br />The Finger Avenue Project does not meet Redwood City's existing Code <br />requirements for sloping parcel size, yard setbacks, creek setbacks, sidewalks, and private <br />roads. In order to get the exemption from these legal setback requirements and road <br />requirements, Real Party in Interest presented the Finger Avenue Project as a "Planned <br />Development ". Without the Planned Development Permit, Real Party in Interest could <br />only have four lots maximum. <br />The bottom line on this dispute is that 8 multi - million - dollar homes will adequately <br />fit within the area and not encroach on the Creek, but Real Party in Interest steadfastly <br />demands (and has received approval) to build 9 homes, which 9 large homes cannot fit in <br />the space unless the builder is allowed to encroach upon the Creek setback and narrow the <br />requirements for streets, sidewalks, etc. (Similarly, Real Party in Interest has refused to <br />3 <br />8.B. - Page 62