CC MIN 2015-09-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Erin Niemeyer and Corrin Rankin. She also shared how moving the luncheon was and she is proud of those recognized. Council Member Howard left the Chambers. A. Appeals by three parties - Geoffrey T. Carr, Richard and Sally Keyes, and J&S Management - of Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-12 approving a Vesting Tentative Map, Downtown Planned Community Permit including two guideline deviations, and Parking In-Lieu Fee Application for 601 Marshall Street pursuant to the City of Redwood City's Downtown Precise Plan and Subdivision Ordinance Recommendation: Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) Denying the Appeals and Approving the Vesting Tentative Map, Downtown Planned Community Permit including two guideline deviations, and Parking In-Lieu Fee Application, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained therein, and upon consideration of the Initial Study Checklist demonstrating compliance with the Downtown Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as certified on January 24, 2011 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY DENYING THE APPEALS AND APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, DOWNTOWN PLANNED COMMUNITY PERMIT INCLUDING TWO GUIDELINE DEVIATIONS, AND PARKING IN-LIEU FEE APPLICATION FOR 601 MARSHALL �... STREET PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S DOWNTOWN PRECISE � PLAN AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ; �rww Karen Vaughn, Principal Planner, presented the staff report (presentation on file) covering the project in detail, explaining the process, the changes it went through before the current design was approved by the Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation/Resources Committee. She noted that the Planning Commission received a lot of feedback from residents regarding the design and the height of the building. In May 2015 the architect redesigned the project to a 9 story, 102'tower, which was approved by the Planning Commission in June 2015. Ms. Vaughn covered the subjects of the settlements for the three appeals filed against this project. Two settlements are based on the design of the project, to lower the building to an 8 story, 150' design. The third settlement is about attaching additional conditions of approval to any project approval by City Council. She said staff responded to the concerns of the appeals in detail in the staff report and she summarized that the project was consistent with the Downtown Precise Plan in both intent and vision, and it met all the mandatory standards, and all but finro (2) recommended guidelines. She also noted that the provision of paying in-lieu fees is written in the Downtown Precise Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinance. She also explained that there are conditions that a project must meet to qualify to pay in-lieu fees, and the proposed project meets one of those conditions. Staff had an extensive initial study check list for the project and found no new impacts and no increase in severity in impacts that the EIR had analyzed as part of the project. Ms. Vaughn confirmed to the Council that the 9 story, 112' tower plan that was approved meets the intent and goals of the Downtown Precise Plan. She also explained that the 8 story, 105' courtyard settlement also meets the intent and goals of the Downtown Precise Plan. She notes that Council has broad discretion to determine if the project meets the goals and intent of the JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD/ September 28, 2015 PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES PAGE 7 MINUTE BOOK NO. 66 Page No. 07