CC Min 1992-01-20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Senior Planner Jany highlighted the subject Report and described the six (6) findings cited as the basis for the denial by the Planning Commission of the Planned Development Permit and the additional requirement for a new Environmental Assessment cited in the letter of December 17, 1991 from Zoning Administrator Patterson to Daniel Levin of Praxis Housing Partners: 1. The proposed project does not meet the open space requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 32.9, a.). 2. The proposed open space on the roof does not effectively function as open space due to its isolation and possibly dangerous setting. 3. The architectural quality of the proposal is not compatible with the adjacent historic district. , I , 4. Amenities found in every residential project built in Redwood City since 1970 are lacking in this proposal. 5. The proposed parking does not meet the requirements of Section 30.2.1, e. of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The project does not comply with applicable building code regulations. 7. The proposed project is significantly changed from the former project on which the mitigated Negative Declaration was approved (EA 10912-9) and therefore a new Environmental Assessment should be conducted. In response to Council questions Senior Planner Jany stated an affordable housing development would be acceptable on this property as evidenced by approval of the original project design with 64 units submitted by D.E.C. on February 19, 1991. Mr. Jany reported the Praxis design was reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Historic Resources Committee and denied approval by both, with suggestions to assist the developer in resubmitting modified designs for approval, included in the letter to Joel Patterson, December 6, 1991, copied to Mr. Dan Levin, from the Chairman of the Architectural Advisory Committee, C. Thomas Gilman, A.I.A. i Further in response to Council questions, Senior Planner Jany described the key differences between the D.E.C. approved design and the Praxis design: 1) by removing the decks and increasing the number of bedrooms by 57% the design no longer conforms to the Open Space Requirements of Section 32.9; 2) the changed architectural appearance; 3) layout of the court yard; and 4) the lack of adequate parking according to Section 30.20.1, e. Mayor La Berge opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m., and invited anyone who wished to speak to please do so. I Daniel Levin, Appellant, president of Praxis Housing Partners, addressed the i Council referring to Article No.9 of the booklet titled "Cassia Commons" previously distributed to Council and staff, and distributed a one-page drawing of a modified roof line of his project at 1305 Middlefield Road for I illustrative purposes only. Mr. Levin described the new configuration of I Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTE BOOK NO. 50 January 20, 1992 Page No. 436 Page 4 I , ! -- _.~-~.- -- --- --- . ---- -- ~_._--- -- -------- - .- - --- ---- - ._- ------ --- - . - - --- - -_..- - - - -- _.. - ~ --- I