CC Min 1992-02-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The site is currently improved with buildings, a paved play yard, and paved off-street parking spaces. The proposed project would be in the vicinity of --_. an historically significant single-family dwelling, owned by the current owners of the aforesaid site, which is located on a separate parcel at the southwest 'corner of Cassia and Stambaugh Streets. The Project would also be located in the vicinity of the Stambaugh-Heller Historic Residential District, containing 19 historically significant structures. 2. Appellants applied for a planned development permit for construction of the Project pursuant to the provisions of Article 46 (S46.1 et seq.) of Ordinance No. 1130, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Redwood City (the "Zoning Ordinance"). Appellants also propose to meet the requirements of Sections 32.19 et seq. of the Zoning Ordinance, which provide certain density bonuses or incentives for housing developed for very low income households, lower income households, or senior citizens. Specifically, Appellants proposed to sell the condominium units at prices affordable to buyers earning 120% or less of the median annual income in San Mateo County. 3. The Planning Commission denied the application for a planned development permit on December 17, 1991. 4. Appellants rely extensively upon proposed "Conditions of Approval" set forth in a document entitled "Cassia Commons" submitted to the Planning Commission, dated December 17, 1991. The aforesaid Conditions of Approval, include, among other matters, references to plans submitted to the Planning Commission, with purported reserved rights to the Appellants to revise the plans at Appellants' option (conditions of Approval, nos. 6, 7 and 9). 5. Appellants acknowledge that the description of the Project as contained in Appellant's plans submitted to the Planning Commission substantially different that the description of the Project presented to thi s Council. I 6. Appellants' purported reserved rights to change the description of the Project and the change in the description thereof as presented to this Council cause the description of the Project to be uncertain. 7. The Project as described by the Appellants before the Planning Commission and their plans and other submittals do not meet the open space requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Zon. Ord. S32.9). , 8. The open space (as so described) which is proposed for the roof I areas of the Project does not effectively serve as open space due to its isolation and potentially dangerous setting. 9. The architectural quality of the Project (as so described) is not compatible with that of the adjacent historic district. 10. The Project (as so described) does not meet the off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Zon. Ord. S30.2.1). Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTE BOOK NO. 50 February 10, 1992 Page 3 Page No. 456 -- ._--- --- ~ - ----- ---- - --- ---- ._---~ -- ~ ~ - - -- - --~.__._--------