1968 339- 485 _ 1-8 to 4-15-1968

Browse Search

449 Acting City Attorney advised Zoning Ordinance provision relating to Planned Development Permit as granted previously to the Leo Development Company did permit varia;tions and differences from Ordinance requirements relating to setbacks, sideyard requirements, etc., and if adjoining property met same criteria which had resulted in granting of this Planned Development Permit, there would be nothing prohibiting the property owner applying for such a Permit. Mr. Boicelli was asked to contact the Planning Department Staff or further information concerning possible development of his property. It was noted the whole area of property in question under Planned Development Permit contained some 81,000 sq. ft., and that Boicelli property was approxi- mately 30,000 sq. ft. Councilman Rosselli again moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Keckley, and again thereafter withdrew the motion to permit further discussion on this matter. Mr. Silvio Bnicelli, 553 Santa Clara Ave., questioned on -street parking facilities proposed for this develop- ment. Planning Director advised on -street parking would be allowed to extent now permitted by Ordinance. Councilman Rosselli moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Keckley and carried. Councilman Keckley moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5636 CONDITIONALLY APPROVING APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CARLOS AVENUE AND LEAHY STREET IN THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, seconded by Councilman Rosselli. It was noted Resolution included all conditions recommended by the Planning Com- mission, including specific point protested by the Applicant. Mr. Leps stated his awareness of the conditions im- posed by granting Planned Development Permit as recommended by the Planning Commission. C)uncilman Bury, after further questioning of the exception requested by Applicant relating to setbacks and relationship to easements, indicated his feeling that a better development might result if exception granted, and, therefore, moved to amend the Resolutuion to include a granting of the one exception being requested on Parcels 2 and 19. Amendment lost for lack of a second. After further discussion and questioning concerning re -planning that might be required, Acting City Attorney assured Council that adoption of Resolution as proposed would establish conditions which the Applicant would be compelled to follow, and if substantial changes had to be made to fit the conditions speci- fied, an amended application would have to be made and again be presented through Planning Commission and Council. Motion adopting Resolution carried on roll call vote, Councilman Granger voting no. Application for Exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance for Windsor Gardens Unit No, 2. Council was advised no public hearing was required for consideration of the Exceptions, but since the matter was so closely related to Planned Development KQ 1868 II - -----