CC Min 1988-07-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4. Public Hearing - Appeal of the decision of the Planning Director to deny filing at this time of an application for a Planned Development Permit for the Sequoia Professional Building - DES Architects, appellant ( ?03 -01) Affidavits of publication of notice of hearing and of mailing are on file Report: Community Development Dirrector /Planning Director 7/5/88 Appeal letters 6/7/ and 7/5/88 Letter of City Attorney 7/5/88 In response to question, Planning Director Patterson said that his review of the application considered whether the revised proposal addresses the findings adopted by Council on March 14, 1988, with regard to the denial of the appeals relating to the subject building which were heard on February ?0, 1988. In response to request, City Attorney Schricker said that the article relating to the planned development permit is interpreted to relieve the applicant of the necessity of filing for a use permit, even though a use permit is required, when a planned development is required, the intent being to simplify the process. Mr. Schricker said he had discussed the matter with Frank Small, attorney representing the applicant. Mayor Greenalch declared the public hearing open at 8:17 p.m. Jaroy Weber, M.D., 9 630 Bear Gulch Road, Woodside, repesenting Sequoia Professional Building Associates, Inc., said the project has been reduced to the minimum practical size and asked those associated with it to speak. Frank Small, Lakin & Spears, Palo Alto, attorney representing Sequoia Professional Building Associates, Inc., referred to his letter of July 8, 1988, relating to his interpretation of the nature of the planned development permit application, stating that since the application is for a planned development permit which does not require a year's wait from the denial of the first application, as does a use permit, that the application should be accepted. Tom Gilman, Architect, DES, 309 Bradford, the appellant, referred to overheads of site plans, elevations and models describing the reduced project, indicating the project now being proposd is significantly reduced in size and is responsive to the findings made by Council on March 14. Robert Grandy, Korve Engineering, Inc., Oakland, Traffic Engineer for the project, referred to his letter to the Planning Director of July 7, 1988, regarding traffic data and used overhead projections of the exhibits to present the data which suggests the reduced project will somewhat reduce traffic problems. In response to question, Dr. Weber acknowledged that there is no change in the planned use of the proposed building. Reg.Mtg. 7/11/88 Page 3 MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 Page No. 121