CC Min 1982-05-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Item No.2 (continued) In response to request, Planning Director Schroeter defined "Interim Study District", stating no moratorium on building or modification of building is being proposed but that an "IS" District is designed so that a study can be made and the kind of development wanted in the district determined. The only imposition would be the requirement that any new use must go through the Use Permit process, with no use being curtailed, except those inappropriate for what is generally intended for the IS District. The delay would involve about two weeks with a cost of $100 for the process. In response to question, City Attorney Schricker advised it is not possible to waive the Use Permit fee, if an IS District is approved. Charles Tuckman, 490 Winslow, owner of property at Winslow and Brewster, said he has plans for a building on the site which is compatible with what is there now. He suggested the proposed District boundaries be made narrower, deleting his property. Mr. Tuckman also suggested guidelines for permitted uses would be desirable. Glen Leney, 185 Jane Drive, Woodside, owner of 2317 Broadway, reported his building has been sold to someone who plans to refurbish it as office space which he believes will be an improvement, and said that he is opposed to the IS District. Ed Webster, Redwood City Masonic Lodge, 835 Main Street, said he does not believe the IS District is needed and reported the Lodge is working with an architect and considering upgrading the building. Mr. Webster said he believes an IS District would be a deterrent to any investor in the downtown. Chester Lebsack, 525 Marshall, said he is opposed to the establishment of an IS District, stating it is not needed. He called attention to the Redwood City Downtown Development Plan (adopted 1966) and urged Council not to approve the IS Distric t. Gladys Woodhams, 1018 Main Street, property owner representing the Redwood City Heritage Association, said Council has an obligation to look at the overall picture downtown to insure that developments are compatible. Mrs. Woodhams suggested there is some merit to preparing a study whether or not an IS District is established. Robert Costello, attorney, representing Home Savings and Loan, First American Title Insurance Company, Marshall Squares, Redwood Financial Center, and the Bay Area Association, all property owners in Redwood City, commented on Home Savings' plan for its property, observing that former tenants will not be affected by an IS District. Mr. Costello suggested establishment of such a District is an excessive remedy for any problem which might exist downtown and would reduce the attractiveness of the area to investors. Frederick Herring, 1741 Broadway, Herring and Worley, stated his firm is actively working in the downtown, and urged Council not to adopt the IS District, suggesting it creates too much uncertainty with regard to construction. He said he would encourage a study addressing itself to the area. Tom Adams, attorney representing the Downtown Association, whose members are downtown merchants, supported the establishment of an IS District, suggesting the area included could be limited to the central business district shown on Page 3 of the March 12, 1982 report. In response to question, Mr. Schroeter said the proposed IS District is co-terminus with the Downtown Plan Study the Planning Commission will undertake soon, noting Council wished to include the entire area, since condominium and office development provide customers to merchants. Reg .Mtg. 5/3/82 Page 6 of '/' î --