AgdaPkt 2002-02-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

REPORT o,he. Planning Commission February 25, 2002 Subject Public Hearing to consider Proposed Development Agreement (DA) between the City of Redwood City and Opfer (Owners) - 2233 Middlefield Road, Redwood City Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed this DA at their January 15, 2002 meeting and voted to recommend approval of the ordinance implementing this agreement. Background The project is a 7,500 square foot office building at 2233 Middlefield Road. Such a small project would not normally call for a DA. However, the Interim Urgency Ordinance that resulted in the permanent Zoning Ordinance changes approved by Council in April 2001 allowed projects that were in the so-called 'pipeline' to have DA's. 2233 Middlefield was one such 'pipeline' project. Without the DA the Opfers (referred to hereafter as 'owner') would be able to build just over 5,000 square feet of building. The DA freezes all fees and exactions as of the date of the agreement. They also grant to the owner the right to develop the proposed project for the term of the DA. In this instance the owner would be permitted to develop over 2,000 square feet more building than currently allowed. The City is required to get something in return for granting the developer the privilege of building more than now allowed. In this instance the City gains a fee, in-lieu of the owner making improvements to the remainder of Willow (the owner is already required to make improvements to the centerline of Willow adjacent to the subject property. Is this project likely to be built? The owner asserts that he has a lender and that the project can proceed. Council created a specific mechanism to deal with 'pipeline' projects and so staff has implemented your directive, providing terms in the DA that we believe protect the City's interests~. 1 At a December meeting between owner and staff the owner asked if the existing plans, approved by the Architectural Review Committee on February 27, 2000, could be changed to accommodate some other use - a furniture store was mentioned. By letter dated December 21,2001, staff indicated that this would not be possible because this would involve a new application for a new project and would thus lose its status as a 'pipeline project'.