AgdaPkt 2007-03-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 3 street-wall stepped up to 5-stories to mid-block, stepped up to 8-stories through to Fuller Street). Council requested consideration of other options. The most viable option per staff analysis is as follows; Elimination of the $ story height limit an the rear portion of the Brewster blocks. Thus, these three blocks only between Arguello and Winslow would have a 5-story height limit with a 3-story, 20-foot deep street-wall fronting Brewster. This option could address some of the concerns expressed by neighboring residents in Mezesville and property owners in this part of the plan area. A graphical example of this option will be provided at the meeting. Aside from the 3-story street-wall requirement, staff cannot recommend a 3-story height limit for the blocks in this area or anywhere else within the plan boundaries. Multi-family residential structures in a 3-story configuration have not been proposed by any market rate developer within the past decade in Redwood City. This is not an economically viable development form and will not provide densities to support the goals of the plan. W hatever approach is taken, the Council should consider directing staff to study amending height limits in certain multi-family neighborhoods, especially those with historic status, as part of the General Plan update process. Administrative Process/Public Noticing: What is the reviewprocess for projects in the Downtown Precise Plan? What are fhe requirements for public notification and what are the options? How can the Cify be sure fhe public will be adequately noticed? Response: The Downtown Precise Plan describes the proposed administrative process in Section 2.1.3: Haw to Use the Development Regu{ations. "Large" projects (involving parcels over 30,000 square feet) require public notice and a hearing before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council. "Small" projects (involving parcels 30,000 square fee# or Tess) can be approved by the Planning Manager or designee without public notice or meeting. However, an aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the Planning Manger to the Planning Commission. Signage can also be reviewed by staff. It appears that Council is concerned about the process for projects defined as "Small" in that no public hearing is required. In all cases, the Architectural Review Committee can and will be incorporated into the review process far consideration of projects that conform to the mandatory Plan Standards, but do not conform to all of the non-mandatory Guidelines. In all cases, City Council will have a new option to "Call Up" projects from staff or the Planning Commission as they deem appropriate. Staff anticipates that the availability of the new Call Up process as well as the passibility of appeals that eve; ~tually lead to City Council review will strongly encourage applications that conform to all of the mandatory Standards and the vast majority of the Guidelines, which will serve to raise the bar for design and application quality. A fundamental intention of the Plan and this review process far the Draft Plan is to give the development community a strong sense of certainty with respect to design expectations and project review process and timing. It is important to remember that we are changing