My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2009-06-01
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2009
>
AgdaPkt 2009-06-01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2009 9:55:33 AM
Creation date
5/28/2009 4:26:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
6/1/2009
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
335
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />7A <br />Page 29 <br /> <br />· Page 1: This is not a low density development. The density approaches the maximum allowed <br />for medium density. Not including the garages, there is 42,000 square feet of floor space on a <br />67,000 square foot lot. <br />· Page 2: The density is not consistent with other developments along Kentfield Ave. It is not <br />consistent with the developments at the corner of Kentfield and Redwood. It is not consistent <br />with developments on Kentfield southeast of Woodside Road. <br />· Page 2: There is no indication that the Fire Marshall has approved temporary parking in the <br />driveway of the single family homes. Has the Fire Marshall approved temporary parking in <br />these driveways? <br />· Page 2: Vehicles parked in the driveway of the single family home would block access to home, <br />and also violate the deed. Why Is the City suggesting such parking? <br />· Page 5: Same comments as page 2 regarding parking. <br />· Page 5: Based on the site plan, the duplex driveway does not appear deep enough to keep <br />vehicles parked on the driveway from encroaching on public access. If not, why is the City <br />suggesting such parking? <br />· Page 6: We did not understand Criteria #2. It sounds like the City is counting private garages as <br />guest parking. If so, which garages are going to be used for guest parking? <br />· Page 6: If the project does not meet Criteria #3, why is the City suggesting that failure of Criteria <br />#3 can be used to reduce guest parking requirements. <br />tiI Page 7: The deed modifications to reduce on-site parking requirement are not enforceable by <br />the City. Expecting the association to enforce on-site parking requirements is like having the fox <br />guard the chicken coup. <br />· Page 7: A simple review of the site plan shows there are no landscape areas that can be <br />converted to parking. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.