Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 52 <br /> <br />be considered which would allow 3-6 additional parking spaces - there is room to shift a <br />few of the buildings or realign some of the parking spaces that are already proposed in <br />the common parking areas to increase that supply. They are short by a total of 6 parking <br />spaces and that is what the code requires. <br /> <br />Commissioner Smith asked if staff knows what the parking configuration is going to be in <br />front of the development along Kentfield Road. <br /> <br />Mrs. Ekas replied that it would be street side public parking. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cronin asked if a recommendation of the increase of parking were made <br />would it reduce the open space and if so how much. <br /> <br />Mrs. Ekas replied that the open space in the side yards doesn't count towards the open <br />space requirements. Most of the open space lost is the space between; staff believes it <br />has a very minor impact on the common areas. Staff would not anticipate a reduction in <br />the primary provision.of common open space or in the provision of private yards, which <br />tends to occur in the backs of the units, it would be between units. <br /> <br />Chair Radcliffe referred to all units having their own garages and use only for the <br />purpose of a garage and not storage, how is that monitored? <br /> <br />Mr. Mehra replied that would be up to the Home Owners Association and the CC&R's. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />Mike Bautista, Redwood City resident, gave a powerpoint presentation (attached to <br />these minutes) <br /> <br />Joan McGuire, Redwood City resident, stated that the setback is too close to their <br />property, the balcony is 7 feet from the fence and the property will look fight into their <br />back yard and will create sun shadows on their property. <br /> <br />Mike Reardon, Redwood City resident, stated that the Planned Development Permit is <br />not in harmony with the neighborhood. Only two of the seven units along the back side <br />of the property comply with the minimum 20 foot setback. He is concerned with reduced <br />sunlight, air flow, privacy to the yards and noise. He is concerned with the height of the <br />2 story homes on the back side being 28 feet and the retaining wall that adds another 1 <br />Y2 feet. <br /> <br />Joan Neth, Redwood City resident, believes that there will be an environmental impact to <br />this area of Kentfield. The ramifications will be that there is an environmental mini <br />climate within that area of 500-750 feet radius from the complex building. The micro- <br />climate will affect everybody within that range and facility. For the past few years there <br />have been a pair of mating falcons that are on the vicinity of Kentfield Avenue. <br /> <br />Dave Rollins, Redwood City resident, (gave a handout to staff and the Planning <br />Commission) stated that he did not receive a notice of the Architectural Review <br />Committee meeting. He believes when something is sacrificed or given up you usually <br />get in return a benefit or some compensation, in this case the neighborhood has been <br />forced and given an even greater already overwhelming parking and traffic situation. <br />Some existing problems are parking, traffic, water and sewer will only be increased by <br />this proposal, adjacent neighbors will be sacrificing or losing sunlight, privacy, and quiet. <br />The high density proposed is based on an outdated 1990 General Plan. Since this <br />Page 5 of 13 <br />