CC Min 2009-07-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1. By motion, deny the appeal and thereby uphold adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, Minute Order 09-144 2. Consider the original and revised plans and by motion take action on the appeal of the Planned Development Permit; and, Minute Order 09-145 3. By motion, as originally submitted or with revisions take action on the appeal of the Tentative Map pursuant to action on the Planned Development Permit. (603) Mayor Foust explained that public comment will be accepted on the revised plan. She added that the public hearing will be re-opened just for this portion of the project. Mayor Foust also acknowledged receipt of various communications on the matter. Associate Planner Mehra provided a brief comparison contrast of the original plan versus the revised plan. He covered in detail the changes befinreen the two plans and answered Council questions. Mayor Foust opened the public hearing for the revised plan. The appellant Mr. Bautista addressed the Council and provided a presentation (on file). He believes this is a non-conforming lot as well as a non-conforming project. The developer of the Kentfield Project said that he listened to what the community had to say and consequently reduced the height of the project to reduce the visual massing. He said that the density was also reduced to 13.6 dwelling units per acre. He added that because of conversations with neighbors the amount of guest parking per unit was increased, and the centrally located open space also increased. Public Comment Sister Frances Tobin, representing Sisters of the Sacred Heart, stated her concerns about lighting, the retaining wall, water damage, privacy, and said that she would like to see more equity in the revised plan. M/S Ira/Aguirre/to close the public hearing for the revised plan. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Mehra answered particular questions from Council regarding the number of units. One Council Member asked if the comments from Mr. Bautista made staff have a change of interpretation. Mr. Mehra said that was not the case. Acting City Attorney Aranda, sitting in for City Attorney Yamamoto, explained that the code is silent past the 10,000 feet mark. Ms. Ekas, Planning Manager, explained that Article 46 provides for some flexibility and this is within the planned development context. She provided some other examples of how the R2 zoning code is being interpreted in relationship to the Planned Development permit. Ms. Ekas reiterated that these two have to be considered jointly. The density of adjacent projects was discussed. M/S Ira/Pierce to deny the appeal and thereby uphold adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote. JOINT CITY COUNCILREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD JULY 13, 2009 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 6 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No. 408