AgdaPkt 2009-10-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

October 26,2009 SUBJECT Finger Avenue Subdivision ReCOMMENDATION 1. Consider the applicanfs response to City Council's August 3, 2009 direction as presented in the revised plans for a proposed residential development project at 50, 80, and 88 Finger Avenue. 2. Take action, by motion, on the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Planned Development Permit and make appropriate findings (Attachment 1). 3. Take action, by motion, on the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Vesting Tentative Map and make appropriate findings (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND On August 3, 2009, the City Council considered various appeals which were associated with a proposed residential development at 50, 80, and 88 Finger Avenue. The items before Council at that time included the following and are fully described in the August 3, 2009 City Council staff report which was previously provided to Council: 1. Project applicant's request that the City not accept the Finger Avenue Pride Committee's appeal of the approval of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) based on the argument that the appeal wasn't technically filed during the appeal period; 2. Consideration of the Finger Avenue Pride Committee's appeal of the Planning Commission's adoption of the IS/MND; 3. Consideration of the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission1s denial of the Planned Development Permit (POP); and 4. Consideration of the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM). After conducting a public hearing on all of the items, Council acted on the first two. SpecificaUy, Council accepted the Finger Avenue Pride Committee's appeal of the approval of the IS/MND, which after conducting a public hearing and making deliberations, denied said appeal of the Planning Commission's adoption of the IS/MND. Thus, the ISIMND was adopted as of that action. Council did not take action on the appeals related to the Planning Commission's denial of the POP or VTM. The August 3, 2009 staff report presents detailed background about this project proposal, the review process, and the specific issues that have been the focus of the review. The purpose of this staff report is to briefly recount the direction provided by Council to the applicant at the August 3, 2009 meeting and to summarize the applicant's response to this direction as proposed in revised plans.