Laserfiche WebLink
ATTY/RESO.0056/PC RESO 227 KING STREET <br />REV: 06-26-2020 PR <br />Page 2 of 8 <br />percent to 46 percent, resulting in a floor area ratio reduction of 6 percent, (3) increased <br />the front yard setbacks from 24’-6” to 31’-6” (for the garage) and from 34’-6” to 37’-9” (for <br />the main house), thereby setting back the house further from the street overall and <br />creating a larger driveway, (4) reduced the height from 26’-9” to 26’-3,” and (5) changed <br />the architectural style from Modern Farmhouse to Craftsman; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Revised Project presented for consideration of approval would <br />result in the construction of a new two-story 2,567 square foot single-family residence <br />with a 442 square foot attached garage, resulting in a total floor area of 3,008 square feet <br />on a 6,500 square foot lot. The 1,407 square foot ground floor consists of a dining room, <br />kitchen, great room, one bathroom, one bedroom, a study and garage. The 1,160 square <br />foot second floor consists of three bedrooms, two bathrooms and laundry room. The <br />proposed home would reach a maximum height of 26 feet, 3 inches above surrounding <br />grade; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Revised Project further complies and is consistent with the <br />required R-1 Zoning District Standards and the Architectural Permit Findings, as <br />described below; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, the Appellant withdrew the appeal since the <br />Revised Project adequately addressed the Appellant’s concerns. While it is not necessary <br />to formally deny the appeal once withdrawn, it is City policy to hold the required de novo <br />hearing before the Planning Commission pursuant to the procedures in Article 41 of the <br />Zoning Code; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, on July 7, 2020, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed <br />continued public hearing on the Revised Project in accordance with all applicable <br />requirements of the State Planning and Zoning Law and the Redwood City Zoning <br />Ordinance, to consider the appeal; and the Appellant, the Applicant, and all other <br />interested parties were given the opportunity to participate in the public hearing through <br />oral testimony and the submittal of written comments. <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS <br />FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />1. The Planning Commission finds that the above recitals are accurate and constitute <br />findings in this matter, and with the staff reports, the application materials, development <br />plan, and all other documents, reports, oral and written testimony, and materials in the <br />City’s file for the Original Project and the Revised Project (together, the “Project”), and all <br />adopted City planning documents relating to the Project and the Property including the <br />City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable City laws <br />and regulations, have together served as an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis <br />for the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution. <br /> <br />2. The Planning Commission finds that the Revised Project is exempt from the <br />California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to per Section 15303(a) (New <br />Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as described in the staff report.