My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2012 11:22:57 AM
Creation date
11/18/2010 5:05:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
11/22/2010
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.
/
418
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
8.A <br /> Page 74 <br /> Staff Response: For the reasons stated above, the Planning Department has not failed <br /> any duty and has issued this architectural permi# in compliance with the requirements of <br /> the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance because the Tree Replacement Plan is not an <br /> element of the application review process and does not require public input, but rather is <br /> a condition imposed as a result of the application review and approval. <br /> 6. Finally, Appellants would have identified one or more architects and urban planners who <br /> ivould have testi�ed orally or in tinriting that the Applicants' architectural and site plans could <br /> have been easily modi�ed so as to preserve the Tree, x�hile providing the Applicants with <br /> substantially all of their desired architectural features and henefits. <br /> Staff Response: While another design of the project may not have necessitated <br /> removal of the Italian Stone Pine, the Zoning Administrator approved the design <br /> submitted for review (including removal of the tree) upon consideration of the <br /> Architectural Standards, including Standard E(the extent to which natural features are <br /> to be retained), evaluation of existing streetscape, the professional recommendation of <br /> a Certified Arborist (Attachment 14) and the concurrence of the City's Urban Forestry <br /> Specialist. The Zoning Administrator did not require alternative plans. <br /> Conclusions o�Fact and Law that Appellants would have Demonstrated: The Planning <br /> Department failed in its duty (a) to foldow the Guidelines, and (b) to balance the desire of'the <br /> property owner with the rights, need.s, and interests of the udjoining and nearby properry <br /> vwners, qf the neighhorhovd, and of all residents of Redwood City by un��easonably authorizing <br /> the removal of a valuable element of the streetscape and the neighborhood without ftrst <br /> requiring the Applicants to .rubmit alternative plans that would have preserved the Tree. <br /> Staff Response: Submittal of alternative plans is not required by the Redwood City <br /> Zoning Ordinance (nor is it authorized). Pursuant to Article 45, Section 45.7, the Zoning <br /> Administrator may approve, conditionally approve or deny the project as submitted. The <br /> Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the project. For the reasons stated above, <br /> the Planning Department has not failed in its duty and has issued this architectural <br /> permit in compliance with the requirements of the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance. The <br /> Planning Department followed the requirements of Article 45 of the Redwood City <br /> Zoning Ordinance and consideration was given to the architectural design, streetscape, <br /> and neighborhood context. <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.