My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
MO 1984 1-150 1/10/84 to 9/7/84
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minute Orders
>
1980-1989 (partial)
>
1984 (partial)
>
MO 1984 1-150 1/10/84 to 9/7/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/4/2012 4:47:06 PM
Creation date
1/4/2012 4:46:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minute Order
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
1/10/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
189
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
• o <br /> MINUTE ORDER <br /> N0: 84-103 <br /> CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT <br /> Redwood City <br /> DATE: June 18, 1984 <br /> Attention: City Manager <br /> City Attorney <br /> Planning Director <br /> SUBJECT: Appeal - Emerald Highlands (203-10) <br /> Meeting of the Council of the City of Redwood City on June 11, 1984 <br /> Present: Councilmen Bury, Chandler, Claire, Mosher, Stangel, and <br /> Mayor Britschgi <br /> � Absent: .'Councilman Rhodes <br /> The following motion was made and entered on the minutes: <br /> M/S: Claire/Bury to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission in <br /> denying the application for Planned Development Permit to construct 19 <br /> dwellings on 10.602 acre parcel at 4155 Jefferson Avenue to Emerald <br /> Highlands, and to recommend to the developer that he work with Planning <br /> Department staff with regard to acceptable development of the property; and <br /> �. that the following find(ings.,are made: 1) the application for Planned <br /> Development Permit is not consistent with the objectives of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance as required under Section 46.6 in that the proposed hillside <br /> development requires excessive cutting and filling of relatively steep slopes <br /> and removal of trees which would increase the potential for erosion and other <br /> factors and would not_be consistent with the visual and aesthetic <br /> characteristics of the neighborhood; 2) that the proposal for miti ation <br /> measures is not consistent with the environmental impact report; 3�} that the <br /> sanitary sewerage connections for the project have not yet been resolved; and <br /> 4) that traffic safety requirements have not adequately been addressed. <br /> Carried unanimously by voice vote. <br /> � <br /> A UELINE C. HILDEBRAND <br /> t Clerk <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.