My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2015-06-08 Joint SA and PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
AgdaPkt 2015-06-08 Joint SA and PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2015 9:08:33 AM
Creation date
6/4/2015 5:22:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
6/8/2015
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.
/
446
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
___________________________________________________________________________________ <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD/ April 13, 2015 <br />PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES PAGE 11 <br /> <br />made by the Zoning Administrator. She asked why the City isn't looking at more <br />specific standards like what other communities have. <br /> <br />Larry Purcell noted that Laurel Way has been in discussion for years about what would <br />be appropriate for this area. A specific recommendation was approved saying that large <br />houses could not be built on small legal nonconforming lots. He asked if the Staff or <br />Council knows whether some of the lots that would be approved would have homes <br />under 3,000 square feet or if 3,000 square feet is the minimum. He asked how many <br />homes in the town are over 3,000 square feet with a 30% slope. <br /> <br />Martin Kamph expressed concerns about discretionary building standards, and what <br />formats will be used. He noted that many available lots are infill lots and he was <br />concerned about what kinds of homes will be built there. He noted existing parking <br />issues and water main breaks. He asked for more rationality in the process. <br /> <br />John Barron spoke about his experience as a geologist, noting that no two slopes are <br />the same. He noted that landslide criteria begins at 30 degree slopes. He spoke about <br />his concerns with the environment. He spoke about the need for clearer criteria such as <br />FAR (floor area ratios) on RH lots less than 10,000 square feet, and on geology of <br />known landslide capability. <br /> <br />Beverly Purrington noted that hillside guidelines have been necessary for some time. <br />She elaborated on her concern for the safety of new construction. She expressed <br />appreciation for the requirement of an Engineering Report and explained her concerns <br />with a Planned Development Permit. She noted that she does not understand why <br />there are not more numbers in the requirements. She expressed concern that the <br />Engineering Reports are biased and difficult to understand. She stated that there is not <br />enough information in the Staff Report to allow for the Negative Declaration. <br /> <br />Lee Callister stated that there needs to be objective standards that don't allow <br />developers to have too much control. He expressed support for the FARs. <br /> <br />Donald Landwirth asked that the ordinance be delayed until October 1, 2015, and that <br />preexisting homes living space calculation include only living space and a small amount <br />of the garage. He spoke about the process and expense of designing and planning a <br />living space. He noted that planning tends to pick up in the Fall and Winter to submit in <br />the Spring for Summer construction and many residents have spent time and money to <br />fully comply with existing requirements, and are within weeks of submitting a complete <br />application. <br /> <br />Cynthia Stokes noted her support of additional oversight of the hillsides; however, she <br />requested City Council carefully consider the timing of implementation, noting that <br />Architectural Review takes roughly eight weeks. Homeowners who theoretically already <br />submitted their application could possibly be required significant redesign if the <br />ordinance goes into effect before the Architectural Review is complete. <br /> <br />Charlotte Cheng spoke about her time spent designing a home to build with her fiancé. <br />She spoke about their difficulties with the process, changing rules and regulations, and <br />7.1.J. - Page 11
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.