My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2015-09-21 Joint Special SAF PAF
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
AgdaPkt 2015-09-21 Joint Special SAF PAF
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/22/2015 12:12:16 PM
Creation date
9/18/2015 8:41:20 AM
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
9/21/2015
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.
/
756
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
districts ". Each of those "district" — and what is allowed to be built in those districts — are <br />discussed specifically in Articles 4 through 29. Under each Article, there is a provision <br />for "conditional uses" subject to obtaining a "use permit". For example, if you want to <br />build a child. care center in the district subject to Article 4, one must obtain a use permit. <br />Under Section 46.7(D), no use permit required under these "zoning district regulations" <br />would be required if there is an approved Planned Development Permit. On the other <br />hand, a Creek setback ordinance under Section 32.12(F) is not a district regulation <br />requiring a use permit — a creek setback protection is not a "district ". As encroachment of <br />the Creek setback ordinance requires a use permit — and specific written findings — Section <br />46.7(D) excusing a use permit "under the applicable zoning district regulations" if there is <br />a PDP does not excuse the use permit (and findings) required under Section 32.13(F). <br />This interpretation is also consistent with Section 46 regarding Planned <br />Development Permits, indicating that a PDP modification should provide a project that is <br />better than what would occur under standard subdivision regulations. As stated in Section <br />46.4(A) "The design and construction quality contained in all aspects of the development <br />plan is expected to exceed the quality standards typically required for new developments <br />located in similar zoning districts "; which development plan must include that "the plans <br />shall prescribe measures to protect sensitive areas around waterways ..." <br />Accordingly, the Court concludes that Respondent's approval of the Finger Avenue <br />Project, and specifically issuance of a Planned Development Permit, to include building of <br />residences within 25 feet of the top of the bank of Cordilleras Creek was unlawful, as <br />Respondents failed to issue a Use Permit, failed to make all findings required (in writing) <br />under Redwood City Zoning Ordinance Section 42.3(B) and (C), and failed to make all <br />findings required under Zoning Ordinance Section 32.12(F). <br />16 <br />8.B. - Page 75
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.