|
106
<br /> rear setbacks and 5 ' side yards , whereas the proposed ordinance would permit
<br /> greater latitude . He noted that there had been a joint meeting of Council
<br /> and Planning Commission months ago , which had been reported in the press ,
<br /> in addition to Planning Commission meetings , which also had been publicized ,
<br /> Simon Peters , 37 Barry Lane , Atherton ,
<br /> stated he owned property in Redwood City
<br /> and was concerned the new ordinance would
<br /> reduce the number of units permitted .
<br /> Since Mr . Peters appeared to misinterpret the proposed changes as being a
<br /> proposal to rezone , City Attorney explained that they were a zoning text
<br /> amendment , as opposed to rezoning , and would affect all areas of Redwood
<br /> City and all zoning districts uniformly ,
<br /> At request of Mayor Bury , Planning Director reviewed the changes and their
<br /> impact , noting some of the changes had already been discussed . He indicated
<br /> the proposal was not experimental , but that an almost identical one had
<br /> been in effect in Palo Alto for some time , and basically requires that
<br /> yards must be increased as the building height increases . The requirements
<br /> had been tested in New York City for three years , where standards were
<br /> about comparable to the proposal of the Planning Commission , and are not
<br /> restrictive , but relate yards to functions they are supposed to perform ,
<br /> namely , separation of buildings for privacy , circulation of air , ventilation
<br /> and noise reduction between buildings . Provisions in the proposed ordinance
<br /> would be less imposing in some cases than the present regulations , and noted
<br /> that insofar as density is concerned , there were factors other than the
<br /> proposed changes which would continue to control that . By series of illus-
<br /> trations he explained how the ratio of building height to yard requirements
<br /> would be applied , and the technique of applying the rule permitting variations
<br /> in design of the building . In response to question by Councilman Williams ,
<br /> he gave the definition of "building face " as recommended in the Commission ' s
<br /> final proposal . Councilman Keckley requested clarification of another proposed
<br /> change , relating to use of the side yard for main entrance , Planning Director
<br /> responded that under the proposal , the front of the building would be con-
<br /> sidered front yard . Wherever the front entrance is , the yard would have to
<br /> be a minimum of 15 feet , at least as far back from the lot line as the main
<br /> Under the present standard , that distance is 8 feet along the
<br /> entire side . After further discussion , Councilman Weymouth moved to close
<br /> the public hearing , seconded by Councilman Keckley and carried ,
<br /> Councilman Keckley moved to introduce Ordinance amending Sections 14 . 6 , 5 . 6 , 5 . 9, r
<br /> 6 . 6 , 6 . 9 , 7 , 6 , 7 . 9 , 8 . 6 , 8 . 9 , 9 . 6 , 9. 9 , 10 . 6 , 10 . 9 , 11 . 6 , 12 . 6 , 13 . 6 , 14 , 6 ,
<br /> 15 . 6 , 16 . 6 , 17 . 6 , 18 . 6 , 19 . 6 and 21 . 5 of , repealing Section 31 . 2 and Article 32
<br />
|