|
138
<br />Councilman Rosselli commented on a number of inquiries he had from property owners
<br />in R-4 and R-5 Zones expressing concern over the proposed changes.
<br />The Planning Director advised that the intention to reduce allowable density had
<br />the apparent effect of creating fear in some property owners that they would be pre-
<br />vented from building high density dwellings on sites where this could be done under
<br />the present ordinance, and he emphasized that the objective was to encourage im-
<br />provement in the quality of high-density developments by means of requirement for
<br />a Use Permit. Council discussed the merits of the Use Permit procedure, from the
<br />standpoint of control.
<br />Jan Michalski, 1594 Gordon Street, approved the proposed
<br />changes as they would apply in a newly designed city,
<br />However, opposed the change, since everything presently
<br />built would become non -conforming, and offered several
<br />examples, He felt investment values were not being taken
<br />into consideration,
<br />Harper Burns, 2524 Whipple, indicated he owned several lots
<br />zoned R-4, and expressed concern that some investors would
<br />suffer monetarily under the proposed changes. He noted that
<br />the use permit required only on 10,000 ft, lots and larger,
<br />and felt the smaller lots should not be excluded, if quality
<br />is the goal.
<br />The Planning Director advised that the Use Permit does not come into play only for
<br />the 10,000 sq. foot and larger lots, but covers all lot sizes. He added that what
<br />is permitted under the present ordinance would also be permitted under the new
<br />amendments, but that the Use Permit provisions would have to apply. He added that
<br />if the amenities can be retained, there should be no concern the Use Permit would
<br />be denied.
<br />Simon Peters, 37 Barry Lane, Atherton, described how changes
<br />in the zoning ordinance over the years had affected his lot,
<br />zoned originally for 18 units, then before it was built,
<br />changed to 15, and so on down to the present proposed changes,
<br />which he said would reduce the number to 8. He felt any new
<br />zoning should apply to new areas, but that existing properties
<br />should not be penalized. He felt the proposed amendments were
<br />unfair.
<br />William Royer, 1016 Blandford, objected to the requirement for
<br />Use Permit and the "red tape" entailed. He felt that since the
<br />major changes in the ordinance in 1964, there has not been
<br />enough time to give the ordinance a chance to work,
<br />William Phoenix, 3060 Broadway, felt the change will result in
<br />more expensive units, and that the amendments would cause hard-
<br />ship. He recognized concern for providing more open space and
<br />upgrading quality of living, but questioned how this should be
<br />accomplished, He suggested an alternative could be neighbor-
<br />hood parks, rather than placing this responsibility on the in-
<br />dividual owner. _.
<br />Dr. Werner Salinger, 155 Birch Street, agreed that the present
<br />ordinance has not been given the chance to be tried, mainly
<br />because of the economic situation of the past few years.
<br />Charles Olivia, representing the Peninsula Building Industry
<br />Association, discussed a planned remodeling of a building at
<br />2nd and Broadway into an apartment, which under the proposed
<br />amendments would reduce the number of units from 168 to 100,
<br />making it economically unfeasible, and commented on the fact
<br />that the population growth is a certainty, He felt the use
<br />permit requirement will be a hardship,
<br />Councilman Arnett questioned the reason for objection to the Use Permit procedure,
<br />and felt that any builder should have no difficulty in planning ahead for this as
<br />for any other controls, as a matter of course.
<br />
|