CC Min 1990-09-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

In response to Council questions, Mr. Simpson described traffic as not heavy; other properties in area do not have similar site specific circumstances so would not set precedent; and described the property which is adjacent to commercial buildings, on the same block with duplexes and so close to Woodside Road as no longer appropriate for single family use and denial of best use of property constitutes a special circumstance of hardship. Mr. Peter Musso, appellant, addressed Council and described purpose of second unit for his daughter and to keep the family close, and advised his neighbors do not object. Joseph Svitek, 108 Murray Court, Redwood City, expressed his concerns regarding granting a zoning variance on a substandard lot which would constitute a special favor and set a precedent for additional non - conforming units; the neighborhood is a mix of single family and conforming units and a multiple structure on an undersize lot would change the balance of the neighborhood; the easement cannot be considered as it is used as a backup or turnaround for autos; there are no special circumstances; second unit would create traffic and parking problems; and most importantly, rezoning should not be done on a piece meal basis, but through the established zoning process when all residents can have input into the decisions regarding their neighborhood. Mr. Svitek added that granting this variance would move the boundary and zoning of Woodside Road further into neighborhood changing its residential nature. Mayor La Berge asked if anyone else wished to speak to this issue. No one else wished to speak. M /S: Murray /Bury to close the Public Hearing. Carried by unanimous voice vote and the Public Hearing was closed at 9:07 p.m. Council discussed the unique circumstances of this property and its easement and its proximity to commercial ventures and Woodside Road; the consistency with the General Plan and the need for additional housing; only 10% under required lot size and inclusion of easement; the increase in traffic and parking another unit would generate; the similarity with the first appeal turned down this evening; piece meal zoning decisions; and special circumstances of hardship. M /S: Bury /Stangel to uphold the appeal based on the following findings: "FINDINGS 1. With respect to Subdivision a, Section 43.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, which relates to the requirement for special circumstance, in this particular instance, the location of the property and its surroundings create special circumstance with respect to its proximity to the commercial use of the adjoining property on Woodside Road; and that the density and use of the property lends consistency to the duplex use of the subject property. Reg. Mtg. Minutes September 24, 1990 Page 4 MINUTE BOOK NO. 50 Page No. 077 it