Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 5 (continued) <br />8. There are some panhandle lots in the vicinity of the Property. However, <br />those lots were created under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo and <br />do not reflect the requirements of this City's subdivision regulations and <br />the underlying policies thereof. <br />9. Establishment of a panhandle lot on the property would increase the <br />density of development in the vicinity of the Property, thereby creating <br />additional traffic and parking congestion with related air and noise <br />pollution effects. <br />10. That portion of Alameda de las Pulgas upon which the Property fronts <br />currently is congested with vehicular traffic and parking. Establishment of <br />a panhandle lot on the property would increase the congestion, adding to the <br />danger presented thereby to persons and Property through vehicular collisions <br />and pedestrian accidents. <br />11. The increased density which would result from establishment of a <br />panhandle lot on the Property would detrimentally affect the privacy of <br />persons living in the vicinity of the Property, notwithstanding that <br />Appellant, at the hearing before this Council, proposed to limit the <br />improvements to be constructed on the Property to one story. <br />12. The purpose of the R -1 Zoning district is: <br />"To stabilize and protect the residential character of the District and <br />to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life on a <br />neighborhood basis." (Zon. Ord. S5.1). <br />13. The foregoing effects of a panhandle lot on the Property would be <br />inimicable to the purpose of the R -1 Zoning District. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The appeal should be, and hereby is, denied, and the decision of the <br />Planning Commission should be, and hereby is, affirmed. <br />The foregoing findings, determinations and conclusion were approved by <br />the Council of the City of Redwood City at a regular meeting held on March <br />27, 1989 by the following vote: <br />AYES, and in favor: Councilmembers Buchan, Bury, LaBerge, Murray and <br />Mayor Greenalch <br />NOES, and against: Councilman Sta ngel <br />ABSTENTIONS: Councilman Claire <br />MINUTE ORDER NO. 89 -47 <br />6. Removed. <br />Reg.Mtg. <br />4/3/89 <br />Page 6 <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 <br />Page NO. 348 <br />