CC Min 1989-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal of the Denial by the Redwood City Planning Commission to allow the prezoning of a 15,500 square foot parcel, which will be annexed to the City from the County, into the "R -1 (Single - family Residential) District. Edwin Sarsfield, appellant 455 Upland Road (203 -10) Report: Planning Commission Report to Council, 12/18/89 Planning Director Joel Patterson presented the staff report with overhead transparencies. In response to questions from Council Mr. Patterson described County and City zoning history in the area; drainage and flooding problems and the recently settled litigation; setting a precedent; piecemeal annexations; slope densities in R -1 and R -H; and property could meet requirements of an R -1 designation. Edwin Sarsfield, 455 Upland Road, Redwood City, owner of the property, stated the subject properties had been in his family for forty -one years. In 1981 the three lots were forced to merge into two by the County as a result of a sewer bond decision. If the property remains in the County it will be impossible to subdivide, but if a portion is annexed to Redwood City and zoned R -1, the larger portion in the County would be sold and two homes would be built on the property in the City. He added that utilities are in place and neighbors had no interest in annexing to the City. Pat Webb, 540 Price Street, Brian Kangas Foulk, described property as more R -1 in nature than R -H with a flat area where houses will be built and gentle slope in rear; the subdivision will produce two 7500 square foot lots; and explained why adjoining properties will not request annexation in order to subdivide. Stan Kangas, 540 Price Street, Brian Kangas Foulk, described the subdivisions in the area; the recent litigation and settlement regarding drainage and flooding in the area, the court mandated solution and the cooperation of Mr. Sarsfield. Curt Luck, City Engineer, in response to Council questions stated he does not believe the court mandated solution will solve the problem. Councilman Claire stated the area is no longer rural and the R -H designation is unwarranted on that basis and there is little difference between R -1 and R -H; the narrow, unimproved roads are a concern but they are no worse than many others in R -1 areas; precedent has already been set for R -1 designation under these circumstances; there seems little chance of increased annexation due to prezoning this property; and decisions today should not be based on the out -of -date 1976 General Plan which will be superseded by the new General Plan set for adoption in 1990. MINUTE BOOK NO. 49 Reg.Mtg.Minutes Page No. 177 12/18/89 Page 2