Laserfiche WebLink
Consent Calendar (continued) <br />4. MOTION : to approve findings re denial of Use Permit, to allow construction <br />of a single-family dwelling including an accessory dwelling at 3556 Highland <br />Avenue as follows: <br />1. The subject property is located in the R -1 (Residential - Single <br />Family) Zoning District (Sec. 5.1 et seq. , Ordinance 1130, as amended "Zon. <br />Ord." ) of the City of Redwood City. <br />2. Appellant applied for a Use Permit pursuant to the provisions of <br />Section 5.3 of the Zon . Ord. to allow the construction of an "Accessory <br />Dwelling" as defined in Section 2.5.2 of the Zon . Ord., comprised of an <br />independent dwelling unit within the main single-family dwelling structure <br />proposed to be constructed on the Subject Property. <br />3. Construction of the proposed additional dwelling unit would also <br />require the construction and installation of a cement platform, to serve as a <br />floor, at the rear of the main dwelling at an elevation below the street - <br />level grade of that portion of the Subject Property fronting on Highland <br />Avenue. <br />4. Section 2.5.2 of the Zon .Ord. provides that such a second dwelling <br />unit must, among other requirements, comply with the following: <br />"b. ...the lot upon which such unit is to be added (must) be occupied by <br />a single - family dwelling only as of the effective date of this <br />Ordinance." i.e., Ord. 1130.226, effective 7/27/83 ; and <br />"g. ...the provision for accessory dwellings (herein described shall) not <br />extend to dwellings constructed after the effective date of this <br />Ordi nance." <br />5. Appellant concedes that his proposed structure cannot comply with the <br />foregoing provisions of Zon. Ord. Section 2.5.2 because the Subject Property <br />i s unimproved. <br />6. At least three other unimproved parcels of property are located <br />wi thi n t he vi ci ni ty of the Su bj ect P ro perty. <br />7. Appellant urges that the provisions of Zon .Ord. Section 2.5.2 are <br />invalid because they do not conform to the requirements of Government Code <br />Section 65852.2. Specifically, Appellant states that said Section 65852.2 <br />does not authorize a city to adopt an ordinance which limits construction of <br />second dwelling units to inclusion within an existinq single- fcTnily <br />residential structure. <br />8. Government Code Section 65852.2 (b) provides, in pertinent part: <br />Reg.Mtg. <br />6/27/88 <br />Pa ge 4 <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 <br />Page No. 110 <br />