CC Min 1983-10-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 3 (continued) ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 32.3 OF ORDINANCE 1130, THE REDWOOD CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, RELATING TO SIDE YARD SETBACKS Ordinance approved for first reading unanimously by roll call vote. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4. Appeal of the determination of the Zoning Administrator with respect to illegal second unit, 150 Broadway - James M. Erlandson, appellant (203 -10) Report of City Manager and Director of Planning 10/6/83 Planning Director Schroeter replied to questions regarding the nature of the appeal. Richard Gardella, lawyer, 541 Jefferson, representing Mr. and Mrs. Erlandson, stated that application was made for a variance to allow remodelling, but that the response of the Zoning Administrator has been directed to an illegal duplex, while his client wants only to be permitted to correct the gas plumbing. Discussion followed and Mr. Gardella, Mr. Schroeter and Building Official Malkemus replied to questions and commented concerning the existence of the duplex on a single - family lot; whether or not the present owners acquired the building in the belief a duplex was legal; the fact that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for increased density; the fact that the gas line can be corrected but cannot be installed for the purpose of creating an illegal second unit; and the lot size required for a duplex. M /S: Claire /Britschgi to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator that the Variance procedure cannot be used to "legalize" a zoning violation and that residential densities cannot be increased by means of Variances, with findings as follows: 1. The question of the issuance of a gas permit is not within the juris- diction of the City Council as it is an administrative matter subject to the Building Code and other pertinent regulations. 2. The appellant's application for review of the application as a Variance purports to request approval for conversion of a single family dwelling to a duplex. 3. The subject property does not meet the requirements for a duplex in an R -2 District in that it does not meet the following requirements of the Zoning Ordinance: a. the lot width specifications of Sec. 6.7 b. the lot area specifications of Sec. 6.6 c. the open space requirements of Sec. 32.11 Reg.Mtg. 10/10/83 Page 7 MINUTE BOOK NO. 44 Page No. 244