My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2000-06-12
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2000
>
AgdaPkt 2000-06-12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2005 10:25:44 AM
Creation date
6/28/2005 3:35:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
6/12/2000
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
236
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Options: fJA. '7 <br />1. Require the property owner to reside on the property, either in the main or second unit. <br />The owner shall record a deed restriction stating that fact. An exception to this rule <br />shall only occur if there is undue hardship as determined by the Zoning Administrator <br />(Recommended). <br /> <br />Impacts <br />A few elderly owners have expressed an interest in living in the smaller, secondary unit, <br />and renting out the main unit. This change could lead to a slight increase (2 units per <br />year) in the number of second unit applications. The larger units (the main house) could <br />be available to families in need of housing. <br /> <br />2. Require the property owner to reside only in the main unit (current requirement). <br /> <br />Impacts <br />Most of the inquiries about new second units have been by property owners who plan <br />to live on the property so this would have minimal impact. There have been a few <br />absentee landlords who tried to apply but were either turned down or were asked to <br />submit proof that they intended to occupy the site. It has been more common to have <br />absentee landlords try to legalize illegal existing units. <br /> <br />Note: Owner occupancy should also be required for existing second units that may <br />become legal through relaxation of the parking requirement via an amnesty program. <br />Without this provision the City would allow more single-family districts to become <br />duplex districts. <br /> <br />D. PUBLIC HEARING <br /> <br />Currently there is no public hearing required for accessory units. An applicant first submits <br />for a building permit, and the project is approved as long as it conforms to the Accessory <br />Unit Ordinance. There is no notification of adjoining neighbors, even though the density <br />and appearance of adjoining properties may change. Under state law, staff must grant the <br />accessory unit as long as it meets the requirements of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Options: <br /> <br />1. Require a "non-discretionary" permit with notification of surrounding property owners. <br />This process is very similar to the large family day care process that the City recently <br />adopted. After receiving the building permit, staff would notify surrounding property <br />owners of the pending application and its approval as long as it meets the zoning <br />ordinance. This process does not require a public hearing, unlike a Conditional Use <br />Permit (Recommended). <br /> <br />Impacts <br />This process does allow for public notification, but neighbors cannot change the <br />approval as long as the unit conforms to the City Ordinance. <br /> <br />2. Require a Conditional Use Permit including notification of adjoining property owners <br />and a formal public hearing. <br /> <br />Impacts <br />There would be a minimal cost to the applicant ($400), but neighbors will be notified of <br />the application. It's important to note that a public meeting may give the false <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />.-.-.. ,,'~' 'lr <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.