My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2002-10-28
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2002
>
AgdaPkt 2002-10-28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:54:25 PM
Creation date
10/24/2002 3:20:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
10/28/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
173
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
Conformance to Zoning Ordinance <br />The City approved the proposed addition because it conforms to all the zoning requirements <br />applicable to the "R-I' zoning district. <br /> <br /> SUMMARY TABLE Required Proposed <br /> First Story <br /> Front Yard Setback 15 ft. 18.5 ft. <br /> Side Yard Setback 6 ft. 6.5 ft. & 7ft. <br /> Rear Yard Setback 20 ft. 57 ft. <br /> Second Story <br /> Front Yard Setback 15 ft. 72 ft. <br /> Side Yard Setback 6 - 9 ft. 10 ft. <br /> Rear Yard Setback 20 ft. 59 ft. <br /> Lot Coverage 40% 31% <br /> Building Height 30 ft. max. 23 ft. <br />Analysis <br />The proposed project meets all applicable Zoning requirements. As indicated above, the <br />proposed second story side yard setbacks exceed the minimum 6 foot side yard distance by 4 <br />feet resulting in an overall side yard distance of approximately 30 feet between both homes. <br />Although the appellant has indicated that the proposed second story may compromise her <br />privacy, Redwood City's ordinances do not regulate this matter. A possible mitigation measure <br />to minimize the loss of privacy would be to plant tall hedge trees along the side property line to <br />help screen the addition. However, while minimizing the loss of privacy, such a tree screen <br />would also reduce the amount of sunlight reaching 346 Hillview Avenue (appellant's <br />residence). The Zoning Ordinance has no provisions that protect views. <br />The design of the proposed project is consistent with Article 45 of the Zoning Ordinance. The <br />proposed addition's siding, texture and materials will match those of the existing dwelling in <br />design, type and color. The size of the proposed addition is in proportion with the site and the <br />City has approved similar proposals in the same neighborhood/zone. In addition, the <br />applicants revised their plans and "stepped" the proposed addition back on all sides at the <br />second level and flattened the roof pitch. Moreover, the addition creates a motor court which <br />is visually appealing and functionally desirable. <br />Alternative <br />Uphold the appeal and have the project redesigned. <br />Fiscal Impact <br />None <br />Conclusion <br />The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to ensure that Architectural Permit applications comply <br />with reasonable development standards (Article 45 of the Zoning Ordinance) that consider the <br />health, safety and welfare of its residents. The applicant in good faith conformed to these <br />standards and therefore, the City approved the project. This application is no different than <br />other applications approved by the City. The proposal does not cause unreasonable impacts to <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.