AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 62 definitely well within the Commission's guise to actually amend the Zoning, the wording and the coding to help the City maintain continuity in order that there is no ambiguity when they begin considering applications for approval. Mr. Mehra agreed they were making an effort to clarify the Zoning Ordinance, and in particular the R-2 Zoning section, in order to maintain this continuity. Commissioner Smith further noted that there was typically some flexibility on how this will all be interpreted. Mr. Mehra stated these changes also codify the minimum lot area requirements in very concise terms. It will be explicitly stated that if your lot is greater than 4,500 square feet, or 13,333 square feet, you can have X number of units on this particular lot. Commissioner Tabing understood the necessity of this codification and further clarification on the guidelines. He was unclear, however, on how best to make these changes. He asked if it was appropriate in the R-2 designation, or should they have considered doing something else Chair Radcliffe noted the R-2 Zoning was clear up to 10,000 square feet. The ambiguity arose after the lot size exceeded this 10,000 square feet. Ms. Ekas stated variances and Planned Development Permits do not allow deviations in overall density for a site considered for a development. The R-2 was a zone of likely many single family homes, a large number of duplexes, a few triplexes and then Planned Developments in a number of areas. Just about all of the R-2 Zoning in Redwood Shores developed under PD permits. There were many PDs in the Oakwood area and West Woodside, with less in Friendly Acres. The PO permit allowed this, but did not allow any deviation from the maximum density. It allowed deviations in lot sizes and encouraged cluster developments, shared Open Space and courtyard homes. All were within the scale of what would be expected for R-2 Zoning. This development format required parcelizations. The parcels do not actually have their own street frontage. They front private access ways. Some parcels do not meet the straight up standards of the R-2 code. This can also happen in R-3, -4 and -5 zone area. The PD allowed this flexibility to encourage the optimal use of these sites. In most cases these were larger properties. She noted this was all a tool to provide flexibility, not a tool to grant gross deviations overall in density. She reiterated Staff was not before the Commission with anything they would call an interpretation. They were instead asking the Commission to help set the standard for Lot Area Requirements in the R-2. They were asking the Commission to reconsider what is there at this time. She noted there were individuals who interpreted that you could not build more than three (3) units on a development site because of the way the Code stands currently. although there were many development sites in the City with the R-2 Zoning that had more than three (3) units. She noted these areas had different parcel qualities in that some of them may have been one or two large parcels combined, and then subdivided, although this development pattern is not entirely desirable. Commissioner Holt noted that this was her understanding as she read the Initial Study. She applauded Staff for bringing forth the clarification. She was comfortable with scenario two. Page 11 of 24