My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2003-06-23
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2003
>
AgdaPkt 2003-06-23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2011 2:45:19 PM
Creation date
6/19/2003 1:23:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
6/23/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
196
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
1I 0 <br />Commissioner Seybert had a couple of questions on the height topic. He wanted to <br />know if there was any consideration given to the architecture of the structures in regards <br />to going from 30 -feet to 28 -feet, to permit a sloped roof. <br />Mr. Jany said that Mr. Williams was hired by the City to investigate what other cities did, <br />and to look at the standards in average of the reasonable regulations of Redwood City. <br />He said 30 feet is considered fairly high for a two -story home. <br />Mr. Jany said that cities are generally a lot less than 30 feet. He said that height is one <br />of the major components for determining mass. If you have a large home with a 30 -foot <br />high roof, it looks smaller if it has a 28 -foot roof, so basically the mass is reduced <br />proportionally to the height of the structure. He said there is a relationship between <br />mass, bulk, and height that is fairly visible. <br />Mr. Jany said that if there is a need for an exception height (i.e., tutor -type home), there <br />is a process for allowing such architectural elements to occur. He said there are also <br />regulations relating to the amount of bedrooms, and that parking is another regulatory <br />factor in Redwood City. He said that was the approach they took, and it was with good <br />knowledge that indeed you might have to change the pitch of the roof to adapt to the <br />height, or modify the roof structure to accommodate. <br />Commissioner Seybert wanted to confirm that he heard correctly that there is still the <br />possibility of a variance for the overriding consideration of what it looks like. <br />Mr. Jany said the findings would have to be made basically, and that you are trying to be <br />in compliance with a certain style. <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />Chair Foust opened the meeting to the public. <br />Speakers <br />Mr. Rudy Luca, Redwood City Resident, asked: <br />1. If he would get his previous question regarding recycled water answered? <br />2. Would there be separate parking for doctors? <br />3. Regarding childcare — Are they going to occur all over the place? <br />Chair Foust said she asked staff to research the answers to his question, and to get <br />back to him. <br />Chair Foust asked for clarification of question No. 3 <br />Mr. Luca said he wanted to know if we are going to minimize the amount of child care <br />facilities that are allowed in the residential areas, or is this thing going to run all over the <br />City. <br />Chair Foust said Mr. Williams could address Mr. Luca's second question, but she <br />thought number three would require more research. <br />Mr. Williams said the parking for doctors is included in the square footage standard. It is <br />assumed that doctors, patients coming in, and staff are all part of the square footage, <br />and overall, that the parking number works. That is what the one space per 200 square <br />feet is for. He said that some cities in the past had either additional or a whole separate <br />Page 8 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.