My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2004-05-10
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2004
>
AgdaPkt 2004-05-10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:45:31 PM
Creation date
5/6/2004 3:32:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
5/10/2004
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.
/
225
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 /> " I , . " ,. - <br /> t. A - 3 <br /> Amendments to existing Planned Development permits may be allowed per Section 46.1 0 <br /> of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project conforms to the requirements of the Zoning <br /> --"'" Ordinance (see table below); however, an amendment to the original Planned <br /> Development Permit is needed to accommodate the design change to allow a small <br /> balcony. <br /> Criteria <br /> Per Section 46.5, "The Zoning Administrator shall review each application for a Planned <br /> Development Permit for a project area of less than one (1) acre. While no specific criteria <br /> are set forth in the Zoning Ordinance as to the basis for allowing an amendment to a <br /> Planned Development Permit, by examining the proposal at issue, it is clear that the <br /> application more than satisfies each of the relevant zoning criteria. Additionally, Section <br /> 46.1 O.C. states .Planned Development permit amendments shall be required unless it is <br /> determined by the Zoning Administratorthat the proposed change is minor and whereby an <br /> Architectural Permit is required, subject to the requirements of Article 45 of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance." <br /> - <br /> The Zoning Administrator made the determination that the proposal for the balcony was <br /> minor since it is small and easily complies with zoning standards applicable to other <br /> properties in the R-2 zone. As a result, the Zoning Administrator reviewed the proposed <br /> project for consistency with respect to the pertinent Architectural Standards as stated in <br /> Section 45.8: <br /> a. Sufficient variety in the design of the structure and grounds to avoid monotony in the <br /> external appearance of the project; <br /> b. Size and design of the structure shall be in proportion to the building site and that there <br /> is balance and unity among its extemal features so as to present a harmonious <br /> appearance; <br /> c. Extent to which the structure conforms to the general character of other structures in <br /> the project vicinity insofar as the character can be ascertained and is found to be <br /> architecturally pleasing; <br /> d. Extent to which excessive ornamentation is used and the extent to which temporary <br /> and second-hand materials, or materials which are imitative of other materials, are to <br /> be used; <br /> e. Extent to which natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and rocks, and the <br /> natural grade of the site are to be retained; <br /> f. Accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to <br /> traffic on adjacent streets; and <br /> - <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.