My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2003-10-13
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2003
>
AgdaPkt 2003-10-13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2012 3:40:09 PM
Creation date
10/9/2003 3:26:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
10/13/2003
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.
/
240
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
i�.�.�� <br /> "California Register of Historical Resources". She said it was very fimiting and asked if it <br /> could be broadened to include the City's list of historic references. <br /> Mr. Brower said, unfortunately the language is taken directly from the State Code. <br /> Mr. Church summarized thc� Text Amendment — Article 37 — Accessory Dwellings as <br /> follows: <br /> Accessorv Dwellin4s: Mr. Church said the State has tried to provide more of an <br /> incentive for cities to actually approve more accessory dwellings. He said that the State <br /> has taken some of the discretion out of the existing law, and tried to make it more of an <br /> "over the counter" approval process. <br /> He said the accessory unit may be attached or detached, and can not exceed more than <br /> 640 square feet. It can have no more that one bedroom, one street entrance to the main <br /> unit, and the entrance to the second unit must not be visible from the street. It must <br /> have not less than three parking spaces. Since the approval must now be non- <br /> discretionary (meaning if the applicant meets the standards, the permit must be issued <br /> over the counter) design review would be limited to objective criteria such as consistent <br /> materials and maintaining the same roof pitch and overhang. <br /> Mr. Church referred to the language on Circle Page No. 17-K, which referenced the <br /> design standards that are not yet drafted, but will be. He said those standards will <br /> capsulate both the requirements for one story and two story additions. <br /> Commissioner McCoy asked if a homeowner wants to initiate the process, would they <br /> come to the counter and apply for a building permit? <br /> Ms. Ekas said yes, if it is a one story addition. <br /> Commissioner McCoy asked it staff would make any distinction between an addition to <br /> the existing structure versus a detached structure for a single story? <br /> Ms. Ekas said no. <br /> Commissioner McCoy asked if in general an applicant applies for and gets approval for <br /> this kind of an addition, is there a time limit (e.g. one year for completion)? <br /> Ms. Ekas said Building Permits need to be kept active. Building will send out a letter <br /> giving a time limit to the applicant, if there is no permit activity. <br /> Mr. Church said since drafting the Ordinance, Attomey Brower had questioned two <br /> facets of the new Ordinance: First, would the accessory unit be limited to 650 sq. ft. as <br /> defined in the City's existing Ordinance, or would the accessory unit be allowed to be up <br /> to 1,200 sq. ft. as discussed in State law. Secondly, did the main unit have to be owner- <br /> occupied, or did State law simply require that one of the units be owner-occupied. <br /> Commissioner Garcia asked Mr. Church if one of the units still has to be owner- <br /> occupied, is there any language in the ordinance to assist the Ciry in •keeping track or <br /> preventing a property from moving out and renting both units. <br /> Page 5 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.