My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2012-05-21
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
AgdaPkt 2012-05-21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2012 3:33:37 PM
Creation date
5/17/2012 3:22:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Special
Agency Type
City Council
Date
5/21/2012
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.
/
319
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
8.A. - Page 5 <br /> Change the limit on inactive frontages Currently, inactive frontages (areas with no public entrance) are <br /> from a standard to a guideline. limited to 25% of the total frontage. This is a good rule, but it <br /> needs some flexibility. Garages, narrow lots, emergency exists, <br /> and other special conditions can make this rule difficult to meet. <br /> �-. . . <br /> Description of Change Reason for Change <br /> Make the appeal process for powntown This caused unnecessary confusion to have slightly different <br /> consistent with the Zoning Ordinance's processes for appeals within Downtown relative to all other parts <br /> appeal process. of the City. <br /> Change the text which tells developers As written this is very proscriptive and has caused confusion. <br /> when/how they must widen their Also, it does not reflect how we need to deal with this situation <br /> sidewalks. for most projects, which is on a case-by-case basis. On Page 62 <br /> of the DTPP, in Section 2.4.2-A-1-d, there is already a provision <br /> that allows us to determine this on a case-by-case basis <br /> anyway, so we should eliminate any confusion. Every condition <br /> is unique and it is too difficult to create a formula that works for <br /> every situation. <br /> Call out sign permits as a separate It has caused confusion to apply for a"Planned Community <br /> permit type. Permit" for a sign only. As written the City is required to take a <br /> $5,000 deposit for signs, which is unreasonable. This does not <br /> alter the review process, however. <br /> Change name of "Conditional Uses" use It has caused confusion to have the word "conditional" refer to a <br /> group to "Restricted Uses". use group and as a type of permission. <br /> In the Corner Store use group, specify Many prospective business owners think they may fall under this <br /> what is meant by "cafe". designation, and have asked what it means. Since their approval <br /> in the orange zone depends on whether or not they are <br /> considered to be a cafe, a clear definition is needed. <br /> Make it clear that pre-existing retail In order to bolster the Broadway retail core, new retail buildings <br /> buildings on EI Camino are allowed to aren't allowed on most of EI Camino within the DTPP. However, <br /> remain in use as retail, even when many of the existing buildings were designed for retail. This <br /> tenants change. change would allow new retail uses to go into spaces/buildings <br /> that were designed and historically used for retail. <br /> Reflect the new name of the Architectural The name of the committee has changed. <br /> Advisory Committee. <br /> Remove references to PHED Director. This position no longer exists. <br /> Delete the "Sidewalk Width Provision" These rows have caused confusion and are unnecessary. All of <br /> rows from the Public Frontage table. their content can be found in the text. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.