My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3A Public Hearing 2013 0204
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2013
>
Packet 2013 0204
>
3A Public Hearing 2013 0204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2013 12:38:58 PM
Creation date
2/1/2013 12:34:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
2/4/2013
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2013 0204 CS+RG
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2013\Packet 2013 0204
10A Action 2013 0219
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2013\Packet 2013 0219
MO 2013-006
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Minute Orders\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
File Number: 12-613 <br />·Policy 2.05: Alterations, Additions and Infill <br />Ensure that alterations, additions and infill development are compatible with existing <br />homes and maintain aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods. <br />·Policy 3.01: Mix of Unit Types <br />Encourage a mix of residential development types in the City, including single-family <br />homes on a variety of lot sizes, as well as townhomes, row houses, live-work units, <br />planned unit developments and multi-family housing. <br />·Policy 3.04: Promotion of Infill <br />Encourage infill development on vacant or underused sites within residential areas. <br />The proposed exception to density is not unprecedented. There are three properties north of <br />the subject properties that were developed with planned developments which were greater <br />than 4 units per gross acre. <br />The proposed density having a mixture of detached single-family and attached two-family <br />development is a compatible development proposal. The detached unit design of the <br />single-family homes and duplexes lessens any impact of the project appearing overdeveloped <br />to the adjacent residential area and the project appears less bulky and less massive than <br />larger attached multi-family (apartment) buildings with a greater number of units. <br />The proposal will provide an opportunity for new rental housing. The existing single-family <br />homes are in good condition. Moreover, with the necessary conditions relating to landscaping, <br />fencing, and property maintenance, the appearance of the property will be enhanced and <br />maintained in an attractive and clean manner. <br />Permits and/or Variances Granted <br />The RO District is unique in its myriad of various zoning requirements (i.e., lot size, lot width, <br />density formula, setbacks, coverage, etc.). The applicant feels the zoning requirements are <br />too restrictive for a residential project that combines the four parcels. Thus, the Planned <br />Development allows for flexibility and more imaginative design that results in a careful and <br />well conceived plan that includes access, light, open space, and amenities and a plan that is <br />compatible with the existing adjacent neighborhood. See the attached table which <br />summarizes the reasons for the Planned Development. <br />1.The density formula in the RO District is 8,000 square feet for the first single-family <br />dwelling, 5,000 square feet additional for each additional single-family dwelling, and <br />7,000 square feet additional for each additional two-family dwelling. In this case, <br />65,000 square feet is required for four single-family and six two-family dwellings. The <br />project site is 56,000 square feet. <br />2.SF1 would maintain a five foot setback from the southerly side property line; SF2 would <br />maintain approximately eight feet from the northerly side property line. Both are existing <br />conditions and encroach into the 12 foot setback requirement. It would be impractical to <br />move or partially remove a portion of SF2 to comply with the setback requirement. SF1 <br />can be partially reduced since the structure that encroaches is not living area but a <br />covered carport; however, full compliance would make the carport impractical and <br />Page 4 City of San Leandro Printed on 1/30/2013
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.