CC Min 2004-03-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Council Members asked various questions to determine the nature of the appellant's concern for privacy and the impact on the planned development. Concern was expressed that the City might be able to issue a permit but that the resulting permit might not be viable within the constraints of a private CCNR. Mayor Ira opened the Public Hearing. Yuen Yeh, the appellant, stated that the Homeowner's Association did not handle the approval properly and presented a letter (on file) signed by several neighbors within the HOA protesting the proposed balcony construction and stating that they had not been given appropriate time to respond to the Homeowner's Association notice. Mark Murdich, the applicant, thanked City Council for the process and explained that he had taken great trouble to improve his property. He noted that the bylaws of the Homeowners Association are written and that procedure was followed when they approved his change proposal. He further stated that he could not see into the appellant's house. Several neighbors from both the Dillon Lane development and the adjacent Goodwin Avenue neighborhood spoke about the history of the Dillon Lane development and the care taken during development to protect the privacy of residents of both neighborhoods through placement/design of the houses. Neighbors recollected both the developer and City Staff member Tom Passanisi examing their yards on several occasions to examine the properties in relation to privacy concerns. Eugene Gershtein stated that he had been President of the Valota Place Homeowner's Association at the time of Mr. Murdich's request for permission to pursue building a balcony. Mr. Gershtein emphasized that the CCNR specifies a procedure for getting changes approved, not blocking any change from occurring. M/S Hartnett/Ruskin to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. Council comment: Council Members expressed concern over the history of the development, the homeowners' expectations of privacy, and the planning put into it. Concern was voiced that while the change might be within the context of the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance but not within the context of the planned development. JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND MARCH 22, 2004 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAGE 9 MINUTES MINUTES Book No. 60 Page No. 172