My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2002-02-25
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2002
>
AgdaPkt 2002-02-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:51:37 PM
Creation date
3/11/2002 7:47:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
2/25/2002
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.
/
202
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
M/S Ira/Howard to: <br /> i) Approve the transfer of $203,345 in the CIP budget from 263-70015 Gas Tax <br /> Construction Fund to 357-72424 Building Permit System Upgrade; <br /> ii) Authorize thc City Manager to execute the Agreement for Professional Services <br /> and Software License (CRW System, Inc. dba CRW Associates) and to purchase <br /> the required system hardware. <br /> The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. MINUTE ORDER 02-31 <br /> <br /> 11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -Nonc <br /> <br /> 12. PUBLIC HEARING- <br /> <br /> A. Appeal of Architectural Permit at 907 Pleasant Hill Road: <br /> <br /> Principal Planner Passanisi gave the background and showed slides reflecting the <br /> relationship of the applicant and appellant's lots. He described the Planning issues to be that <br /> of necessary conformance to the zoning standards and that other issues such as shadow and <br /> privacy are not within the scope of architectural review. The architectural permit review is <br /> limited to generally reviewing the roof overhang, materials and siding, including <br /> conformance to the zoning ordinance. He stated that the addition conforms to City <br /> requirements and exceeds the rear yard setback requirements. <br /> <br /> Passanisi stated staff recommendation is to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator <br /> and appwve the Architectural Permit. He pointed out that staff suggested both parties enter <br /> mediation, however, the appellant declined and chose to proceed with the appeal process. <br /> <br /> Council asked various questions. <br /> <br /> Jan Wesolowski, the appellant, stated his reasons for thc appeal as loss of privacy, loss of <br /> light, loss of view, loss of property value. He elaborated on the aforementioned reasons. (A <br /> letter was submitted for the record and is on file in the Clerk's Office.) <br /> <br /> John Comito, the applicant, explained why he thinks the proposed addition is well within <br /> the City ordinances with respect to the appellant's residence and the appeal should be <br /> denied. <br /> <br /> M/S H~uhiett/Ira to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br /> Council discussion ensued and various questions were asked. <br /> <br /> M/S Jordan/Howard to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to Approve the <br /> Architectural Permit, denying the appeal. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. <br /> MINUTE ORDER 02-32 <br /> <br />13. CLOSED SESSION - No action to report. <br /> <br />REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 28, 2002 <br />MINUTES PAGE 6 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.