Laserfiche WebLink
Guadalupe Ruiz offered his support for the proposed district. He thanked the <br /> Council and expressed his pride in being a citizen of Redwood City. <br /> <br /> M/S Ruskin/Howard to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a <br /> unanimous voice vote by those present. <br /> <br /> M/S Jordan/Ira to approve the recommendations from the Planning Commission <br /> and Historic Resources Advisory Committee (HRAC) to designate the properties <br /> described below as the "Main Street Historic District" per Chapter 40, "The Historic <br /> Preservation Ordinance," of the Redwood City Code. <br /> <br /> Addresses and parcel numbers of properties located within the proposed district: <br /> <br /> 726*, 800, 831-835, 839, and 847-849 Main Street; 1991,2000*, 2020*, and <br /> 2022-2024* Broadway, (see attached map). APN, 052-374-140, 053-131-050, <br /> 053-233-230, 053-233-130, 053-233-120, 053-233-270,052-374-180,052-374- <br /> 100, respectively. MINUTE ORDER 02-310 <br /> <br /> RESOLUTION 14474 APPROVING APPLICATION FOR MAIN STREET HISTORIC <br /> DISTRICT <br /> <br /> B. A public hearing on an appeal of an Architectural Permit at 366 Hillview <br /> Avenue; (603) <br /> <br /> Principal Planner Jany explained the requirements for an Architectural Permit to be <br /> granted. He stated that the design review is governed by a general set of <br /> standards located in Article 45 of the Zoning Ordinance. A slide presentation was <br /> used to explain the proposed addition and exhibit the site plan. In summary, staff <br /> reviewed an application for an expansion of a home, the home met the required <br /> criteria, and staff sees no significant impact and has approved similar projects in <br /> the past. <br /> <br /> Council asked various questions of staff. <br /> <br /> Mayor Claire opened the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Sue Marek, appellant made her presentation of the appeal stating that it is based <br /> on the City Zoning Ordinance architectural standards, Article 45.8, Item C. She <br /> used various slides to exhibit the reasons and concerns related to the proposal. <br /> As stated in Ms. Marek's letter of appeal dated October 23, 2002, the following <br /> were the reasons and concerns: 1) The structure does not conform; 2) the <br /> Viviani's have many options; 3) the Planning Department is using an incorrect <br /> basis for comparison; 4) additional relevant issues; and 5) summary. <br /> <br />REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2002 <br />MINUTES PAGE 6 <br />MINUTES Book No. 59 <br />Page No. 296 <br /> <br /> <br />