AgdaPkt 2004-05-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1.A-lo along the side property lines and also along the creek culvert. The conditions also required the applicant to implement all other mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. No specific information was found that referenced how to address amendments to the Planned Development or that precluded any arrendments or revisions to the Planned Development Permit in the future. As a result, at this time, Staff reviewed the current application for the proposed Planned Development.\mendment on its individual merits. Staff felt that the form of the approved (1997) development, specifically the layout of the 8 units on a "r shape cul-de-sac with increased rear yard setbacks and the additional landscaping was designed to specifically address the privacy issues raised in the 1996 submittal which was denied. Furthermore, Staff considered the size and location of the existing picture windows located on the rear elevations of the two adjacent units (including 6 Dillon Lane which has a 50 foot rear yard setback) and made the determination that the proposed balcony did not create any significant new privacy issues for properties to the side or rear of the project parcel. The proposed addition of a forty-nine (49) square foot rear balcony complies with the requirements of the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance within the Residential Duplex "R-2" District with respect to height, side yard and rear yard setbacks. Additional conditions were placed on the proposed addition to ensure quality of design and compatibility with the existing single-family residence. Furthermore, the proposed addition is consistent with other second story balcony additions approved for single-family residences within Redwood City. Redwood City does not have any privacy or view ordinances. The City also received written authorization from the Valota Place Home Owners' Association regarding the proposed balcony. Standard City policy with respect to properties in Home Owners' Associations is to require written authorization or stamped plans by the Home Owners' Association prior to submittal to the City. In this case it appears that the Home Owners' Association's procedures were not deemed adequate by the appellant. However, it is beyond the City's purview to interject itself into the Home Owners' Association's authorization process. Recommendation Deny the appeal, thereby, maintaining the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow for the construction of the balcony with compatible materials. Alternatives 1. Deny or uphold the appeal in part, with additional conditions of approval that address design compatibility and/or privacy concern issues. 2. Uphold the appeal, thereby disallowing for the construction of the balcony and make the appropriate findings to support action. The findings should reflect the appellant's issues with respect to lack of design compatibility and/or privacy concerns. Fiscal Impact None 6