CC MIN 1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

170 Discussion followed concerning the desirability of being less specific at this time and stating only that the street be con- structed at the most feasible westerly point Part 5) of the motion failed by majority voice vote Mr Fales and Mr Schroeter then stated their understanding of Council ' s intent in amending the proposed revisions and advised that staff will prepare the necessary documents reflecting the amendments and present them to Council for confirmation at the next meeting if possible 0 (MINUTE ORDER NO 75-208) , (Parts 1 through 4) MOTION Councilman Henderson moved, seconded by Councilman Rhodes, that the areas in the proposed revisions to the General Plan re- lating to Redwood Shores which are designated "garden apartment" carry the dual designation of "garden apartment/commercial- recreational " The motion failed on the following roll call vote Ayes. Councilman Barrett, Henderson, Rhodes Noes. Councilman Leipzig, Norris, Williams and Mayor Weymouth Councilman Norris stated for the record that the Planning Commis- sion should be commended for their extensive study and recommen- dations with regard to the proposed revisions to the General Plan, observing that the Planning Commission is confined to certain guidelines and restrictions in making their study, while in their overview, the City Council may also take into considera- tion different criteria relating to political , economic and financial considerations Mayor Weymouth announced that the proposed revisions to the General Plan as amended by Council are being referred to staff for preparation of the necessary documents and will be re- submitted for confirmation by Council at the November 3, 1975 Council meeting, if possible Mayor Weymouth stated that final adoption of the proposed revisions will be before Council at that time (The Council recessed from 10 35 to 10 44 p m ) Public Hearing - proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance defining violations City Manager Fales referred to the material on the subject proposed amendment provided by the Planning Department In response to question, Planning Director Schroeter advised that certain material referred to in the Planning Commission Minutes had not been sent to Council and was now available Mr Schroeter also advised that there is no particular urgency connected with the subject proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance should Council prefer to continue the item pending consideration of the material now being distributed MOTION Councilman Rhodes moved, seconded by Councilman Henderson, to continue consideration of the public hearing relating to the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance defining violations until November 3, 1975 The motion carried unanimously by voice vote (MINUTE ORDER NO 75-209) -G- Reg Mtg 10/13/75