CC Min 1996-08-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Makovsky concluded that Mr. Whitaker's property and those east of his are geologically different from the western properties and the Council policy should apply only to the area west of Mr. Whitaker's property. Mr. McCracken. said he agreed with Mr. Makovsky's logical, rational and factually based conclusion that the Laurel Way policy "line" should be drawn to the west of Mr. Whitaker's property. Mr. McCracken said he wanted to address Councilman Claire's concern regarding the slope formula required. He noted that of the four variances requested No.3 is moot as Mr. Whitaker agreed to .the 25 feet setback. As to Variances No.1 and 2, lot size and width, Mr. McCracken quoted from an opinion from the City Attorney in 1986, " ....sIope density requirements do not apply. Substandard lots were grandfathered, but other requirements have to be met." Mr. McCracken said that is a common feature of land use law, and he believed that Mr. Whitaker's lot was one of those "grandfathered in." He added that even if it "were not, universally recognized principles of variance law in this state would warrant the granting of a variance." Mr. Whitaker stated the report proves the soils will sustain single family structures as well as a street. He elaborated on the plan he and his neighbors have for building a 29' road way (inside curb to inside curb with one side of parking on the downhill side) from just beyond his property back to the developed edge of Laurel Way (Station 3- 51), and the many benefits that would accrue to the citizens of Redwood City, including access for safety vehicles, cessation of erosion due to installation of storm drains, street lighting, and increased tax revenues to the City. He said the road he and his neighbors plan to build will be 350 feet long and wi!! cost approximately $220,000, but halfway past the lot next to his the geography changes dramatically and the unimproved road (which has a retaining wall) would cost triple for each linear foot to gain access into that area. Mr. Whitaker said he was trying to appeal to the fairness of the Council in making a decision to allow the line of development to extend to Station 3-51 and "let us build you a roadway and let us build our homes and live on Laurel Way. To incorporate us in the problems that exist further down Laurel Way is unjust and is prejudicing these good lots." He asked the Council to keep all of this in mind when considering amending the 1988 ruling that required an EIR for anyone who wished to build on Laurel Way. Mayor Hartnett called on anyone else who wished to speak to this issue. Lawrence Purcell, 3733 Laurel Way, resident on Laurel Way for twelve years said Laurel Way was a gigantic cul-de-sac and it presented a significant fire hazard, which was the number one problem in the area. He related an incident involving the problem fire tankers had trying to put out a fire there and expressed concern that with more population the fire hazards increased, and traffic was already a huge problem. He REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 AUGUST 26,1996 MINUTES PAGE 24 Paqe No. 461