CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

84 of the surrounding property owr s. Since the Planning Commission approved this tentative maps it apparently believes it is the best subdivision layout possible for the property. I believe that the owners of the property, have a right to develop the propety into a subdivision as long as it meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The subdividers have done everything within reason to meet the requirements of the City; there— fore# I request approval of the tentative map so that we may proceed with the subdivision with assurance that the final map will be approved by the Council when it is submitted. Very truly yoursa Co E. Randlett Gentlemen: Res Tentative Map — Oakley Tract The Planning Commsi.ssion approved the Oakley Tract Tentative Map under the following conditionsa 1. Large lot marked "Not a part of this subdivision" be included in subdivision. 2. All engineering requests of the City Engineer be met. 3. Tract name be changed to avoid conflict with Oakleigh Tract. fit. Street be constructed to tie into Virginia Street and it contain 34 feet of paving. 5• Curbs# gutters and sidewalks (except sidewalks in front of Large lot) required along both sides of the entire length of Rosemary Lane. Respectfully submitteds Mitchell Weber., Secretary Councilman Herkner spoke on the subject and he was still of the opinion that they should move two houses. He wanted to see this explored very thoroughly before the Council takes final action. Mr. Kilcline stated that if the proposed street is cut through it would create a 51 setback on his property from the property line. His house would only be 141 from the curb. He stated that he had talked over the matter of selling his house to Mr. Guida. Mr. Guida feels that the cast w ould be too much. This was followed by discussion in regard to consideration of all methods and also in regard to additionalproperty being allowed by the change of the previous plans and how this would effect the property on each side of Rosemary Lane at its intersection with Virginia Avenue. Mr. Guida was in the audience and stated that he would purchase the two pieces of property if they will sell at the fair market price on the condition that they are appraised by three different appraiser. This was t followed by discussion. Councilman Weiss moved that this matter be held in abeyance and referred to a Council Committee along with Mr. Guidas members of the Planning Commission and the property awnera involved,, seconded by Councilman Britschgi and carried on the agenda for two weeks. The motion carried. PALNNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL D. J. URRERE VARIANCE TO ALLCK TPfO CAR GARAGE AT REAR OF HOUSE (20 HILLTOP DRIVE). The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application on the basis ` of findings set borth in their letter of recommendations ` 1. Present garage will not contain automobile., hence not being used and carport is in front of area. 2. Present garage area is necessary for additional bedroom. . .w.ri 3. Requested location only available area for proposed garage. 49 Proposed structure will not be detrimental to adjoining property. 5• Present substandard carport will be removed, improving appearance of property. Councilman Weiss moved that this be referred back to the Planning Commission to find out if they havet found anything in the ordinance to back up their stand and what the specific changes weres seconded by Councilman Granger who asked that they include in the letter to the Planning Commission that it was Councilman Weiss who wanted to know what the changes were. This was followed by discussion on the ordinance. Councilman Weiss stated he wanted this referred back to the Planning Commission requesting that they make and affirmative statement that the three conditions in the ordinance are being met. The City Attorney ruled that written findings of fact are contained in the letter and if the Council