My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC MIN 1957
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1957
>
CC MIN 1957
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2016 5:29:47 PM
Creation date
7/25/2016 1:11:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
1/7/1957
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
262
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
475 <br /> Arb Description Ask for Cancellation <br /> Vol. 6 Taxes Weed Tax. <br /> Nothing <br /> Vol. 7 <br /> 717-7A State of California <br /> 6.13 <br /> Vol.ol. 8 <br /> 904-13A City of Redwood City 7.50 <br /> 908-5 State of California 22.76 <br /> 908-18 County of San Mateo 11.88 <br /> 908-19 n n It n 11.58 <br /> $770.139 1293.7$ <br /> [:: Councilman Spillers moved approval of the City Collector's recommendation, seconded by Councilman Wey- <br /> mouth and carried. <br /> B & E AUTO LIQUIDATORS REQUEST FOR PERMIT TO OPERATE ADDITIONAL USED CAR LOT AT 1903 EL CAMINO REAL. There <br /> was no formal application presented. The City Attorney explained the procedure which was to be followed. <br /> The applicant stated that they wanted another lot. They had one lot on Main Street and now they want <br /> another one on El Camino Real. A couple of the members of the Council questioned whether or not they <br /> had ever allowed one company to own two used car lots. This was followed by discussion. Councilman <br /> Herkner was of the opinion that the City Manager should check the records to see what the Council <br /> had done in the past. The City Attorney recommended that the people make the proper application in <br /> accordance with the ordinance. The City would then advertise and hold the necessary public hearing. <br /> This would take approximately 4 weeks. This was followed by discussion because there seemed to be a <br /> misunderstanding as to what procedure should be followed. Councilman Spillers moved to refer this to the <br /> 10"" City Attorney for proper action, seconded by Councilman Weiss and carried. <br /> THATCHER NURSERY REQUEST ADDITIONAL TWO WEEKS TO CONDUCT CLOSEOUT SALE. There wasn't e n t arty letter on file with <br /> regard to the request. The Clerk's office stated that Mr. Thatcher came into the office and asked for <br /> the additional two weeks. The City Attorney stated that the man must file a revised inventory. Council- <br /> man Weymouth moved that the Clerk notify Mr. Thatcher of the proceedings to be followed, seconded by <br /> Councilman Stout and carried. <br /> REQUEST FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT "FIRE SALE", J. J. BLUM, REDWOOD SURPLUS, 1629 Main Street. The Clerk read the <br /> letter wherein Mr. Blum stated that he was applying for a permit to conduct a fire and close out sale <br /> of stocks of merchandise he recently purchased. Mr. Blum attached a check in the amount of $25.00 but <br /> he did not supply the necessary inventory. The City Attorney stated that since the applicant did not <br /> supply the material required under Secition 3 of Ordinance 137, he recommended that the application be <br /> returned with a request for a correct application. Councilman Weiss moved approval of the City Attorney's <br /> recommendation, seconded by Councilman Stout. This was followed by discussion after which the motion <br /> Lew carried. <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL APPLICATION L. ALAUX FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT REAR YARD SET- <br /> BACK INSTEAD OF FIFTEEN FEET AT 433 LINCOLN AVENUE (portion of Lot 3, Block K, Redwood Farms). The Clerk <br /> read the Planning Commission's letter wherein they stated that they held the necessary public hearing <br /> and made the necessary findings required under Ordinance 600. <br /> Councilman Weiss read a statement wherein he stated that these types of variances are becoming so <br /> frequent, and their being granted or denied raised so many questions as to their propriety or the possi- <br /> bility that the ordinance covering the problem of rear yards is not realistic that he can not think but <br /> that this Council should request the Planning Commission to make a study of the question and submit a <br /> report at the earlies practicable date. There is no question but that the Council can not let the zoning <br /> regulations become a farce by a constant negotation of endless variances. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.