|
94
<br /> of electrocutions has not increased . He
<br /> indicated this was possible because the
<br /> industry is safety--minded, and because of
<br /> use of the National Code ,
<br /> Carl Martineau , Consulting Engineer , indicated
<br /> after lengthy study he could find no correlation
<br /> between use of either method and safety , and
<br /> supported adoption .
<br /> Gordon B1. ackley , Executive Vice President ,
<br /> Building Industry Association , urged that
<br /> Council follow the recommendations , and advised
<br /> his association had advocated adoption for some
<br /> time .
<br /> Following brief additional discussion , Councilman Weymouth moved
<br /> to close the public hearing , seconded by Councilman Rhodes and carried .
<br /> Councilman Weymouth moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO , 1538 REPEALING
<br /> ARTICLES I , II AND III OF , AMENDING THE CHAPTER HEADING OF , ADDING
<br /> ARTICLE I TO, AMENDING AND RENUMBERING THE ARTICLE HEADINGS OF
<br /> ARTICLES III AND IV OF , CHAPTER 11 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
<br /> REDWOOD CITY ; AND ADDING ARTICLE IX TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE CODE OF
<br /> THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REGULATIONS
<br /> AND STANDARDS FOR ELECTRICAL WORK AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS , INCLUDING
<br /> THE ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE "NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1971
<br /> EDITION, " WITH AMENDMENTS , AS PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE
<br /> PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, seconded by Councilman Norris . On the
<br /> question , Councilman Rhodes expressed concern as to safety of non -
<br /> metallic cable and did not feel standards should be reduced to the
<br /> National Standards , and would therefore oppose the motion . Motion
<br /> carried on roll call vote , Councilman Rhodes voting no , and Council-
<br /> man Williams being noted absent .
<br /> PUBLIC HEARING , Resolution of Intention of the Planning Commission to
<br /> initiate proceedings to amend Sections 32 . 14 ( a ) and (b ) of Ordinance
<br /> No , 1130 , the Zoning Ordinance , relating to spacing between accessory
<br /> and main buildings , declared open and affidavit of publication ordered
<br /> filed .
<br /> Planning Director reported that the proposed amendment was initiated
<br /> following consideration by Council of a variance application for a
<br /> dwelling where accessory building was requested to be less than.
<br /> required 10 feet from the main building, and Council reversed denial
<br /> by the Planning Commission , who had felt the 10 feet requirement
<br /> should be adhered to , or the Ordinance amended . At the same time ,
<br /> Council requested a review of the Ordinance by Planning Commission .
<br /> It was now proposed that the requirement be changed from minimum of
<br /> 10 feet to a space equivalent to one -half the height of the accessory
<br /> building, but not less than six feet .
<br /> There being no further discussion , nor communications , Councilman
<br /> Leipzig moved to close the public hearing , seconded by Councilman
<br /> Rhodes and carried .
<br /> Councilman Norris moved to introduce Ordinance amending Section 32 . 14
<br /> of Ordinance No . 1130 , the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Redwood
<br /> City , relating to Accessory Buildings , seconded by Councilman Rhodes
<br /> and carried .
<br /> Councilman Weymouth moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO . 6755 GRANTING EXCEPTIONS
<br /> TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF R.&WOOD
<br /> CITY - CHALLENGE DEVELOPMENTS , INC . , seconded by Councilman Leipzig .
<br /> Staff report indicated that request was by Challenge Developments , Inc . ,
<br /> owners of property for which a Planned Development Permit was approved
<br /> by Council to Leon Rimov & Associates on May 8 , 1972 . Councilman
<br /> Norris spoke in opposition to the request , indicating that because
<br /> of the topography only one -half of the frontage was buildable . He
<br /> felt the developer had operated in good faith in working with the
<br /> Planning Commission , but that additional investigation was necessary
<br /> and that the third home should not be permitted on these lots .
<br /> Planning Director responded to comments from Council , indicating that
<br /> because of topography the site did not lend itself to sub - division , so
<br /> to achieve maximum development , the developer chose the Planned Develop -
<br /> ment procedure . Parcel is divided into five lots , with four building
<br /> sites , and the fifth lot to be a common area for use by the other four .
<br /> Charles Olivia , of Chali. enc e Developments ,
<br /> spoke briefly with regard to their request .
<br /> 7-10 -72
<br /> Reg . Mtg .
<br />
|