|
173
<br /> depositors . When the ban was lifted, they had very
<br /> few, because they were not building and could not hold
<br /> the depositors . Several of those remaining are now
<br /> anxious to buy new units and they were still negotiating
<br /> with two of them .
<br /> Councilman Henderson referred to a letter dated March 23 , 1971 from Fire Chief
<br /> Keller to former City Manager Howard Ulirich, relating to fire protection,
<br /> copies of which were forwarded to the Council , expressing concern regarding
<br /> shingle roofs and shingle siding, and asked for response . Fire Chief indicated
<br /> he still had the same concern for this type structure , which has a different
<br /> roof than a townhouse , and had discussed the matter with Chief Building Official .
<br /> They had not evaluated the situation to determine whether they would change their
<br /> opinion on this as yet . He indicated greater concern would relate to equipment ,
<br /> stations and manpower . In response to question by Councilman Weymouth , he
<br /> advised that from the standpoint of fire protection, access to the detached
<br /> structures would be simpler than to the townhouses .
<br /> Following additional discussion, Councilman Petersen moved to close the public
<br /> hearing , seconded by Councilman Weymouth and carried .
<br /> Councilman Henderson moved to deny the Planned Development Permit , seconded by
<br /> Councilman Petersen . Motion lost on roll call vote , Councilmen Keckley, Rhodes ,
<br /> Weymouth, Williams and Mayor Bury voting no ; Councilmen Henderson and Petersen
<br /> voting yes .
<br /> Councilman Keckley moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO . 6521 CONDITIONALLY APPROVING APPLICA-
<br /> TION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF
<br /> QUAY LANE AND BOWSPRIT DRIVE IN THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, incorporating a number
<br /> of specific conditions , seconded by Councilman Williams . There was lengthy
<br /> discussion as to the conditions and schedules enumerated in the letter presented
<br /> to Council at the beginning of the meeting, from the Redwood Shores Homeowners
<br /> Association . City Attorney indicated the intent of the motion could be accommodated,
<br /> but that clarification was necessary, such as the type of boat docks and ramps
<br /> intended under Item 1, since there were no specifications , and under Item 2 ,
<br /> whether the Monterey Pine trees were to be 23 feet at time of planting . Councilman
<br /> Keckley amended his motion relative to Item 1 to include Architectural Committee
<br /> review, and Item 2 to specify the trees to be 23 feet tall at time of installation .
<br /> Concerning Item 6 , he felt this was simply insuring orderly and harmonious
<br /> execution of the Master Plan . City Attorney advised this would probably be
<br /> referred to as a policy statement . He indicated that under Item 3 , the enforcement
<br /> would be against the applicant in this case , and felt provision should be included
<br /> which would provide in case of sale of the property, an agreement would have to
<br /> be entered into between the seller ( Swartz ) and the homeowner which would permit
<br /> Swartz to enter the property and do the landscaping , in the event the homeowner
<br /> failed to do so . He suggested wording to the effect that in the event landscaping,
<br /> as approved by the City, is not installed within six months of the date of sale ,
<br /> that the applicant , Swartz , will enter upon the property and fulfill the require-
<br /> ments for establishing the landscaping .
<br /> Following additional discussion, Councilman Keckley suggested that under Item 3,
<br /> it might be well to require the builder to install the landscaping .
<br /> Mr . Gustafson stated that their attorneys can draw
<br /> up an agreement with their buyers that would assure
<br /> they will have landscaped within six months , or the
<br /> penalty would be severe enough that Swartz could afford
<br /> to go in and do the work . He felt if they were to
<br /> landscape for the buyer, something would be lost in the
<br /> individual character of the rear yards . He recommended
<br /> that Council put the burden of landscaping on them and
<br /> they would protect themselves . He pointed out they have
<br /> a substantial economic investment to safeguard .
<br /> Councilman Williams felt that the discussion was becoming involved in areas not
<br /> related to the Planned Development Permit , and noted that there was on file CC&R
<br /> that went with every property, requiring landscaping within six months . The
<br /> enforcement procedure , he felt , had nothing to do with the application before
<br /> Council , and suggested adding the two first conditions and allow the development
<br /> to proceed .
<br /> Councilman Keckley reviewed the conditions to be incorporated in his motion :
<br /> Item 1 to include docks to be subject to Architectural Committee review ; Item 2
<br /> to require 23-foot trees to be installed, to be selected from a list from studies
<br /> made by University of California in the Redwood Shores area, and subject to
<br /> approval by the Committee ; Item 3 to require that all buyers landscape their
<br /> rear yards , omitting the provision regarding enforcement , assuming the applicant
<br /> will insure their buyers will comply ; eliminating Item 4 ; Item 5 considered to
<br /> be projection and intent only and not binding on the Company, and Item 6 to be
<br /> eliminated, being simply a policy statement .
<br />
|