CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

194 Councilman Henderson stated her opposition to the motion, noting this was the only area in that section of Redwood City which still retained office zoning, and the potential for office use would be wiped out by this action. She noted Council had another alternative, which had been discussed, which was to modify, or refer back to the Planning Commission without action, and urged that the ordinance not be supported for introduction at this time, since it was not in the best interests for good zoning in the area. Council- man Arnett responded that the City does retain certain controls through requirement for Use Permit. He felt that subsequent to voting, the Planning Commission should be asked to look at the remaining "PO" zoned lot with intent to rezone, since it seemed a logical stopping point. Motion to introduce Ordinance Adding Section 60.5.1 to Ordinance No. 1130, the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance, Rezoning Property in the Vicinity of Florence Street and Bay Road, carried on roll call bote, Councilmen Arnett, Keckley, Petersen, Rhodes and Mayor Bury voting yes; Councilmen Henderson and Weymouth voting no. Council requested that Staff examine the property under requirements with reference to dilapidated buildings. (Memo 5-13-70) Councilman Arnett moved to refer to the Planning Commission the matter of the remaining portion of the property designed "PO" in the area for review and report back to Council, with respect to zoning for the entire area, seconded by Councilman Keckley and carried. (MINUTE ORDER #70-82) Mayor Bury ordered a five minute recess at 9:50 p.m. Application of WALTER YOUNG and MRS, BERT O'BACK for exception to the Subdivision Ordinance to subdivide two parcels into three parcels and allow one lot to have a street frontage of 10' where 50' is required and to allow one lot to have an average lot width less than 50 feet, at 639 and 643 Canyon Road, Planning Commission had recommended, at meeting of April 14, 19703 that exception be granted, subject to specific conditions detailed in their report. Council indicated concern relative to accessibility for fire fighting equipment. It was noted the Fire Department recommended minimum acceptable width of 20 feet _ for access to the rear lot, which would require removal of a garage. The sketch submitted showed the frontage of "panhandle" leading to the rear lot to be 14.5 at the narrowest point, accomplished by means of an easement from the neighboring property, designated "Parcel C", which then tapered beyond the _ garage to a width of 20 feet. It was brought out that the larger of the three parcels could also be further subdivided. There was discussion concerning