CC MIN 1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 After further questioning and discussion of effect of proposed amendment , Council - man Petersen moved to close the public hearing , seconded by Councilman Rosselli and carried . Councilman Keckley moved to introduce Ordinance amending Sections 4 . 4 , 5 , 4 , 6 . 7 , 7 . 7, 8 . 7 , 9 . 7 , and 10 , 7 of Ordinance No . 1130 , the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance , relating to conditional uses and lot width , seconded by Councilman Weymouth . On question , Councilman Keckley approved proposed amendment as proper means for development with order , and felt amendment would also help solve on -street parking situations . Motion carried . Application for Exception to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a street to be a widith of 27 feet in part and 30 feet in part , instead of the required 54 feet , PERRY MANOR , being approximately one acre of land located at 1715 Valota Road , presented for consideration . It was reported Planning Commission considered the Tentative Map of Perry Manor and had recommended that the Council condition the approval of the requested exception , if approved , with specific conditions relating to extension of 51 sidewalk to exist - ing sidewalk on Sierra Street , extension of electroliers , street trees , underground - ing of power and telephone services , and relocation of PGE lines . Planning Commis - sion had also requested that Council give consideration to parking restrictions and a one -way street system for the proposed development , Council asked why parking restrictions and/or a one -way street requested by the Plan - ning Commission had not been incorporated into the conditions proposed if Exceptions granted . Planning Director advised this was not an appropriate condition to apply to the Final Map , City Attorney advised this condition would be in the complete jurisdiction of the Council . Council questioned developers ' reaction to conditions proposed for undergrounding and relocation of pole facilities . Mr . Perry Bygnes , representing applicant , H . H . MacDonald Company , intended purchasers of this property , advised parcel consisted of about one acre owned by Mr . and Mrs . Perry , longtime residents of Redwood City and now both in a rest home which necessitates sale of this land for their expenses . He advised H . H . MacDonald Company , builders of duplexes , had indicated their willingness to purchase this property , presently zoned for duplexes , if exceptions ap - proved . He discussed developing only half the street , explained how attempts to gain cooperation from other property owners in - volved had been of no avail and that an assessment district would indicate improvements would have to be accomplished by Council over -riding an apparent major protest , He ad - vised all of the conditions set by the Planning Commission had been agreed to by the developers and described the du - plexes proposed with garages for 3 cars and parking for another 3 on the premises , thereby making it possible to keep cars off the street . Council questioned whether a non -access strip could be made to prevent access from the unimproved side of the street . City Attorney advised as this street apparently had already been dedicated , it was not feasible to deny access to a public right of way , but if development of this unsubdivided property is proposed in the future , the street would have to be improved . Council questioned whether Fire Chief had approved N! 1 26 '69