Laserfiche WebLink
v el 4 <br />Request of W. R. Barnett for sewer connection to his property at 583 Canyon Road <br />(Por. Lot 7, Block 27, Oak Knoll Manor) presented for consideration. Staff report <br />stated Mr. Barnett had applied for annexation of his property and brought in appli- <br />cations from owners of several other parcels adjacent to his as well. However, in <br />order that he may expedite building on his property, he requests a sewer connection, <br />for which he is willing to pay the usual deposit and fees. City Manager's report <br />and recommendation for granting of this request was made subject to the following <br />conditions: <br />1. Payment of a connection fee of $550, plus one basic fee of <br />$75, or a total connection fee of $625 for one single family <br />residence. <br />2. A $500 deposit refundable if annexation occurs within two years. <br />3. Construct a 6 -inch public sewer in a 10 ft. P.U.F. along the <br />southerly portion of the 20 ft. wide access road. The City <br />Engineer to approve the plans. <br />4. Dedication of the P.U.E, to City prior to connecting to the <br />Canyon Road Sewer. <br />5. Agreement to an additional 10 ft. setbacl, to provide for a 1.0 ft. <br />widening of Canyon Road for an ultimate right-of-way width of <br />60 ft. <br />6. Tn the event of annexation, City reserves the riht to review the <br />re -subdivision and the access road alignment. <br />Councilman Granger questioned whether applicant was aware of conditions recom- <br />mended if permit granted. <br />Mr. Barnett stated his willingness to abide by conditions <br />and of his desire to be able to build his home on this <br />recently acquired property during this construction season. <br />He also reassured Council on his willingness to annex and <br />that his application was on file. <br />Council questioned building plans and if construction would follow Redwood City's <br />standards if built under County permit. Building Inspector advised very little <br />difference between City and County restrictions. City Attorney advised resolu- <br />tion as prepared had omitted 2 recommendations of City Manager: (1) concerning <br />review of re -subdivision of his parcel as this would be an automatic procedure <br />in any event; (2) connection fee recommended as applicant required to construct <br />some 300' of public sewer and rule not entirely applicable. <br />Councilman Rosselli moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5088 GRANTING CONDITIONAL SEWER <br />CONNECTION PERMIT TO PREMISES SITUATE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS PURSUANT TO SECTION <br />27.21.1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY AND STATING CONDITIONS THEREOF <br />AND FEES THEREFOR (BARNETT) seconded by Councilman Granger and carried on roll <br />call vote, Councilman Bury being noted absent. <br />Councilman Keckley moved to introduce Ordinance amending Section 3.62 of the Code of <br />the City of Redwood City relating to the measurement of sign areas. Planning <br />Director depicted from illustration, amendment proposed which would alleviate pro- <br />blem of present ordinance prohibitively restricting large signs for building <br />structures with large wall area and great setbacks from streets. He stated amend- <br />ment proposed simply makes the original concept of the sign ordinance to be consis- <br />tnet with sign ordinance content, there being no change in the basic premises and <br />merely makes clearer to interpret. He outlined how this would be applicable to the <br />