1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1. That the unusable and extraneous material be removed within a 30 -day time limitation from the time of approval of these conditions. 2. That an improvement agreement be required for the extension of sewer facilities, the installation of storm drainage system under the sidewalks to the existing street gutter, the installation of standard street monuments, and the planting of street trees. 3. That the site development plan for Lot 1 be submitted to the Architectural Committee for the securing of an architectural permit. Slide shown of the site involved which had been previously prezoned to IR prior to annexation, indicating the subdivision proposed by applicant for seven lots, six having direct frontage on Middlefield Road, with remaining lot being in the rear with an access strip fronting on Middlefield Road. It was noted subdivision met the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance requirements with one excep- tion, being Lot 1 with a frontage on a public street of only 25 feet instead of 70 feet required in an IR District, and 50 feet required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff report stated exception recommended subject to certain conditions con- cerning clearing, of site of existing structures and materials, either prior to approval of Final Map, or by a separate improvement agreement, also covering utility improvements. Councilman Rosselli moved to adopt Resolution granting exception, seconded by Councilman Keckley. Paul Tessendorff, 45 Claremont, questioned if any annexa- tion requests had been sought from property owners at corner of Mac Arthur Avenue. On question Councilman Henderson requested information from Fire Chief as to whether access proposed to interior lot would be sufficient for Fire Protection purposes. Fire Chief stated access proposed not as desirable as a standard street, because of cars not being restricted from parking in access strip which would cause problems. He stated he could not advise further without knowing what type of construction proposed for rear parcel. Planning Director reported solution pro- posed had been somewhat of a compromise from what had been allowable when area still in County jurisdiction, and what would be required when property annexed to the City, as original proposed development had indicated only one access to the rear parcel, whereas proposed solution offered an emergency alternate access by way of the public access easement proposed. Councilman Henderson questioned controls possible for insuring a desirable use of rear parcel on account of Fire Department's concern. Planning Director advised Planning Commission had indicated development would be subject to architectural control in order to control location of a building on this site. Owner had indi- cated his agreement to having the area zoned with an A -Combining District, and Planning Commission had initiated such action. Councilman Keckley expressed concern for parking restriction on access proposed and questioned best procedure for gaining proper controls, besides insuring removal of structures now on property as recommended. City Attorney explained W i V 40