BOOK 26_1955-11-28 to 1957-06-17

Browse Search

Councilman Spillers moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Britschgi and carried. Councilman Spillers moved that the Planning Commission recommendation be approved subject to the Traffic Committee restrictions, seconded by Councilman Granger. City Engineer Jain stated that the f City would have control over the situation if the Council approved the variance. The Council can not fontrol the matter of the driveways on Nimitz Avenue unless they approve the variance because Nimitz is a County street and the City does not have any jurisdiction. The City Attorney stated that he had the resolution prepared and it contained five conditions. The matter on no parking on Nimitz would have to be taken up by the County. Councilman Herkner stated that he couldnit see any reason wkly they could not have any exists at the end of the property to Woodside Road. Councilman Herkner amended the motion to have an exit only on Woodside Road, seconded by Councilman Stout. This was followed by discussion. The Mayor asked Councilman Herkner if this exist was a must. Councilman Herkner stated that it was, however, after further discussion he changed his motion to maybe. Council- man Stout stated that he could not go along with this change and withdrew his second to the motion. Councilman Britschgi seconded the change to the amendment which was again followed by discussion. The amendment carried on roll call with Councilmen Spillers, Stout and Weiss voting No. Councilman Spillers offered RESOLUTION 2143 FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOY A 51 REAR SETBAEK INSTEAD CF 151 ON LOTS i, 2, 3 AND 4s BLOCK 12 OAKLEIGH PARK, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS and moved its adoptions seconded by Councilman Britschgi and carried on roll call with Councilmen Stout and Weiss voting NO,. Councilman Stout left the meeting at 9:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING APPEALING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO DENY RESUBDIVISIONAND USE PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR GARAGE, SOUTHERLY CORNER MIDDLEFIELD ROAD AND FLYNN AVENUE (por. Lot 238, Redwood Village). The Clerk stated that he had been requested to check into the ordinances and he found Ordinance 586 whih zoned the property when it was annexed to the City. This ordinance is in accordance with the action taken by the Planning Commission. The Clerk read the Planning Commission's recommendation dated October 24th. Ted Seufert, representing the property owner, spoke about the zoning and where the dividing line falls on this property. He feels that all of Lot 238 should be zoned commercial. Mr. Seufert explained what they plan to use the property for and how the zoning effects this property and their proposed use of the property. There was difference of opinion as to how deep the zoning went, 1001 or 125'3 Mr. M. Traver presented a petition signed by residents and property owners in Redwood Village protesting the rezoning of Lot 238 and also protested the building of any commercial building that will face Flynn Avenue as this will create a traffic hazard at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Flynn Avenue. There was considerable discussion in regard to the depth of the C -1-H zoning. Councilman Britschgi was of the opinion that this should be referred back to the Planning Commission because he believes that there are some matters here that were not presented to the Planning Commission. This was followed by discussion in regard to the inlet and outlet being on Middlefield Road and not on Flynn Avenue. Mitchell Webber stated that one of the reasons that the Planning Commission denied this was the fact that the set backs for the street widening on Middlefield and also the radious required for the entrance to Flynh Avenue would cut down the size of the property. Councilman Britschgi moved that the matter be continued for one week to let the City Officials come back with the complete report in regard to the entrance to Redwood Village and also the extent of the zoning, seconded by Councilman Weiss who asked that they bring in a statement as tovbat will happen to the balance of the property. This was followed by discussion after which the motion carried. PU$LIC HEARING, APPEAL PLANNING OOM tIIISSION, ECO10 ENDATION TO DENY USE PERMIT AT 532 WINSLOW STREET AND �i