My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
BOOK 26_1955-11-28 to 1957-06-17
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1955 to 1957 Book 26
>
BOOK 26_1955-11-28 to 1957-06-17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 10:17:41 AM
Creation date
10/16/2017 10:00:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
11/28/1955
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
510
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
428 <br />PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL V. MASARIE REQUEST FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT DUPLEXES ON LOTS AT <br />VALOTA AND ROOSEVELT (Lots 5, 6, 7 & 8, Block 4, West Redwood). At the request of the City Council,. <br />the Planning Commission reconsidered this matter. In view of the facts that resubdivision of the <br />lots was approved in October and November, 1955: subject to the owner agreeing to build single <br />family units, the Planning Commission reaffirmed its decision, that the sub -standard lots are not <br />large enough for duplexes and therefore the Planning Commission still, recommends that the request be G?" <br />denied. <br />Councilman Weiss stated that for all intents and purposed the original action appears to have effect <br />not only a resubdivison but one of rezoning. It appears that under the law as it stands, and as it <br />was at that, time, zoning be resolution is improper. He went on to say that if these properties are <br />to be restricted to R-1 uses, they should take proper action to so zone it in accordance with the <br />1. <br />law on the subject, however, before considering such action it will. be well to remember that the <br />area in which this property is located is presently zoned as, R-2. and the Land Use Plan which. has <br />been approved by the Planning Commission and which will be up soon for consideration by the Council, <br />contemplates placing that area at some time in the future as R -3-G. Councilman Weiss believes <br />that so much of, Resolution 19613 as implies the zoning of this property as R-1, should be rescinded so <br />as to permit use of the property for the purposes permitted by the zoning ordinance, namely R-2, at <br />the present time which is a more restrictive use then that finally proposed for the area. <br />Councilman Weiss moved that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the resolution rescinding a <br />portion of the resolution restricting the zoning on this property, seconded by Councilman Stout. , <br />Councilman Granger was of the opinion that possibly this should be referred back to the Planning <br />Commission. Planning Commissioner Webber stated that previous to this time the property owner asked <br />for the present rezoning and now he wants to switch back to R-2. The motion carried. xi <br />PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED SETTING OFFICIAL PLAN LINES FOR THE EXTENSION OF TACObIA WAY so that the L <br />property in the p roposed right-of-way be set aside until such time as it can be permanently improved. <br />Councilman Stout moved that this matter be set for public hearing on April 15th. seconded by Council- <br />man Herkner and carried. <br />PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL REAL ESTATE COP,IMITTEE CHECK POSSIBILITY OF ACQUIRING <br />PROPERTY BOUNDED BY HILTON, SPRING, HOOVER SCHOOL AND EXTENSION OF SPRUCE STREET. They asked that <br />this,be checked on its possible acquisition for future park and recreation use,.bgaring in mind the - <br />effect of the Spruce Street extension. The Commission building, and this site,.if suitable, might <br />be considered in this light. Councilman Weiss stated that this piece of property will amount to a <br />good deal of money. He moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager to explore the possible <br />means of financing and thereafter refer to the Real Estate Committee to bring back a report, seconded <br />by Councilman Stout. Councilman Granger was of the opinion that this s ould be referred to the Real <br />f <br />Estate Committee first and then to the City Manager. The motion carried. <br />TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED INSTALLATION OF MERCURY VAPOR TYPE OF LIGHT ON MIDDLEFT.ELD ROAD IN FRONT OF <br />THE CITY HALL. The Clerk read the letter. Councilman Granger moved approval of the Committee's <br />recommendation, seconded by Councilman Herkner. City Engineer Jain stated that this can be installed <br />by the City at a cost of approximately $152.00 if they use the new standard across the street from <br />the City Hall. If they install light in front of the police station it will cost approximately $400.00 <br />to install because they will have to put in a new standard. Councilman Spillers amended the motion so <br />the light will be installed on the opposite side of the street in front of the new police building, <br />seconded by Councilman Weiss. This was followed by discussion. The motion carried on roll call with <br />Councilmen Granger and Stout voting NO. <br />I <br />l <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.