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
4-30 P� <br />S. H. Kreiss, Police Chief William FaulsdbAs Assistant to City Manager L. A. Kimball, Police Captain <br />Theodore Moudakas, Senior Stenographer—Clerk Vivian Holmqust, <br />JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE presented the Courtesy Driver of the Week Award to Mrs. Charles Paff. <br />PERSONAL APPEARANCE, C. M. HARRISON REGARDING FOOT BRIDGE ACROSS REDWOOD CREEK REAR 17-19 JAMES AVENUE. <br />Mr. Chester Lebsack, representing Mr. Harrison, stated that it was impossible to get all the property <br />owners to agree to the conditions set by the Council at a previous meeting several months ago. He <br />Fp said his client would sign an agreement granting ingress and egress across his property. Mr. Lebsack <br />q also spoke about the dlimi.nation of two or three parking meters to form a loading zone. Councilman <br />Herkner wanted to know if they were going to take out two or three meters. Mr. Jain was of the opinion <br />that they would need the three spaces because of the problem raised by diagonal parking. He also <br />stated that there was a condition that they failed to notify the property owners about and that was <br />the item of paying for the loss of revenue from the parking meters. Councilman Spillers stated that <br />he did not remember the Council considering the paying of the lost revenue from the parking meters. <br />This was followed by discussion in regard to whether or not tYis was a foot bridge and it it were a <br />foot bridge would it be strong enough to carry 500 pounds. Mr. Lebsack stated that the bridge would <br />be strong enought to carry heavy weights, it would not be wide enough to carry vehicular traffic. <br />Mr. Lebsack stated that the property owners on,each side of Willie's Alumni will be allowed to use the <br />bridge. The City Attorney recommended that the Council take action tonight but he asked that they <br />refer the matter to hime to determine whether or not they should eliminate the parking meters. This <br />was followed by disussion in regards to the Council issuring a revocable permit. <br />Councilman Weymouth moved to grant the permit subject to the approval of the City attorney, revocable <br />permit, the use of the bridge by other property owners, proper ingress and egress, and the City <br />Attorney approval of the elimination of the parking meters, seconded by Councilman Spillers. Council— <br />man Hsrkne� stated that the Council should remember that there was a store in town in back of Parking <br />District No. 1 which did not have access to the back of their property because the adjoining property <br />owner put up a fence thus preventing ingress and egress. This was followed by discussion after which <br />the motion carried on roll call, Councilman Weiss being noted absent. <br />PERSONAL APPEARANCE, A. MAYER REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL REQUEST TO RESUBDIVIDE WESTERLY J OF <br />LOT 3, BLOCK G, WOODSIDE ACRES (1533 Union Avenue), The Clerk read the letter submitted by Mr. Mayer <br />wherein he asked for reconsideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of his. <br />resubdivision.. The City Attorney advised that the appeal was out of order and the only appeal that <br />could be considered would have to come from the Subdivision Committee to the Planning Commission. This <br />was questioned and the City Attorney read the amended section of the ordinance governing subdivision <br />of four or less lots. They Mayor stated that the property in gtzestion is about 80' x 27519 This <br />would meet the requirement for square footage but not the requirement for front footage. <br />Councilman Spillers moved to refer this to the Planning Commission with the thought that this is <br />a good subdivision. This motion lost for lack of a second. Councilman Granger spoke about the 39.60' <br />frontage and reminded the Council that there was a possibility of a street being built at the rear of <br />this property and if such were the case it would not be good planning to allow this subdivision of <br />the lot. Mr. Mayer addressed the Council and pleaded his case, stating that he bought this property <br />several years ago with the thought in mind of building an additional building when he has sufficient <br />funds. Since that thime the property has been rezoned and he does not,want to build an adjoining <br />addition to his present house. The Mayor informed Mr. Mayer that legally the Council could not act <br />on this matter unless they referred this back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. <br />Councilman EbUllers moved to refer this to the Planning Commission along with the thought of the Council <br />that this be reconsidered_.- seconded by Councilman Herkner. Councilman Granger questioned the wording <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.