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
Arb Description <br />Vol. 6 <br />Nothing <br />Vol. <br />717-7A State of California <br />Vol. 8 <br />Ask for Cancellation <br />Taxes <br />Weed Tax. <br />$ 6.13 <br />X75 <br />904-13A City of Redwood City 7.50 <br />908-5 State of California 22.76 <br />908-18 County of San Mateo 11.188 <br />908-19 it It of It 11.58 <br />$7784'TSTM <br />Councilman Spillers moved approval of the City Collector's recommendation, seconded by Councilman Wey- <br />mouth and carried. <br />B & E AUTO LIQUIDATORS REQUEST FOR PERMIT TO OPERATE ADDITIONAL USED CAR LOT AT 1903 EL CAMINO REAL. There <br />was no formal application presented. The City Attorney explained the procedure which was to be followed. <br />The applicant stated that they wanted another lot. They had one lot on Main Street and now they want <br />another one on E1 Camino Real. A couple of the members of the Council questioned whether or not they <br />had ever allowed one company to own two used car lots. This was followed by discussion. Councilman <br />Herkner was of the opinion that the City Manager should check the records to see what the Council <br />had done in the past. The City Attorney recommended that the people make the proper application in <br />accordance with the ordinance. The City would then advertise and hold the necessary public hearing. <br />This would take approximately 4 weeks. This was followed by discussion because there seemed to be a <br />misunderstanding as to what procedure should be followed. Councilman Spillers moved to refer this to the <br />City Attorney for proper action, seconded by Councilman Weiss and carried. <br />THATCHER NURSERY REQUEST ADDITIONAL TWO WEEKS TO CONDUCT CLOSEOUT SALE. There wasn't any letter on file with <br />regard to the request. The Clerk's office stated that Mr. Thatcher came into the office and asked for <br />the additional two weeks. The City Attorney -stated that the man must file a revised inventory. Cmmcil- <br />man Weymouth moved that the Clerk notify Mr. Thatcher of the proceedings to be followed, seconded by <br />Councilman Stout and carried. <br />REQUEST FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT "FIRE SALE°, J. J. BLUM, REDWOOD SURPLUS, 1629 Main Street. The Clerk read the <br />letter wherein Mr. Blum stated that he was applying for a permit to conduct a fire and close out sale <br />of stocks of merchandise he recently purchased. Mr. Blum attached a check in the amount of $25.00 but <br />he did not supply the necessary inventory. The City Attorney stated that since the applicant did not <br />supply the material required under Sedtion 3 of Ordinance 1137, he recommended that the application be <br />returned with a request for a correct application. Councilman Weiss moved approval of the City Attorney's <br />recommendation, seconded by Councilman Stout. This was followed by discussion after which the motion <br />carried. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL APPLICATION L. ALAUX FOR VARIANCE TO ALLON FIVE FOOT REAR YARD SET- <br />BACK INSTEAD OF FIFTEEN FEET AT 433 LINCOLN AVENUE (portion of Lot 3, Block K, Redwood Farms). The Clerk <br />read the Planning Commission's letter wherein they,stated that they hald the necessary public hearing <br />and made the necessary findings required under Ordinance 600. <br />Councilman Weiss read a statement wherein he stated that these types of variances are becoming so <br />frequent, and their being granted or denied raised so many questions as to their .propriety or the possi- <br />bility that the ordinance covering the problem of rear yards is not realistic that he can not think.but <br />that this Council should request the Planning Commission to make a study of the question and submit a <br />report at the earlies practicable date. There is no question but that the Council can not let the zoning <br />regulations become a farce by a constant negotation of endless variances. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.