Laserfiche WebLink
. . ' .. ' i. <br /> . . .. . . <br /> and Lots� 6 to 8 Hlock_ 2 R_ esubdivieion of:.Lot 52 of Reese� Tract.__ City �"� <br /> • Engineer i9118on adnised that�these are thirty foot,lote and_it wa.s the de- <br /> il , <br /> eire to reeubdivide them into forty-five foot lots. This was thought de-, <br /> .. , <br /> eirable inasmuch as it would possible to build on thirty foot lots. <br /> Councilman Werder with thns t'hought in mind, moved, seconded bq Councilman <br /> Armstrong,,that the recommendation of the Planning Commiseion be euetained. <br /> ' Motion passed unanimouely. <br /> Councilman Britsohgi asked the statue of the etreet impronements in�the <br /> ; <br /> Poplar_Anenue Subdiqision. Citp Blom replied that the price of the <br /> work the estimate. The money in escrow for the improve- <br /> ' ments ia not eufficient to complete the work without forming an sesesament <br /> dietrict. .Attempta are being made to get the work done. <br /> Communication was received from the Planning Commission recommending Panorable <br /> action on request of Jamee B., Howell to reeubdivide Lot 12 and a portion of <br /> Lot 11, Block 8, Oak Knoll Manor. A eketch accompanied the communication <br /> • and City Engineer Wilson explained the proposed resubdiviaion. Thie in- <br /> volned more lote lese than the required frontage and some of the Councilmen <br /> were opposed to granting thelrequest. Councilman Britschgi moved, seconded <br /> by Councilman Swift, that the reoommendation oY the.Planning Commission be <br /> sustained. A roll call votepwas requested and the following vote recorded: <br /> Ayes and in favor of the motion: Councilmen Britsahgi, McNulty; �wift; and <br /> Mayor Hilton. Noes and against the motion: Councilmen: Armstrong, YPerder <br /> ' and Granger. <br /> Communication was received from the Planning Commission recommending favorable <br /> aation on request of property owners in block eurrounded by Stanley Street, <br /> Westgate and Brewater Anenues to change the setback on 3tanley 3treet frmm <br /> twenty feet to four feet. City Engineer Wilson poir.ted out on the map the <br /> proposed location and setback. Mr. James Crai� appeared in fanor of the <br /> etiange and Mr. Christianson appeared in protest. It wa,e pointed out that <br /> there wae only one proteetant. It wa.e the general consensus of the Coun- <br /> • cil that the aetbaok would not depreciate property values and tha.t by al-, <br /> � <br /> lowing the change it should improve the appearance of property which <br /> baoked into Stanley Street. It was euggested tH'at the Building Inspector <br /> pase on a11 struotures to be built on the changed eetback. Qouncilman <br /> ; Granger moved, seconded by Oouncilman Britechgi, that the recommendation <br /> ' of the Planning Commiseion be eustained. .Motion paseed unanimously. <br /> Councilman VPerder offered introduction oY ordinance changing setback line <br /> . on 9tanley Street from 20 feet to 4 feet, seconded by Councilman McNultq, <br /> Motion passed unanimously." <br /> ' Comraunication wa.s received froro the Redwood Gity Traffio Study Committee adnls- <br /> ing that in regard to correspbndenoe referred to them by the Council in <br /> regard to parking metere, it wae the opini'on of the Committee that the <br /> best solution to the parking,,�problem ia off-etreet parking. There wa.s <br /> some discusaion as to the deeirability of parking metera. CiLy Attorneq <br /> McCarthy advised he wae �i�n receipt of a communication�from the League of <br /> • California Cities which made',no recommendation as to parking metere but <br /> ►— , ,_Y <br />