|
� . . ,
<br /> _ X$7
<br /> � 5, Recommending a denial of the application of Lu3gi Ramacciotti
<br /> to rezone:.Lote 2 and 4 9n B1ock F. Woodside Acrea No. 1, Kentfield Avenue,
<br /> between Woodside Road and Palm Avenue from second residental to business
<br /> diatriet zone, City Attorney McCartny advieed that,the Planning Commission
<br /> had tnought.it inadvisable to allow a greenhouse to be built in that bloCk
<br /> %`_..--._` , �.
<br /> ' inasmucn as it ia a reeidential area, Councilman-Anderson moved, seconded
<br /> by qouncilman Armstrong, tnat the recommendation of the Planning Coromiesion
<br /> to deny the application of_Luigi Ramacciotti to rezone Lots 2 and 4, Blook
<br /> F, PJoodaide Acres,No. 1, be eustained. Motion paesed unanimously,
<br /> In connection witn this, Oouncilman Britachgi asked the Street 8up-
<br /> ' erintendent to" Kentfield Avenue as there were several ruts and
<br /> bad places in the road.
<br /> 6, Recommending the granting�of tne application of Dr. T.H,R.Gusnee,Jr.
<br /> to change the setbabk linee on Block 4, Lot 4, Mezesville, Range "C" on .
<br /> Bradford and VPinslow 8treets to 7-1/�2 feet and also recommending that per-
<br /> � miseion be granted to him to establish a dental clinic in a building to be
<br /> built there. Inasmuch as this property adjoine business pzoperty and it
<br /> vras indicated that a petition would be filed to cnange the block to bueineae,
<br /> the Planning Commiseion vo.ted favorably to change the setback line, Coun-
<br /> cilman Anderson etated that the foundation had already been poured for
<br /> the building and aeked by what right work had been done before the council
<br /> took action on the change in setback. Building Inspector Duncan advieed
<br /> 1 that the.contractor wae not observing the change in eetback but the.t he
<br /> might add a poroh or addition to the front later. City Attorney McCarthy
<br /> advised that inasmuch ae changing.the setback would�necessitate enactment
<br /> of an ordinance action might be deferred until the need aroae for the
<br /> cnange. Councilman Armetrong moved, seconded by Councilman Andereon, that
<br /> action be deferred until cnange in setback ie necessary, Motion passed
<br /> unanimously. -
<br /> 7. Recommending that the application of Mr, a.nd Mre. A,V,YPright to.
<br /> • reeubdivide_..Lot 12 and the northweaterly half of Lot 11, Block R, Bopd and
<br /> �
<br /> �ent's subdivieion, Woodside Road and Madrone 3treet, into two lots faoing
<br /> Madrone Street be granted. Councilman Fletcher offered resolution and
<br /> moved ite adoption, seconded by Councilman Anderson, resubdividing Lot 12
<br /> and nortriwesterly na.lf of Lot 11, Block R, Boyd and Rent�e subdivision,
<br /> ' YYoodside Road and Madrone Street into two lote facing VPoodeide Road instead
<br /> of facing Madrone 8treet. On roll call, resolution wea unanimously adopted.
<br /> R E$ 0 L U T I 0 N. No. 260
<br /> AUTHORIZIAG MR, and MRS A. V, WRIGHT TO RESUBBIVIDE LOT 12 and
<br /> ' A PORTION OF LOT 11 IN BLOCR $ OF BOYD AND SENT'S ADDITION
<br /> iNHEREAS, MR, and MRB, A.,D. VPRIGAT have made porper applicatlon to
<br /> the Planning Commission of the City of Redwood C1ty to resubdivide
<br /> Lot 12 and trie Nortbwesterly one-halY of Lot 11 in Block B ae ehown
<br /> on a map entitled °Boqd and Kent's Addition" filed in the office of
<br /> the.County Recorder of 8an Mateo County, Btate of Callfornia, on
<br /> June 12, 1905 in Hook D•of Mape at page 10;
<br /> � and
<br /> iNHEAEA3, notice of hearing of+said Planning Commission on said Appli-
<br /> ,� .. , . ,
<br />
|