My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Minutes 1966 Jan to June
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1966
>
Minutes 1966 Jan to June
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2017 11:31:14 AM
Creation date
7/2/2013 4:35:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
1/3/1966
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
176
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
interested in the development of this area prior to pre -zoning of annexation. <br />City Manager reviewed history of parcel., originally propapd for possible annexation <br />for use by Ampex Corporation as national headquarters, another time proposed for high <br />rise apartments, and of its final partial zoning by County for multiple dwellings. <br />He .Mated further that in talking to Mr. Frahm, representing property owners, it was <br />Staff's understanding that present developers would develop property as a prestige <br />type community with single family residences in well defined groupings which would <br />recult in least possible modification of existing landscaping, and on this basis Staff <br />had looked with favor on annenat:i.on for this type of development. <br />He stated this type of development would create tie least problems as to utilities <br />and traffic. He stated Staff felt this parcel eventually would anne.-_ to Redwood City <br />as it is in our service area and can best be served by our utility system even though <br />property owners would have to bear cost of extension of service lines. Councilman <br />Royer reviewed Council's previous position on annexation as being favorable to any <br />land within our service area if all other problems can be worked out. He discussed <br />prezoning and preference that property owners initiate annexation procedures rather <br />than the City. Councilman Burr felt their intentions as to prezoning should be re- <br />ported back to Council. City Manager reported map presented for this propomd annexation <br />has been checked out and appears to be still a valid corridor for an uninhabited annexa- <br />tion to the City. <br />Council indicated formal request should be made for prezoning and then annexation by <br />initiation of property owners with processing through the LAFC simultaneously, <br />scheduling to be .corked out with Staff (memo 1/18/66) <br />Application for variance to the Sidewalk Ordinance to permit installation of a 5' side - <br />Smit on Cedar Street at Main Street (J. J. Nazzaro and M. M. Shattuck) Staff re- <br />ported use permit for coin-operated car wash at Cedar and Main Streets was granted by <br />Planning Commission, subject to installation of a "new 5' sidewalk" in a district which <br />requires a full width sidewalk. <br />City Engineer recommends that full width sidewalk should be installed for this particular <br />use as he felt certain remaining additional 5' would be used as part of applicant's <br />operational activity. He also stated whenever such variance has been granted in the <br />past, ornamental planting or other protective and/or ornamental devices have been re- <br />quired to be installed on City property rather than merely turning the additional prop- <br />erty over to the applicants for commercial. use. <br />City Manager recommended variance be granted for 5' sidewalk, conditioned with a re- <br />quirement of landscaping; between the sidewalk and property line, owner being required <br />to plant to approval of Park Superintendent. Mayor Rosselli questioned measures to <br />be taken to insure proper maintenance of landscaping. <br />City Attorney .Mated conditioned variance was only means and referral back to Planning <br />Commission should conditions not be enforced. <br />Mr. Nazzaro, one of applicants, owner of Roller Rink and adjoin- <br />ing property, described area of dead end street and felt sidewalk <br />useless, but stated they agreed to 5' sidewalk and landscaping. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.