11/17/1958 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4 - The City Attorney commented. that the bond is very general, and is 4jr of no assistance in settling the problem. Mr. Roscoe stated there is a road. agreement with the contractor, and that the bond is the only agreement with the Town. �Zuestions were asked Mr. Longmire: Is the amount of the bond equal to the estimated cost of the total in -tract improvements? He an- swered that the amount is about par with the improvements required. Does the bond include the realignment and the box culvert? He an- swered that it did not include the box culvert and realignment as this work was done under the direction of the Santa Clira County Flood Con':;rol District. The City Clerk, being asked the status of Unit 12, stated that it has not reached the Council because of certain map requirements which have not been met, specifically the abandonment of S. El Monte. Mr. Roscoe stated that he had talked with residents in the area, and that some refuse to agree to the abandonment. ACTION: That the City Engineer be informed that there is no evidence to show that the subdivider, 'Jendell 11. Roscoe, was requested to improve Moody Road adjacent to Unit #l, rink Horse Ranch. MOTION: Sherlock; SECOND: Clayton; VOTE: Passed unanimously 3. Willis, Richard (124-58) 3 lots. Engr. Brian. The Mayor requested the Council to consider this item, although it was not an item on the lgenda. Mr. Willis was present, with Mr. Riley, Engineer. Letter, dated November 1?, 1958 from Fremont Hills Development Co. and signed by Pyr. William D. Coldiron, was read which recommended that the Council grant the variance in consideration of the subdivi- sion application. Mr. Willis presented a letter signed by residents of the area.ex- pressing approval. Relative to action taken by the Planning Commission on November 15m, Commissioner Holm stated that it was the consensus of the Commission that it would be better to have a house on the corner than to'have a lar -e parcel uncared for. He pointed out the main difference in the situation now is that a house has been built on the lot at the far end instead of in the center as was anticipated by the Planning Commi ss- on. +4W Mr. Riley stated that he had recomputed the acreage 'as .follows: Lot #1, 1.003 acres, Lot ;;�2, 1.025, and Lot #3, which has a house at the present time, is 0.986 acres. Nr. Riley said these figures were computed with the dedication lines and the easement counted a part of the net acreage.