CC MIN 1957 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

411 Mr. Davies suggested that the Council make application to the State for a 60' street. He suggested that the City adopt the plan lines but at the same time they should ask the State for a 60' street. This was followed by discussion. Mr. Davies indicated that he will approve the plans as long as the City does not state the width of the street and sidewalks in making application to the State for Gas Tax funds. Councilman Weiss stated that it was his understanding that the standard width for right-of-ways of the nature under consideration is normally 84' . The 81' now proposed and recommended by the Planning Commission is a compromise because of a proposed building the Pacific T. & T. Co. and the objections of Mr. Davies. This compromise raised several questions which he would like answered. 1. Will this 811 compromise thus become the guide for the further future development of Jefferson Avenue and other as an arterial? 2. If not, is this odd pattern of one block narrowing and having different building setbacks a wise precedent? (:: Councilman Weiss mentioned that once the building of the P. T. & T. is there, the Council can not do anything about it except at extraordinary and exorbitant costs. If properly planned now, their interests and that of the City will be the better served. The Mayor attempted to answer the questions raised by Councilman Weiss and stated that the Planning Commission must take each problem as a separate condition. The Planning Commission felt that the 84' street was proper, however, when checking with the property owners they agreed to change the plans to 81' street. Mr. Jain stated that it has proven out that they did not want smaller sidewalks in business districts. In this case probably an 8' sidewalk would be adequate, and they would try to talk the State into allowing a 60' street if possible. ' Councilman Weiss wanted to know if this would be setting a precedent. The answer was that this would not be forming a precedent as far as 81' streets were concerned. In answer to Councilman Weiss's question about the present or future status, Mayor Royer stated that they were going to try to keep the same street widths. Councilman Weiss asked what standard was set by the State. Mr. Jain stated that they have been using 84 and 64. Councilman Granger called attention to the plan lines ,., that were set on Woodside Road, 80' street. This was followed by discussion in regard to standards being set. Councilman Spillers moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Granger. Councilman Herkner asked what the street width was going to be. The Mayor stated that they were not setting the street widths, they were only setting the plans lines. This was followed by discussion in regard to square corners on Franklin Street. The motion carried. Councilman Spillers moved that the City Attorney be instructed to bring in the proper resolution based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, seconded by Councilman Granger with the understanding that this does not state the width of the street. Councilman Stout stated that he can not go along with the street corner. Councilman Herkner moved to amend the motion to the effect that round corners with the proper radius be constructed when construction goes into effect on the four corners of Franklin Street, seconded by Councilman Weiss. Mr. Forbes spoke against the round corners in a commercial zone. He objected to this because they would be required to round the corners of their building and this would increase the cost of the building. A 20' radius will require that they stay back 10' or 20' from the corner in order to make a square corner on their building. The P. T. & T. plan to build their new building to the property line. Mr. Davies spoke about the corner at El Camino Real. He stated that someday he might want to build a building right up to the corner and he wants to be treated the same as the Telephone Company. This was followed by discussion. Councilman Herkner, in view of the exhaustive planning and study made by the Planning Commission and the problem of the Telephone Company, withdrew his motion. The second to the motionvas also withdrawn. The original motion carried on roll call with Councilman Weiss voting NO. PUBLIC HARING, CONTINUATION OF HEARING PROPOSED ANNEXATION FARM HILLS ADDITION NO. 1. Councilman Spillers moved to carry this matter on the agenda for two weeks, March 18th at 8 P. M., seconded by Councilman Herkner and carried. The Mayor stated that the study meeting on Farm Hills would be changed to Tuesday night, March 12th, at 8:00 P. M.