|
new tracks, eto., at which time it might be necessary to move the station
<br />_ back. Mr. Bray of the Southern Pacific Company had inquired of�the City
<br />Attorney what the effect would be on the property if the setback were'
<br />changed. He was advised that the Planning Commission wished to prevent the
<br />III erection of buildings on that part of the block because it would add to the
<br />cost of acquisition if the city wanted to widen the street.
<br />i
<br />Mr. W. H. Morriesey,attorney, appeared in behalf of his client, A. B.
<br />l Cheatham who owns property on the north side of Winklebleok Street. When
<br />e
<br />the city was planning to put in Winklebleok Street, Mr. Cheatham deeded ten
<br />feet to the city and agreed to pay one-half of the street work. It was his
<br />understanding that he could build stores facing on Winklebleok Street,
<br />Mr. Morrissey pointed out that if an additional ten feet were taken off
<br />Mr. Cheatham's property in the form of a setback, it would not leave him
<br />�i enough property to build on. He also stressed the fact that the city does
<br />I not have title to Winklebleok Street and that the Southern Pacific Company
<br />can canoel the present lease on thirty days notice if it wished to use part
<br />of this street for railroad facilities. He stated that if the city put a
<br />setback on this street, it would work an injustice on Mr. Cheatham as it
<br />would deprive him of the use of his property even though the city did not
<br />take advantage of the setback. Councilman Armstrong asked the width of
<br />California Street from Broadway to Winklebleok Street and the width of
<br />i'
<br />Winklebleok. Street Superintendent winter advised that both the streets
<br />were fifty feet wide. It was the general consensus of.the Council that
<br />the north side of Winklebleck Street should not be subject to the setback
<br />change.
<br />Mr. Jae. T. O'Keefe, Jr., attorney, appeared in behalf of his client, Mies
<br />Lea Reid. Miss Reid owns a triangular piece of,property at the corner of
<br />James and California 56' x 1501. He stated that if ten feet were taken off
<br />this piece of property on James Avenue and also on California Avenue, it
<br />tent was to include in the setback change only that property around the
<br />-271
<br />Southern Pacific property. He also questioned the setback not being on
<br />j
<br />both sides of California Street. City Attorney McCarthy advised that it
<br />IY�
<br />tivar a ren
<br />foot setback iine ce esrabilened on the.north.side..of.James
<br />Ave-
<br />little traffic on that portion of the street inasmuch as it is possible to
<br />turn only right on to the highway. Mayor Hilton asked the status of
<br />Winklebleok Street east of California Street. City Attorney McCarthy
<br />i
<br />f
<br />nue east of
<br />E1 Camino Real, on the easterly side of California Street, on
<br />property for a public street if necessary. The Southern Pacific Company
<br />I -
<br />has indicated that they will make no change in the property until they add
<br />both sides
<br />of Winklebleok Street and on the west side of the
<br />driveway from
<br />�I
<br />Broadway to
<br />Winklebleok Street.. Mayor Hilton questioned the
<br />setback on
<br />both sides
<br />of Winklebleck Street, his opinion being that the
<br />original In-
<br />new tracks, eto., at which time it might be necessary to move the station
<br />_ back. Mr. Bray of the Southern Pacific Company had inquired of�the City
<br />Attorney what the effect would be on the property if the setback were'
<br />changed. He was advised that the Planning Commission wished to prevent the
<br />III erection of buildings on that part of the block because it would add to the
<br />cost of acquisition if the city wanted to widen the street.
<br />i
<br />Mr. W. H. Morriesey,attorney, appeared in behalf of his client, A. B.
<br />l Cheatham who owns property on the north side of Winklebleok Street. When
<br />e
<br />the city was planning to put in Winklebleok Street, Mr. Cheatham deeded ten
<br />feet to the city and agreed to pay one-half of the street work. It was his
<br />understanding that he could build stores facing on Winklebleok Street,
<br />Mr. Morrissey pointed out that if an additional ten feet were taken off
<br />Mr. Cheatham's property in the form of a setback, it would not leave him
<br />�i enough property to build on. He also stressed the fact that the city does
<br />I not have title to Winklebleok Street and that the Southern Pacific Company
<br />can canoel the present lease on thirty days notice if it wished to use part
<br />of this street for railroad facilities. He stated that if the city put a
<br />setback on this street, it would work an injustice on Mr. Cheatham as it
<br />would deprive him of the use of his property even though the city did not
<br />take advantage of the setback. Councilman Armstrong asked the width of
<br />California Street from Broadway to Winklebleok Street and the width of
<br />i'
<br />Winklebleok. Street Superintendent winter advised that both the streets
<br />were fifty feet wide. It was the general consensus of.the Council that
<br />the north side of Winklebleck Street should not be subject to the setback
<br />change.
<br />Mr. Jae. T. O'Keefe, Jr., attorney, appeared in behalf of his client, Mies
<br />Lea Reid. Miss Reid owns a triangular piece of,property at the corner of
<br />James and California 56' x 1501. He stated that if ten feet were taken off
<br />this piece of property on James Avenue and also on California Avenue, it
<br />tent was to include in the setback change only that property around the
<br />Southern Pacific property. He also questioned the setback not being on
<br />j
<br />both sides of California Street. City Attorney McCarthy advised that it
<br />was impractical to widen the west side of California Street because of the
<br />B
<br />theatre and Tribune buildings. He also pointed out that there was very
<br />I i
<br />little traffic on that portion of the street inasmuch as it is possible to
<br />turn only right on to the highway. Mayor Hilton asked the status of
<br />Winklebleok Street east of California Street. City Attorney McCarthy
<br />i
<br />advised that the Southern Pacific Company owns the property and that it is
<br />given to the city on a lease basis. He said the city could condemn the
<br />property for a public street if necessary. The Southern Pacific Company
<br />I -
<br />has indicated that they will make no change in the property until they add
<br />new tracks, eto., at which time it might be necessary to move the station
<br />_ back. Mr. Bray of the Southern Pacific Company had inquired of�the City
<br />Attorney what the effect would be on the property if the setback were'
<br />changed. He was advised that the Planning Commission wished to prevent the
<br />III erection of buildings on that part of the block because it would add to the
<br />cost of acquisition if the city wanted to widen the street.
<br />i
<br />Mr. W. H. Morriesey,attorney, appeared in behalf of his client, A. B.
<br />l Cheatham who owns property on the north side of Winklebleok Street. When
<br />e
<br />the city was planning to put in Winklebleok Street, Mr. Cheatham deeded ten
<br />feet to the city and agreed to pay one-half of the street work. It was his
<br />understanding that he could build stores facing on Winklebleok Street,
<br />Mr. Morrissey pointed out that if an additional ten feet were taken off
<br />Mr. Cheatham's property in the form of a setback, it would not leave him
<br />�i enough property to build on. He also stressed the fact that the city does
<br />I not have title to Winklebleok Street and that the Southern Pacific Company
<br />can canoel the present lease on thirty days notice if it wished to use part
<br />of this street for railroad facilities. He stated that if the city put a
<br />setback on this street, it would work an injustice on Mr. Cheatham as it
<br />would deprive him of the use of his property even though the city did not
<br />take advantage of the setback. Councilman Armstrong asked the width of
<br />California Street from Broadway to Winklebleok Street and the width of
<br />i'
<br />Winklebleok. Street Superintendent winter advised that both the streets
<br />were fifty feet wide. It was the general consensus of.the Council that
<br />the north side of Winklebleck Street should not be subject to the setback
<br />change.
<br />Mr. Jae. T. O'Keefe, Jr., attorney, appeared in behalf of his client, Mies
<br />Lea Reid. Miss Reid owns a triangular piece of,property at the corner of
<br />James and California 56' x 1501. He stated that if ten feet were taken off
<br />this piece of property on James Avenue and also on California Avenue, it
<br />
|