Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - July 2, 1952106 CITY CJUNOIL - VI11 uF LODI COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL JULY 2, 1952 This regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held beginning at 8:00 o'clock p.m. of Wednesday July 2 1952• Councilmen Richey, Robinson, Preszler, Rinn and A-askell rMayorj present; none absent. Minutes of the previous meeting of June 25, 1952, were approved as written, copies thereof having been mailed each councilman prior to this meeting. COMMUNICATIONS The City Manager read a letter from George Ohm, County Coordinator of Civil Defense, inviting Mayor CIVIL DEFENSE Haskell and one representative from the City of Lodi MEETING to a dinner meeting, July 9, at the California Hotel to discuss the Civil Defense program in San Joaquin County. Letter from Reuben P. Rott, attorney for Margaret Lancaster, 220 West Oak Street, presenting claim of his client for damages from the City of Lodi for CLAIM - injury sustained on May 10, 1952, on a defective SIDEWALK sidewalk on the east side of School Street near INJURY the corner of Oak Street. Damages claimed in the amount of 42,500.00. On the motion of Councilman Rinn, Preszler•second, the claim was filed and the matter ordered to the attention of the City's insurance carrier. PUBLIC HEARINGS At this time the Mayor declared the meeting open for hearing on the matter relating to the proposed rezon- ORD. 459 ing of the Bockenheim property at the corner of Lee REZONING LOT Street and Lodi Avenue. No objections were presented. IN BLOCK 12 Ordinance No. 459, "AMENDING THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP HUTCHINS ADD. OF THE CITY OF LODI AND THEREBY REZONING AND RECLAS- SIFYING CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN BLOCK 12, HUTCHINS ADDITION, TO BE IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ZONE", was introduced by unanimous vote. Mayor Haskell then introduced the subject of the open- ing of Chestnut and Crescent Streets by reviewing the actions taken by the City Council up to this announced hearing. He concluded his remarks by stat- ing that ig was his belief that the matter should be returned to the Planning Commission for further con- sideration; however, the Council welcomed the views and expressions of those present. He then opened the meeting to public hearing. Mr. Peter Torpegaard addressed the Council and protested the proposed site for Chestnut Street, saying that he favored the original paln locating the center line of the street CHESTNUT- approximately 25 feet north of its present location. CRESCENT He pointed out that the present plan will necessitate STREET the moving of his dweling. Mr. Robert Litts, OPENING attorney representing W. H. Franklin, spoke on be=- half of the present plans. C. D. Posey protested that the original signers of the petition requesting the extension of Chestnut Street had not been con- sulted on the matter of the change of location for the street and sug^_ested that the charge of location was just a move to delay the proceedings. Mayor Haskell explained that the City was not interested in the matter of the street opening as a matter of public necessity, but was willing to act in accor- dance with the best interests of the people concerned. (Council minutes of July 2, 1952 continued) 107 Therefore the people affected by the street opening should get together and present a plan which would be generally acceptable. Councilman Rinn stated that the Council was interested to the extent that the proposed street be located in a reasonable relation with that part of the street which exists at the present time, that the costs of the project be borne by those people directly benefited; and that the width of the pave- ment should be at least 40 feet with a right of way of 50 feet. :sir. Sidney W. Hllison protested the ex- tension of Crescent Street, stating that such ex- tension would cause his home to be moved and that a great deal of expense would be involved in the moving of the well and pipes. Councilman Rinn then roved that the matter be referred to the City Planning Com- mission again with the request that a hearing be held before the Commission giving the interested parties an opportunity to express themselves, and that a memorandum containing the information received at the hearing before the Council be sent to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Preszler and passed. REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER The City Manager reported that the bids received for A`4ARD LEGAL the publication of the legal advertising for the ADVERTISING coming fiscal year indicated that the bid of the Lodi FOR YEAR )Yews -Sentinel was the lowest and best bid. On motion 1952-53 of Councilman-Rinn, Richey second, Resolution No. 1658, awarding the contract to the mews --Sentinel, was adopted. Mr. Weller then reported that he had consulted the City Engineer, as requested at the June 25 meeting, regarding the proposed statement of policy designed to clarify the responsibility of the subdivider for the improvement of streets abutting his subdivision. After a minor change in wording, the City Engineer expressed his concurrance in the proposed statement. Councilman Robinson moved that policy statement be adopted as read, and that the complete statement be entered in the minutes. With a second by Councilman Preszler, the motion was adopted. The complete state- ment of policy is as follows: POLICY CLARIFICATION As an extension of present City policy, the City RE: STREET Council determines: Where a subdivision or a IMPROVEMENTS similar development is contemplated in an area BY SUBDIVIDERS abutting on a proposed street outside and immedi- ately adjacent to the proposed subdivision or development, the subdivider or developer shall be required to finance as the City Council may direct the curb and gutter, paving, storm drains and catch basins in the one-half of said proposed street closer to his subdivision or development. The other one-half of such proposed street shall be assessed against properties abutting on the other side, whether the same constitutes an existng subdivision, admitted and developed prior to the adoption of this policy, or land and improvements developed otherwise than by sub- division. If, in the opinion of the City Council, the said abutting properties are not capable of development or not anticipated to be developed within a reasonable time, the City shall advance the agreed cost of one-half the expense of develop- ing said street, and such advance shall thereupon become a lien against said abutting properties, on the basis of front footage, as the same are developed. J-08 (minutes of July 2, 1952 continued) Where a subdivision, or similar development is contemplated in an area abutting on an existing street surfaced to a standard inferior to the then -existing City requirements, said subdivider or developer shall be required to pay one-half the cost of raising said street to proper stan- dards and shall otherwise meet the requirements as set forth above. If any such existng street is contained wholly or partly within a proposed subdivision or development, said subdivider or developer shall pay all costs or an appropriate proportion of costs if said street is partly within the area of proposed development, required for the raising of said street to required stan- dards, and shall otherwise meet the requirements as set forth above. In the event that the property abutting the other side of an inferior street is an existing sub- division or similar development developed in conformity with City policies and requirements existing at the time of acceptance of said existing subdivision or development, the City shall accept responsibility for raising that part of the inferior street otherwise chargeable to the abutting properties comprising the ex- isting subdivision or development to required standards. It is the intent of this policy that subdividers or developers, having at the time of subdivision or development accepted and carried out then -existing City subdivision re- quirements, will not be required to bear the cost of higher standards subsequently adopted by the City. SUGGEST: Mayor Haskell suggested that the City Manager write CITY COUNCIL a letter to the County Board of Supervisors suggest - MEET WITH ing a meeting between the Board of Supervisors and COUNTY SUPER- the City Council for the purpose of reaching an VISORS RE: agreement for the improvement of those streets which IMPROVING are in both City and County territory, notably, Ham STREETS Lane and Hutchins Street. Mr. Weller explained that the City Engineer has ex- perienced difficulty in applying the present policy relating to the installation of storm drains in new subdivisions. Present policy calls for the sub- divider to install storm drains where it is deemed necessary by t'he City. However, the situation arises where land in one subdivision does not require storm drains, but the run-off from the land contributes to the drainage problem in an adjoining subdivision. In this case the first subdivider experiences no costs while the second subdivider must stand the costs for draining his own land plus the additional POLICY RE: costs of removing water from the adjoining property. STORM DRAINS Mr. Weller suggested that a flat acreage storm drain IN SUBDIVI- fee be charged each subdivider prior to the acceptance SIONS of the subdivision map. Such a feet/ would not be designed to increase the cost to the subdivider, but to ease the computation of costs by the City Engineer and to spread the costs to include all lands which contribute to the drainage problem. he further stated that the policy is not clear as to just where the subdivider's responsibility for storm drains ends and where the City's responsibillty begins. To the ques- tion by Mayor Haskell as to the size of the fee, Mr. Weller stated that no specific amount had been arrived at yet. Fir. Haskell stated that he preferred to postpone action on the matter until a realistic figure could be suggested. Councilman Rinn suggested that the City yianager prepare a memorandum to the Council which would include a specific recommendation. (Minutes of July 2, 1952, continued) los The City Manager reported that a resident on South Hutchins Street wished to install a curb and gutter in front of his residence which lies between Tamarack and Kettleman Lane. The City Engineer has asked the City Council for a determination of the width of Sout:^. Hutchins Street in itis area in order that he teay properly advise the resident on the curb location. The problem arises in that certain curbs presently in existence in the area limit the street width to 48 feet; however, the City Planning Commission has recommended a 56 foot wide street for the entire length of Hutchins Street from Lodi Avenue to Kettle - man Lane. If the 56 foot width is maintained, the expense of moving the existing curbs back to the proper line must be considered. If it is now deter- mined that a 48 foot width from Tamarack to Kettleman Lane will be sufficient, the new axrb and gutter can be constructed in line with those in existence. Mr. HOLD OVER Weller stated that it was his opinion, and that of the DETERIKINATION City Engineer, that a 48 foot width at this part of OF WIDTH OF Hutchins Street would be sufficient and that the 8 feet SOUTH HUTCHINS thus lost would not affect the traffic enough to jus - STREET tify the expense of moving the existing curbs and gutters. Mayor Haskell expressed his agreement with the views of the City Manager and the City Engineer, particularly pointing out that the additional 8 feet does not increase the number of lanes for traffic. Councilman Robinson expressed the opinion that in so far as there was a possibility for commercial devel- opment at the intersection of South Hutchins and Kettleman Lane, the Council Ehould maintain the 56 foot width. Mr. Robinson then moved that the Council adopt at 56 foot width, in travel way, for South Hutchins Street from Lodi Avenue to Kettleman Lane. The motion was seconded by Councilman Preszler. Councilman Rinn recalled that the question of the width of Hutchins Street had been considered on a previous occasion and that he would like to review the material that had been brought before the Council at that time. Upon the withdrawal of the motion by Robinson and the second by Preszler, Rinn moved the matter be carried over until the next meeting at which time a sketch, showing the two proposed street widths, prepared by the City Engineer, could be con- sidered. The motion was seconded by Councilman Robinson and passed. The City Manager requested that he be granted a two VACATION weeks vacation to begin sometime after the July 16 GRANTED meeting of the Council. There being no objection, CITY MANAGER the request was granted. Mayor Haskell proposed and then appointed Councilman FURNISHING Richey as a committee of one to confer with the City COUNCIL Manager and develop plans for the installation of CHAMBER drapes in the City Council Chamber. He further suggested that the City Manager install additional rows of seats in order to bring the audience closer to the Council table. On the motion of Councilman Rinn, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 o'clock p.m. Atte 4 A. GLAVES City Jerk