|
Tract
<br /> ~o. 3998
<br />W. Koll
<br />
<br /> offer dedication
<br />for street easement
<br />Tract No, 521 for 10th St~
<br />
<br />Revised Tentative
<br />Tract Maps Nos
<br />3902 and ~000
<br />A .- Richard Brown
<br />
<br />Communication was presented'from ~he planning Com~aission recommending approval
<br />of Tentative Tract Map No. 3998, filed by K. W. Koll, creating nine lots located
<br />on the east side of Artesia Street, and on the north and south sides of Tenth
<br />Street, subject to conditions. Bert L. Goss, 1531 W. 10th Street, representing
<br />a group of property owner s on Tenth Street, objected to the change of
<br />Tenth Street frcm a "dead end" street to a through street to Artesia, due to
<br />the increase in traffic and the safety of the children in the area. Mr. Goss
<br />presented a letter from George E. Herron, Jr., 1616 West lOth Street, protesting
<br />any change~ stating that he purchased his property knowing this section of Tenth
<br />Street terminated before reaching Artesia Street, and on motion of Councilman
<br />Heinly, seconded by Hubbard and carried, the protest was received and filed.
<br />Grace Trimble, 919 No. Artesia Street, stated they own the corner property and.
<br />purchased one-half of the southern section of Tenth Street sixteen years ago,
<br />and protested cutting the street through, as itwould increase the noise from
<br />traffic. Bill Frost, Raub & Southworth Engineers of Costa Mesa, representing
<br />the applicant, stated the original plan has a cul-de-sac, but lt was recommended
<br />that the street be cut through. The original Tract No. 521 was offered for
<br />dedication for a street easement when Tenth Street was to be opened easterly to
<br />connect with Artesia Street. K. W. Koll, 1555 Placentia, Newport Beach, offered
<br />an alternate suggestion to construct a large walk four or five feet wide so the
<br />children could go throuSthe park to the west and south, thus alleviating the
<br />condition of foot traffic, but not vehicular traffic, and stated there is no
<br />objection to making it a cul-de-sac street or a through street. Maysr Hall
<br />stated he wished to further investigate the matter, and the applicant consented
<br />to a continuance. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Heinly and
<br />carried, further action on the matter was continued to the next meeting.
<br />
<br />On motion of Councilman Heinly, seconded by Hubbard and carried~ action was
<br />
<br />co nt in ue!d to the n ex t meeting on Resolution accepting offer of dedication
<br />for street easement of Lot "C", Tract No. 521 for Tenth Street.
<br />
<br />Communications were presented from the Planning Commission recommending approval
<br />of Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 3902, filed by A. Richard Brown for Frank C.
<br />and Nelda U. Latham, creating 91 lots located on the south side of Santa Clara
<br />Avenue and approximately ll61 feet west of Tustin Avenue, subject to conditions;
<br />and Revised Tentative Tract Map No. hO00, filed by A. Richard Brown, on behalf
<br />of Paul J. and Ruth E. Knaak, creating ~7 lots, located 656 feet south of Santa
<br />Clara Avenue and ll61 feet west of Tustin Avenue, subject to conditions.
<br />
<br />A. Richard Brown, Jr., 7632 Con~onwealth Avenue, Buena Park, stated he is the
<br />purchaser of the property desdribed in Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 3902, and
<br />before going into escrow the property was thoroughly investigated, and there is
<br />a possibility of annexing to the City, and we could build homes on 6,000 square
<br />foot lots, with an A-1 Zoning, a 25-foot setback and a six-foot side yard. Mr.
<br />Brown stated he, as Engineer, represents the owners of property described in
<br />Revised Tentative Tract Map No. ~000, and this Map, as well as Revised Tentative
<br />Tract Map No. 3902, are predicated upon lot areas of 6,000 square feet. The
<br />Mayor suggested further action be postponed until the next meeting, and the Plan
<br />ning Commission submit their rec~mnendati(m reference the question of 7,200 squal
<br />f~ot rather than 6,000 square foot lot areas. On motion of Councilman Hubbard,
<br />
<br />
<br />
|