Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY COUNCIL PROCEfDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK <br />18:7544 <br /> <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA <br /> <br />REGULAR MEETING <br /> <br />DECEMBER 2,' 1969 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The City Council of the City of Arcadia, ,California, met in regular <br />session in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall on December <br />2, 1969, at 8:00 P,M. <br /> <br />INVOCATION <br /> <br />Rev, Norvall Hadley, Arcadia'Friends Church <br /> <br />PLEDGE OF <br />ALLEGIANCE <br /> <br />Mayor Pro Tempore Edward L, Butterworth <br /> <br />ROLL CALL' <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Rage, ~elms <br />Councilman Arth <br /> <br />MINUTE <br />AP~OVAL <br /> <br />On request of Councilman Helms and on MOTION by Councilman Considine, <br />seconded by Councilman Hage and carried, the Minutes of the regular <br />meeting of November 18 were AMENDED to reflect, as part of the record, <br />a communication from Mr, Helms setting forth his position in opposing <br />the repeal of the city's parking tax ordinance, Mr, Helms presented <br />a copy of said letter to the City Clerk and it is hereby made part of <br />the official record, The Minutes, as thus amended, were APPROVED on <br />MOTION by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman Hage and carried <br />unanimously, Councilman Helms abstained from voting as he was absent <br />from said meeting', <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />HEARING Appeal filed by Joseph E. Rognstad from the decision of the Planning <br />(Lot Split) Commission in its denial of his application for a division of property <br />p' L-t ~ J,;fat 371 Warren Way, (Continued from November 18), <br /> <br />, ~ (FULL TRANSCRIPT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK). James T, <br />LeBerthon, attorney for the applicant, addressed Council stating in <br />PART that there are two arguments in the matter - one based on the <br />law and the city municipal code as it applies thereto - the second <br />based on the facts under the law as it has ,been applied by the Commission, <br />He continued that the minutes of that body indicate that after considera- <br />tion of the comments of its members it denied the application because <br />they looked with disfavor on the request in that a,division of the property <br />would detract from the esthetic value and graciousness of the neighborhood <br />and in one instance that the lot is not compatible with the general area <br />according to Code Section 9122.5. He read said'section into the record <br />(adopted May 7, 1963), He then called attention to the Business and <br />Professions Code of,the State, Section 11540, as amended in the Statutes <br />of 1965, ,and read th~ first portion of that section into the record - <br />which he stated overruled local jurisdiction; that the section upon <br />which the 'Commission based its authority to make a decision provides <br />grounds for denial of a lot split different from those for denial in the <br />case of a s~bdivision and that the continued application of Section 9122.5 <br />of the Municipal Code imposes a regulation more restrictive for lot splits <br />than for subdivisionso <br /> <br />He explored the dimensions of the proposed lot split which he stated in <br />part meets and exceeds the requirements in an R-l zone and if the setback <br />were used to deny the application it would deprive the applicant of the <br />best use and enjoyment of his premises similar to the taking of a street <br />or potential public street for public use and possibly grounds for inverse <br />condemnation; that the use of Section 9122,5 as applied, if the lot is <br />considered incompatible with the neighborhood, is invalid, and as an <br />ordinance, in excess of the. legislative jurisdiction of the municipality <br /> <br />12-2-69 <br /> <br />- 1 - <br />