Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />INVOCATION <br /> <br />PLEDGE OF <br />ALLEGIANCE <br /> <br />RmLC~L <br /> <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />HEARING <br />(Lot Split) <br />Continued <br />to <br />March l7 <br /> <br />f~<< <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />l8:7577 <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA <br /> <br />REGULAR MEETING <br /> <br />FEBRUARY l7, 1970 <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 February <br />l7, 1970, at 8:00 P.M. <br /> <br />Mr, Eric Beckstrom, First Church of Christ, Scientist <br /> <br />Mayor C. Robert Arth <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Rage, Helms, Arth <br />None <br /> <br />MOTION by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Considine and <br />carried unanimously, the minutes of the regular meeting of February <br />3, 1970, was APPROVED. <br /> <br />Appeal from the Planning Commission decision for denial of an applica- <br />tion for a division of property at l20-l50 East Duarte Road. The <br />Planning Director explained that the Commission denied the request when <br />it became obvious that all of the property owners affected by the lot <br />split would not or could not reach an agreement; that the Commission <br />felt it could not in good conscience approve an illegal division of <br />property as it would be tantamount to condoning illegal divisions <br />which could have widespread implications affecting the entire city in <br />its future growth pattern. He further stated in part that the applicant <br />apparently had been an unwilling victim; that she had recourse through <br />the courts if she so desired. <br /> <br />Mayor Arth declared the hearing open and Mrs. Ilse E, Friedman, ll867 <br />Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, stated in part that she was unaware of <br />the situation at the time she purchased the subject property; that it <br />was not until she applied for a modification to permit one additional <br />sign that she was informed that the seller of the property, Lands and <br />Buildings Company, had never legalized the property division; that <br />unless some type of legalization is made the title to the property <br />would be so clouded in perpetuity that it would be virtually impossible <br />to effect a sale should the need to do so arise. She noted there was <br />one property owner who would not discuss the problem. She asked for <br />practical relief in some way. <br /> <br />No, one else desiring to be heard the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by <br />Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and carried <br />unanimously. <br /> <br />During the deliberations, Councilman Butterworth suggested continuing <br />the hearing and subpoena the one opposing property owner and hear his <br />explanation; Councilman Helms made reference to a communication from <br />the 'Planning Department to Mrs. Friedman dated July 8, 1970, and stated <br />in part that he would not approve an illegal lot split especially one <br />involving commercial property. It was the consensus of Council that <br />neither would it want to legalize such a property division, however, <br />with the thought that perhaps some remedy coutd be found by bringing all <br />the parties together it was MOVED by Councilman Butterworth, seconded <br />by Councilman Ha~ and carried unanimously that the hearing be reopened <br />and that the City Attorney be instructed to apply to a court of competent <br />jurisdiction for the issuance of a subpoena orderi~g the party "in question, <br />together with a request that a representative of tre Lands and Building <br />Company, appear before Council on March l7 in connection with the applica- <br />tion of Mrs. Friedman. The applicant to have her ~ttorney present also. <br />- 1 - 2-l7-70 <br />