City Council Minutes
4/23/2008 11:46:06 AM
4/10/2008 9:55:02 PM
CC - Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br />HEARING <br />(Lot Split <br />1160 W. Orange <br />Grove Avenue) <br /> <br />//071-/1 <br /> <br />l8:7578 <br /> <br />Appeal filed by William Hovanitz from the decision of the Planning <br />Commission in its denial of his application for a division of <br />property at ll60 W. Orange Grove Avenue. <br /> <br />FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MATTER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY <br />CLERK. ALL EXHIBITS FILED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ALSO IN SAID <br />OFFICE. <br /> <br />A detailed explanation of the zoning requirements for the development <br />of the subject property was made by a staff member of the Planning <br />Department. He noted - in part - that the application for a lot <br />split proposed to create four lots from one in an R-O zone which <br />carries a requirement for 30,000 sq. ft. lots; that the width and <br />depth of each parcel exceeds the minimum standards for the zone, I <br />however, the total lot area of each parcel is below the requirement. <br />The four parcels would carry dimensions of between 15,040 sq. ft and <br />19,774 sq. ft., as compared with the 30,000 sq. ft. regulation. He <br />stated further in part that as an alternate it would be possible to <br />create two lots from the one large parcel thus meeting the requirement. <br /> <br />Circumstances surrounding the zoning requirement were chronologically <br />explored and reference was made to Section 9lll.6 of the Arcadia <br />Municipal Code whereby only the City Council can grant a variation <br />from the requirement. It was noted that Tract 30284 (Green Oaks Drive) <br />adjacent to the subject property - was developed by Mr. Hovanitz <br />during a period when l5,000 sq. ft. was required, although deed <br />restrictions called for 26,000 sq. ft., that as a result proceedings <br />were instituted calling for 30,000 sq. ft. lots and that became a <br />reality in November of 1965. The Planning Commission denied the <br />subject application for division of the property and Mr. Hovanitz <br />subsequently appealed that decision. <br /> <br />Mayor Arth declared the hearing open and the following persons addressed <br />Council. <br /> <br />IN PART. <br /> <br />Richard A. Levin, l843 Greenfield, Los Angeles, attorney for the <br />applicant, stated that Mr. Hovanitz would first speak to the matter, <br />then George Ripper and that he would later submit a presentation. He <br />asked for and received permission to summarize his client's position. <br /> <br />Prior to this, Mr. Levin remarked that in his opinion Councilman <br />Butterworth might be biased in this matter by reason of the fact that <br />at a time when the applicant was seeking permission to have another <br />tract acted upon, Mr. Butterworth (not on t~ City Council at the time), <br />appeared before the legislative body and opposed that application; <br />that the issues involved although not identical, are similar and <br />evidently Mr. Butterworth has formed an opinion with respect to lot <br />size in the area; that he raised the question at this time as it might <br />be necessary for him to ask Mr. Butterworth to disqualify himself from <br />judgment in this matter. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Councilman Butterworth responded that, as an attorney himself, he <br />recognized the obligation Mr. Levin has to his client and that the <br />matter has been raised quite properly, however, he would analyze it <br />differently; that it was correct that at a time when he was not a <br />member of Council, he represented a property owner's association in <br />connection with an application of Mr. Hovanitz for permission to <br />subdivide property in the same area as that currently before Council; <br />that he also was concerned about the possibility of a conflict in this <br />situation and had addressed a letter to the City Attorney asking if <br />there was legal conflict. He received a reply, indicating that he did <br />not have a conflict; that therefore there is no necessity for him to <br />disqualify himself; that he intends to participate in the proceedings <br />and on that basis he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Levin; he contin- <br />ued that while he resides in the area his home is sufficiently removed <br />from the subject property that no matter how the decision goes it could <br />not make any difference to him one way or another. <br /> <br />- 2 - <br /> <br />2-17-70 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.