Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />LOT SPLIt <br />No. 259 <br /> <br />ammanI <br />I <br />3~j <br /> <br />.'1Y~>c <br /> <br />denial of this lot split but that Mr. Nate Margolin was present and <br />desired to address the Council for the purpose of appealing the <br />decision. <br /> <br />In compliance with Mayor Reibold's request, Mr. Edward Stout, a member <br />of the Planning Commission, reported on the matter, in part as follows: <br />That in the opinion of the Planning Commission the requested lot split <br />represents a deviation from the orderly pattern of the neighborhood <br />and does not represent a sound portrayal of what Mr.- Margolin proposes <br />to do with the property or how he proposes to do it; also that the <br />granting of a lot split in this instance would be in conflict with <br />certain deed restrictions; and that it would require the placing of <br />the house in a manner that would not be compatible with the rest of the <br />neighborhood insofar as yard clearance, etc. is concerned. He added <br />that a petition signed by approximately 38 residents of the area protested <br />the split on the basis that it violates deed restrictions. Mr. Stout <br />also stated that in the opinion of the Planning Commission the requested <br />split is not in the interests of good planning. <br /> <br />Mr. Nate Margolin, 605 Mountain Drive, Beverly Hills, then addressed the <br />Council, stating that he would be amenable to any plan considered by the <br />Planning Commission to be in the interest of good planning; that he had <br />been unaware of the deed restrictions until the aforesaid petition had <br />been filed, and that he desired additional time to study the restrictions. <br />That after further study of the restrictions, if he interpreted their <br />meaning to be as represented he would withdraw the requested lot split. <br />He added that he could not agree with the Planning Commission that the <br />requested lot split would depreciate and act as a detriment to the exist- <br />ing homes on Pamela Road; that in fact he proposed to erect a residence <br />that would enhance the value of the street. Also that contrary to the <br />fact that the petition stated there would be improper rear, side and <br />front yard setbacks, he was prepared to show that this was not the case. <br />He then asked that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />The following persons then requested and received permission to address <br />the Council: <br /> <br />Francis J. Donnelly, 53 Pamela Road <br />Cyril F. McDermott, 77 Pamela Road <br />Duane B. Blanchard, 14 Pamela Road <br /> <br />In essence they requested Council not to refer this matter back to the <br />Planning Commission, contending that this is a delaying tactic, and <br />protested the requested lot split on the basis that the deed restrictions <br />on the lot in question prohibited the building of two residences on one <br />lot, and also the fact that there would be insufficient back yard <br />footage on the existing residence on Santa Anita Avenue. They felt also <br />that the requested lot split would not enhance the value of the property <br />on Pamela Road. <br /> <br />Whereupon Councilman Balser moved that the Council accept the <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny Lot Split No. 254 - <br />Vivian Margolin, 1431 South Santa Anita Avenue. Councilman Jacobi <br />seconded the motion and it was carried on roll call vote as follows: <br /> <br />AYES: Councilmen Balser, Jacobi, Phillips, Reibold <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Councilman Camphouse <br /> <br />C. Van Der Stad, 1715 South Santa Anita Avenue <br /> <br />Planning Commission recommendation for Denial of this lot split. The <br />City Clerk read a letter from Mr. Van Der Stad requesting that action <br />be delayed on this matter until additional information has been <br />presented to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />8-4- 59 <br />