Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY 'COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK <br /> <br />lowo""" <br /> <br /> <br />PLEDGE OF <br />ALLEGIANCE <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> <br />MINUTE <br />APPROVAL <br /> <br />TRACT <br />NO. 29869 <br />TENTATIVE <br />MAP <br />APPROVED <br /> <br />j-/~~7 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />19:7829 <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br /> <br />CITY 'COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA <br /> <br />REGULAR MEETING <br /> <br />JUNE 1, 1971 <br /> <br />The City Council of the City of Arcadia, met in regular session on <br />Tuesday, June 1, 1971 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the <br />Arcadia City Hall. <br /> <br />Rev. Walton Doering, Our Savior Lutheran Church <br /> <br />Mayor Pro Tempore Don W. Hage <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Considine, Rage, Helms <br />None <br /> <br />On MOTION by Councilman Hage, seconded by Councilman Considine and <br />carried unanimously the minutes of the regular meeting of May 18, 1971 <br />were APPROVED. <br /> <br />This proposed subdivision for 120 W. Sierra Madre Boulevard was before <br />Council originally on April 6, 1971 and a Motion by Councilman Considine, <br />seconded by Councilman Hage to approve the tract subject to stipulated <br />conditions was tabled. The Planning Commission then reviewed the zoning <br />and reported back that it was an appropriate classification. The matter <br />was before Council again on May 18, 1971 at which time it was noted by <br />the developer that the number of lots had been reduced from 15 to 14 and <br />that he would not construct any 2 story homes except on one odd shaped <br />lot; that the large oak trees would be preserved. Following this <br />another 'MOTION was made by Councilman Considine, seconded by Councilman <br />Hage, and the original MOTION was MODIFIED to reflect changes made in <br />the tentative map as reported by the subdivider. <br /> <br />Considerable discussion ensued at that time during which objections were <br />lodged by Councilmen Arth and Butterworth, as well as neighbors. Mr. Arth <br />was concerned about the shallowness of the lots and Mr. Butterworth stated <br />in part that the subdivider had made great strides in the right direction <br />but that he was not satisfied that the proposed tract is the best develop- <br />ment for the property in question. Mayor Helms indicated his inability <br />to vote on the matter due to a legal involvement 'with a member of the sub- <br />divider's firm. The matter was then put over until this date. During <br />the interim the subdivider and others interested attended an adjourned <br />session on May 27 at which an endeavor was made to arrive at definitive <br />guidelines which the developer could rely upon and to bring the matter <br />to a conclusion. <br /> <br />At this time Mayor Helms summarized the situation and Councilman Arth <br />reiterated his concern for maintaining the integrity of the residential <br />areas, but indicated his willingness to go along with the subdivision <br />which will now have 14 lots instead of 15 with a 90' frontage, as long <br />as the maximum rear yards would be maintained, trees preserved and two <br />story construction limited to one lot (No. 14). <br /> <br />Councilman Butterworth observed that the subdivider has been most <br />cooperative and understanding; that the developer has complied with the <br />subdivision ordinance but that in his opinion this situation and others <br /> <br />6-1-71 <br /> <br />- 1 - <br />