Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2912 '-' ... r RESOLUTION NO. 2912 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A LIMITED VAR~~CE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A T~1ENTY-PUPIL DAY. NURSERY AT 530 WEST LAS TUNAS DHIVE IN SAID CITY FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS 0 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES FIND, DETEmUNE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLO~lS: SECTION 1. That there was filed with the City Planning Commission on March 13, 1957, the application of Dorothy Lo Guidice, as owner, for a zone variance to permit the following described property in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, to wit: Lot 28, Tract No. 6641, as shown on map recorded in Book 126, page 67, of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, located at 530 West Las Tunas Drive, to continue to be used as a children's day nursery for not over thirty-five children and to make such variance permanent. That after notice as required by Ordinance No. 760 of the City of Arcadia, as amended, a public hearing was duly held by and before said Commission on April 9, 1957, which hearing was duly continued to April 23, 1957, at which times all interested persons were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. That upon the conclusion of said hearings, said Commission adopted its certain Resolution No. 253, wherein and whereby it made certain findings and recommendations to this Council. SECTION 2. That on May 27, 1957, the applicant filed with the City Clerk an appeal from said decision as set forth in said Planning Commission Resolution No. 253, pursuant to which appeal the City Counci,l on June 4, 1957, set Tuesday, July 16th, 1957, at the hour of 8:00 O'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, as the date, time and place for said hearing to consider the said recommendation of the Planning : -1- 2912 ~~. '-< ,,-. Commission and to hear aforesaid appeal therefrom. SECTION 3. That at the Planning Commission hearing there was only one written protest against the granting of the variance and no one appeared to orally protest; that one resident in the neighborhood spoke in favor of the variance. That at the hearing on the appeal, additional testiffiony, bot~ oral and written, was presented, :30me in opposition to the granting of a permanent variance or inc~easing the number of pupils permitted, and others in favor of the 'requested variance. That there has been a variance for ,the requested use of subject property since 1950, with little, or no complaint from surrounding residents; that there have been few changes in facts and circumstances as found to exist on March '25, 1952, as determined by the Planning Commission under its Resolution No. 63. SECTION.4. That subject property is on a busy thorough- fare; the adjoj.ning property, on the west is uniffiproved andis, not , " ,likely to be iffiproved in the near future under the requirements of Zone R-l in which it is located; that these circumstances do not apply generally to property in Zone R-l but do apply to properties similarly situated on Las Tunas Drive. That such variance is nec- essary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the a~plicant. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the publiC welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone. SECTION 5. That subject property was improved, for and is still 'u sa PIe as a single family residence; that all properties within the block east of subject property on both sides of the 'street are developed for and used sol~ly as single family residences, although the property west of subject property has been developed for commercial uses. That the granting of a permanent variance at this time, as -2- 2912 .. .... .... requested by applicant, would be premature, and should await the ,further developlnent of properties to the west to determine whether or not property on Las Tunas should be developed with multiple dwell- ings. That the granting of the variance for a period of five years will not be inconsistent with good planning practice or the provisions of the master z(ming plan, or with the present development of the neighborhood in which said property, is located, nor will it adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. SECTION 6. That for the foregoing reasons, the appeal of applicant is denied and a permanent variance as requested by applicant is hereby denied. That a variance is hereby granted to permit the use of the property hereinabove described for the conduct of a day nursery for not over tWEmty pupils for a period of five years from and after the date of adoption of this resolution. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to :the adoption of this Resolution.. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arcadia held on the 6th day Clf August, 1957, ,by the affirmative vote of at least three Councilmen, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Jacobi, Camphouse, Reibold and Dennis NOES: None ABSEN~~; Councilman Phillips .C"~~ l!J'2 -71 CHR~N~PJ1EN City Clerk SIGNED AND APPE9VED this -6th day r.1ayor (Seal) -3- 2912