Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2921 RESOLUTION NO. 2921 ,. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Trffi CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, TERf,lINATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY BOUNDED BY LAS TUNAS DRIVE ON THE NORTH, LIVE OAK A VENUE ON THE SOUTH, EL /10NTE AVENUE ON THE WEST AND SANTA ANITA AVENUE ON THE EAST, WITHOUT FURTHER RECL.I\SSIFYING THE SAi,IE, GRANTING A VARIfu~CE FOR THE CONDUCT OF AN EQUIPMENT RENTAL BUSINESS UPON A PORTION THEREOF, AND VillKING FINDINGS AND DETERI'IINATIONS RELATIVE TO THE FOREGOING. v THE CITY COUNCIL OF Trffi CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That numerous applications for change of' zone and for variances, concerning certain property in the City of Arcadia bounded on the north by Las Tunas Drive, on the south by Live Oak Avenue, on the west by EI Monte Avenue and on ,the east by Santa Anita Avenue, and commonly referred to as "The Triangle", ha...e, been filed with the City Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia; that as a result thereof and in view of the nature of the property and the problems of lonG standing presented thereby, the City Plannin~ Com- mission on December 26, 1956, adopted its certain Resolution No. 238 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING CmlMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF AND [.lAKING RECOf.1/.IENDATIONS CONCERNING THE RECLASSIFICATION FRQI.! ZONES R-l AND C-2 TO ZONE C-M V1ITH A 'D' OVER- LAY OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND FIXING THE DATE OF A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON'~ whereby said City Planning Commission on its own motion instituted proceedings for the consideration of and to make recommendations concerning the reclassif'ication from Zones R-l and C-2 to Zone C-~1 with a "D" overlay with respect to the above described property, pursuant to which a public hearing was held by and before said City Planning Commission on January 22, 1957, -l- 2921 which hearing was duly and regularly 'continued to, February 13, 1957, at which tim$all interested persons were given full oppor- tunity to be heard and to present evidence; that on March 12,1957, the said Cit;y Planning Commission adopted its certain Resolution No. 242 enti t.led "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COllJrUSSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECO~~mNDING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ON LAS TUNAS DRIVE AND LIVE OAK AVENUE FROM ZONES R-I AND C-2 TO ZONES PR-l, C-2, AND C-11 WITH AD-ZONE OVERLAY", wherein and whereby it recommended the classification and reclassificat.ion of the so-called "Triangle" property as follo~ls: the Westerly 60 feet of Lot 68, Santa Anita Colony Tract, from Zone R-l to Zone PR-I; the Easterly 257 feet of the westerly 317 feet of said Lot 68 from Zones R-I and C-2 to Zone C-2; all of said Lot 68, except the west 317 feet thereof, and that portion of Lot 69, Santa Anita Colony Tract, lying south of Las Tunas Drive, from Zone C-2 to Zone C-M; anc. the imposition upon all of said property of a Zone "D" overlay speci,fying the architectural restrictions, all as in said ,/ Resolution No. 242 more spec:ifically set forth. SECTION 2. That on March 19, 1957, the Arcadia City Coun- cil fixed'April 16, 1957, at the hour of 8:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chamt'ers of the Arcadia City Hall, as the date, hour and ' place of a p'l;~blic hearing for the purpose of considering aforesaid recommendations of the City Planning Commission contained in its said Resolution No. 242 and for the hearing of all interested per- sons and receiving all pertinent testimony relative to the said recommendations of the City Planning Corrunission and the proposed classification and reclassification of the so-called "Triangle" property, at which time all interested.persons were given full op- portunity to be heard and to present evidence. That upon the con- clusion of said hearing said City Council requested the City Plan- , ning Commission to study the C.,.MZoning with the thought of consid- ering a c-4 .:oning, probably eliminating the ;r:eferences in the , , -2- 2921 .' present C-[I! Zone recommendation dealing with the manufacturing phase of the zoning, with specific reference to three sections, namely, Sections 12, 18 and 22j that the Planning Commission return a new type of zone, more liberal than C-3, and giving the oppor- tUnity to put into operation the D-Zone overlay, removing those features which 'are partiCUlarly obnoxious to the people in the area. SECTION 3. That pursuant thereto the said City Planning Commission on April 23, 1957, reaffirmed its prior determinations that Zone C-M as a zone is desirable and should be retained in the ordinance whether or not it be made applicable to liThe Triangle" property, and pending further study of' the C-M Zone as it might ap- ply to said "'rriangle II property said Commission reaffirmed its recom- mendations with respect to the westerly portion of said "TriallGle" as set forth in Section 1 hereinbefore. SECTION 4. That on May 7, 1957, this Council determined that said westerly portion of liThe Triangle" should be reclassified as recommended by the Planning Commission and pursuant thereto on ~ay 21, 1957, this Council introduced and on June 4, 1957, adopted Ordinance No. 982 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN SAID CITY AND ESTABLISHING THE SA1.m IN ZONE PR-l AND ZONE D, AND ZONE C-2 AND ZONE D." reclassifying said westerly portion of liThe Triangle II property, and concurrently vii th the adoption of said Ordi- nance adopted its Resolution' No. 28i38 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,; CALIFORNIA, DETER~lINING AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE 'D' ZONE (ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY) II wherein and \'Thereby it imposed architectural restrictions upon the development of said property. That the classification or reclassification of the balance of liThe Triangle" property was and still is held under advisement by this City Council. -3- 2921 SECTION 5. That in view of the proposed development of the aforesaid \'lesterly portion of the so-called "Triangle'~ the City Planning Comm:tssion on June .26, 1957, advised the City Council that that portion of liThe Triangle" west of the Los Angeles County Flood Control Channel and not already reclassified by the City Council might well re'lllain in its present classification with an architec- tural design zone overlay as imposed upon the westerly portion of "The Triangle" property. SECTION 6. That on July 16, 1957, the majority of the City Council voted to accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission as contained in, their letter of recommendation dated June 26, 1957; that pursuant to said action, Ordinance No. 991 was prepared, presented to, read and discussed by this Council but its introduction was precluded by a majority vote of the City Council and the City Attorney was instructed by a majority of the Council to prepare the within resolution terminating the pending proceedings for the classlfication and reclassification of the so-called "Tri- angle" without any further reclassification thereof and granting a permanent varlance for the conduct of an equipment rental business upon a specifled portion thereof. SEcrION 7. That "The Triangle" property, by reason of its shape, the fact that it is bounded on the north and south by heavily travelled thoroughfares, is transected by a Los Angeles County Flood Control Channel, and its southerly boundary constitutes the boundary line between ~ity property on the north and county territory on the south, has posed problems both to the o~mers thereof and to the owners of adjacent city property. That said problems have not been and are not now insurmountable as evidenced by the prior develop~ ment of other po~tions thereof. That the problems of specific own- ers have in the past been solved or appreciably lessened by the granting of appropriate relief by way of variances as to specific -4- 2921 ~ parcels of property; that the problems of liThe Triangle" do not of themselves make the 'present zoning inappropriate; and particularly in view of the relief that has been and can be afforded in specific cases, the present zoning is neither oppressive nor unreasonable as to liThe Triangle" properties. That available figures indicate that the reclassification of liThe Triangle" properties to Zone C-~1 will depreciate the values of adjacent residential properties; that such depreciation of adjacent residential properties is unnecessary for the reason that the C-r.1 Zoning of "The Triangle" properties is not necessary to insure fueirfurther development nor to protect property rights of own,ers as evidenced by the fact that the market value of liThe Triangle" properties has increased many fold under the present zoning and without any further change of classificatio~ and portions thereof have :~een profitably and creditably developed under the zoning presently applicable; that the blight of '''The Triangle" prop- erties where :It exists is attributable more to the inability or re- fusal of the o~mers to properly plan the development and use of the properties rather than to related factors existing beyond the im- mediate confines of'Dhe Triangle" properties; that the majority of liThe Triangle" properties have already been developed or are presently proposed to be developed under the present zoning applicable; and the fact that the owners of a few parcels have failed or refused to de- velop their property does not warrant the reclassification of all or any major portion of "The Triangle" properties. That, although the C-M Zon~as a zon~ is, in the opinion of' this Council,desirable and was enacted at the instance of the Council; and al thoug,h the City Council has favored consideration .of "The Triangle" properties for C-M Zoning, nevertheless a further review of the situation and the proceedings and all pertinent facts compels the conclusion that the outright reclassification of liThe Triangle" properties to Zone C-M at this time would be premature and would be needlessly detrimental to adjacent properties and would not assure the development of the remaining "Triangle" properties. -5- 2921 ~ -, SECTION 8. That for the foregoing reasons the pending proceedings for the reclassification of the above described proper- ties referred to as "The Triangle" be and the same. are hereby termi- nated without any further reclassification thereof unless and until further proceedings be appropriately instituted and conducted. " SECTION 9. That on March 2, 1950, the Arcadia City Plan- ning Commissj.on adopted its certain Resolution No. 23 entitled "A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY PLANNING Cmfi.lISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE AFFECTING CERTAIN REAL PROP- ERTY LOCATED AT 82 WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE IN SAID CITY"jwherein and whereby it 'recommended the granting of a variance for the conduct of an equipment rental business upon a portion of "The Triangle" prop- erty therein more specifically described upon certain conditions therein outlined; that thereafter this City Counpil did onl~~~ 7, 1950, adopt its certain Resolution No. 2002 entitled "A RJ::SOLU~J;QN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFOm~IA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE RECor.1J.1ENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COl4MISSION OF SAID CITY, RECO~WENDING THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE AFFECTING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 82 vlEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE, IN SAID CITY", wherein and whereby the city Council approved and adopted the recommendations of' the Planning Commission as set forth in its said Resolution No. 23, and gr.anted a variance upon the portion of "The Triangle" property therein described to permit the conduct of an equipment rental busi- ness upon specified conditions; that on January 4, 1951, the City Planning Commission adopted its certain Resolution No. 39 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COI-IDlISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING, THE GRANTING OF AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE HERETOFORE GRANTED AFFECTING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 82 W. LAS TUNAS DRIVE,!N SAID CITY" wherein and whereby it recommended the extension of the aforesaid variance for an additional period of two years; that on February 6, 1951, the City Council adopted its -6- 2921 - - certain Resolution "0. 2llo entitled. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, APPROVING AND GRANTING THE EXTENSION OF A ZONE VARIANCE AFFECTING CER'l'AIN REAL.PROPERTY IN SAID CITY TO PER- I.JIT THE CONTINUED [,lAINTENANC;E THEREON OF AN EQUIPfilENT RENTAL BUSI- NESS" wherein and '\ihereby i t ad'opt~d and approved the findings and recommendations of the City 'Planning Cor.unission contained in its said Resolution No. 39, and extended aforesaid variance :Lor a period of two years from and after [,larch 7, 1955; that on December 14, 1955, the owner of the property affected by a~oresaid variance and of addi- tional adjacent property filed an application for the reclassifica- tion from Zone C-2 to Zone fil-l of said property; that upon the con- clusion of the public hearings held upon said application, the Ci':y Planning Commission on February 14, 1956, adopted its certain Reso- lution No. 2l0-A entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COl.1NIS- SIaN OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOlll.1ENDING THE DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED ZONE RECLASSIFICATION FRO[,1 ZONE C-2 TO ZONE N-I AFFECT- ING CERTAIN HEAL PROPERTY IN SAID CITY", \'I,1erein and whereby it re- commended the denial of the requested reclassification from Zone C-2 to Zone N-I; that after publiC hearings on said application the City Council, on April 3, 1956, adopted its certain Resolution No. 2759 entitled "A P.ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR ZONE RECLASSIFICATION AND GRANTING A ZONE VARIANCE," wherein and whereby it denied the requested [.1-2 reclassification but granted a variance to permit the use of' the property for which an M-l Zone was requested, to be used for the con- 'duct of an ec~ipment rental business upon specified conditions. 3EGTION 10, That on April 3, 1956, the City Council found, among other things that "if the requested 11-1 Zoning be granted, it would not be.legally possible to restrict the use of the property to the limited 11-1 uses requested in the application; that the reclassi- fication of the subject property as requested ..(QuId not assist in but would hinder the orderly development and utilization of the. -7- 2921 subject propElrty and of the entire' ar~a. That the requested re- classification is not necessary for theproteetion of substantial property rights of the applicant for the reason that the full enjoy- ment of the property for the uses intended can be accorded and pro- tection to adjacent areas afforded by the granting of a variance for the purposes requested," That said findings are equally appropriate at this time with respect to the proposed C-M Zoning. That the find- ings and the recommendations of the City Planning Commission con- tained in its Resolutions Nos. 23J 39 and 2l0-A and of the City Coun- cil containe( in its Resolutions Nos. 2002, 2116 and 2759, insofar as they recommended or supported the Granting of a variance, still per- tain and are hereby r.eadopted and approved. That in lieu of the pro- posed C-M reclassification, a permanent variance should be and the same is herSY.rgranted to permit the use of the following described property, to wit: The westeriy 100 feet of that portion of Lot 69, Sa~ta Anita Colony Tract, as shown on map recorded in Book 42, page 87, [.Iiscellaneous Records' of Los Angeles County, lying southerly of Las Tunas Drive, located at 82 West Las Tunas Drive, for the conduct thereon of an equipment rental business upon the following terms and conditions: 1, That the above described property be suitably fenced; 2. That a suitable building, approximately 20 feet by 24 feet, be cons~ructed'on said property, if not already so constructed, and maintained thereon for the storage and housing of small tools; that aforesaid description shall not preClude the construction of additional buildings ,on said property; 3. That no track-laying tractors be kept, rented, handled or used upon the premises; that dump trucks kept, rented or used on the premises be limited to five-yard capacity; that pavement rollers be limited tc a maximum capacity of five tons; that air compressors be limited tc 210 cubic foot delivery; and that sldp loaders and tractors be limited to the Ford-Ferguson type; -8- 2921 - 4, All trailers rented or kept on the premises shall be no greater than 12 f'eet in length; 5. That no repair work, other than incidental repairs to equipment rented on the premises, shall be done or performed on the premises; 6. That all of the above described property, other than those portions improved with buildings, be paved within ninety days af'ter the effective date of the variance hereby granted; 7. That a reasonable effort be made by all persons con- ducting the equipment rental business on the premises to minimize or eliminate all detrimental noises and lights that might otherwise be objectionable; 8. That the violation of anyone or more of the foregoing conditions shall constitute grounds for the modification or revoca- tion of the variance hereby granted., SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ResoDltion, 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 20th day of August, 1957, by the affirmative vote of at least three Councilmen, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Camphouse, Jacobi and Reibold NOES: Councilmen Phillips and Dennis ABSENT: None C~~y SIGNED AND APPROVED 1957, ATTEST: r:~~R'~ (SEAL) ia -9- 2921