Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3540 RESOLUTION NO. 3540 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR A SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON THE LOT LOCATED AT 315 LE ROY AVENUE IN SAID CITY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That there was filed with the City Planning Commission on July 9, 1962, the application of Elmer and Esther A. Benson, as owners, for a zone variance to build a second single- family dwelling 9n property located at 315 Le Roy Avenue in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows: Lot 38, Tract No. 951, as shown on map recorded in Book 17, page 28, of Maps, records of said County. That, after due notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance of said City, a public hearing was duly held on the matter by and before said City Planning Co~~ission on July 24, 1962, at which time all inter- ested persons were given a full opportunity to be heard and to pre- sent evidence, at the conclusion of which hearing said Commission adopted its certain Resolution No. 455, wherein and whereby it recom- mended the denial of the requested variance. That within ten (IO) days thereafter a written appeal from said decision and recommenda- tion was duly filed, pursuant to which, after notice duly given, a public hearing was held by and before this City Council on Septem- ber 4, 1962, at w1ich time all interested parties were again given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; that at this hearing it was proposed to present evidence to the Council that had not been presented to said City Planning Commission and the matter was referred back to said Commission by said Council for further con- sideration and rec:ommendation. That after due notice as required by -l- 3540 the Zoning Ordinance of said City, a second public hearing was duly held on the matter by and before said City Planning Commission on October 9, 1962, at which time applicants and all other persons were again given a full opportunity to present additional evidence. That at the conclusion of such hearing said Commission adopted its cer- tain Resolution No. 462 wherein and whereby it recommended the denial of the requested variance; that within ten (10) days thereafter a written appeal from said decision and recommendation was duly filed, pursuant to which, after notice duly given, a second public hearing was held by and before this City Council on November 20, 1962, at which time all interes~ed parties were again given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. SECTION 2. That subJect property is zoned R-I, is 75 feet by 275 feet in size and has an area exceeding 20,000 square feet. That most of the property in the immediate vicinity and elsewhere in the City consists of lots the same size or larger. That less than 25% of the lots in the immediate vicinity have two or more dwellings. That it was not shown that' there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to subJect property or to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity. That it was not shown that a variance is necessary for the preservation of any property right of the ap- plicant possessed by other property in the same zone or viciqity since for the firi3t nine (9) years that applicants owned the property, a variance would not have been required for the construction of a second dwelling thereon. That the granting of such variance would be materially injurious to the property and improvements in the zone and vicinity in which the property is located, particularly because it would make difficult if not impossible the denial of other similar requests, thereby effectively changing the area from'R-1 to R-2 type of development. That such an R-2 use in an R-I Zone would mean -2- 3540 greater density of population and would constitute poor ~lanning prac- tice and would adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons the request for a variance to allow a second single-family dwelling on ,the above- desc~ibed property located at 315 Le Roy Avenue is hereby denied. SECTION 4. 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 4th day of December , 1962, by the affirmative vote of NOES: :Gouncilman Turner ABSENT: None .~)0?1 L 'City Clerk of the City of Arcadia SIGNED AND APPROVED this 4th day of December ,1962. ~~tR~ Mayor of the c~t:i of Arcadia ATTEST: ~?h. City Clerk (SEAL) -3- 3540