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