No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0001 . . . ----------... .;; . ~ ~ . . RE30IDTION :NO.1. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLAmiING COWISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RECOlnmJltl\ING THE GRANTING OF A ZONE VARIANCE TO ALWW TH~ CONSTRUCTION AIm USE OF A CHURCH Am> OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIE3 ON CERTAIN PROPERTY ON SOUTH SECOl'ID A VE:NtJE. THE OITY PLAZmIOO ComuSSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES RES OLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, on the 31st da,y of Kay, 1949, there was filed with this Commission the petition 01' Ted R. Ho.ghes, Elwin H. Rein and Eve Ramin requesting a zone variance on the North Gne-haU 01' lot 32, Arcadia Acreage Tract, as shown on map recorded in Book 10, page 18 of Maps, records of Los Angeles Count" exoeptlDg therefrom the North laO feet of the East 160 feet thereof, to be used for the following purpose: The ereotion 01' a ohurch, parish hall, and other buildings by the Mission of the TrallSfiguration, Aroadia, a California oor- poration, for the purpose of oodl.ucti.ng religious servioes and other religious and related aotivities, and WHEREAS, after notice as required by Ordinanoe No. 760, a pUblio hearing on the matter was held before uhis Commission on the 16th day of June, 1949, and all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, in the opinion of this Commission, churches in general are a very neoessary part 01' the community development, and the location 01' this ohuroh in :Particular Will not be detri- mental to the pUblic welfare, or injurious to surrounding pro- perty, and w11l not adversely effect the oOl!lprehensive general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, :BE IT RESOLVED that this Commission reoommend to the City Oouncil of the City 01' Arcadia that the ebove mentioned petition be approved and granted, subject to the following oonditions: 1. That no churoh buildings shall be ereoted on the 51.25 foot frontage 01' the property on Second Avenue. 2. That in the event of a reasonable acoeas to the property being provided fran First Avenue, or some other source, . I'I ,I' 1.':"1")1 " l ~ .. " I~ .q. - - I" , \" . , , . '\ I 1/ , 11:- , .' . . . . . . wou~d create a dangerous and ill-advised precedent since there may be other persons in a position similar to that of petitioners who could reasonably demand similar relief by variance for the operation of commercial slaughter houses and business operations of any kind in the various residential districts throughout the City. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and shall forward a copy to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I liEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution w~s adopted by the City Planning Commissi0n at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of August, 1949, by the following vote: AYES : lilr. AnClerspn, Pippin and Shaw. NOES : ~~. Sullivan. ABSENT: None. NOT VOTING: Mr. Ingstad and s~~~ '" ...~ CJ?AIR of t e P annl.ng ~ commis s ion ~. -3- .~ . . would be detrimental to the public welfare, and injurious to surround- ing property and would adversely affect the comprehensive general plan of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THIS Commission recommend to the City Council of the City of Arcadia that the aforesaid petition be disapproved and denied for the followimg reasons: 1. The purpose 0 f the requested variance is to permit the main- tenance in a residential zone of a ~ommercial slaughter house, which has . been specifically included in a manufacturing zone (M-l) under the pro- visions of the recently adopted master plan, .and of various commercial enterprises which belong in and have been specifically provided for in the general business zone (C-2); 2. The Planning Commission feels that retail food stores and s.laughter houses should not be conducte.d jointly, or in the same zone. 3. The recently adopted master plan did not change these properties from residential to commercial zoning, and due consideration was given at the time of the adoption of such master plan to the desirability of re-zoning for business uses; 4. The fact that an apparent commercial use of these properties over a period of years has been indulged in by petitioners and former owners does not justify the condoning of violations of the present and past zoning laws, or legitimating the illegal use of these properties; 5. The variance requested would affect the surrounding properties as well as the properties involved and would affect the future use of ~ the same by petitioners or any other person or persons to whom the pro- perties might be sold; on the basis of a PERMANENT exception the grant- ing of this request for a variance would amount to a re-zoning of resi- dential property for a commercial slaughter house and various comnlercial uses, all of which have no place in a residential district or zone. 6. Ordinance No. 760 provides in part, that any license or permit, if issued in conflict with the provisions thereof, shall be null and . void. 7. The granting of the requested variance for an unlimited period -2-