Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0003 , . . . . . RESOLUTION NO. 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING C01mISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA FINDING TfulT THE CONTEMPLATED USE OF PROPERTY IN C-2 ZONE FOR A LAUNDRY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS SHOULD BE PERMITTED AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OF ARCADIA THAT SUCH USE BE DECLARED TO BE INCLUDED IN SAID ZONE. THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF' THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES RESOLYE AND DET~RMINE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS. under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 760 of the City of Arcadia certain lists of permissible uses are enumer- ated in the several zones therein designated but no apprqpr~ate classification exists in said ordinance for the following specific use. towit; a small laundry. conducted in a small store-room similar . to the so-called. "Chinese" or "French" hand laundry. but utilizing in the place of hand-finishing a small boiler for the furnishing of steam and specially designed presses for finishing the work. no flammable liquids of explosive substances being employed in the oper- ations. and WHEREAS. the particular use or operation herein described does not appear specifically in any list of uses enumerated in said Ordi- nance. NOW. THEREFORE. the said Planning Commission has ascertained all the pertinent facts concerning said use and hereby finds and determines . that the contemplated use of property within any C-2 Zone in said City for the operation of a small laundry under the conditions recited above should be permitted for the reason that such a use would be no more hazardous or objectionable than othEr uses presently included in such Zone. towit: Cleaning and pressing establishments. and the operation described would not and was not intended to constitute a laundry as listed in another zone under the terms of said zoning Ordi- nance; and the Planning Commission. pursuant to the provisions of Section 15 of said Ordinance No. 760. hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. that the aforementione~ specific use be permitted in Zone C-2 as designated in such -1- Ordinanc e . ~ 4, ~ \,}.tP 'f ? C}- oJ - - , . I . . 7. In the judgment of the Commission, the petitioners' plan does not provide any assurance that the proposed changes and improvements, particularly those relating to the dedication of new streets and the subdivision of a portion of the property for residential use, will actually be accomplished. Under the rezoning action, requested by the petitioners, no effective control could be established as to the time when completion of such changes and improvements could be re- quired on the part of petitioners or subsequent owners of the petition- ers' property. 8. It is the consensus of a majority of this Commission that certain opponents to the plan of petitioners for rezoning have ex- pressed inconsistent and unreasonable arguments in support of their opposition to this petition, but the recommendation of this Commission as eA~ressed in the terms of this Resolution is based upon the prin- ciples and policies established by the Co~nission, rather than the ob- jections of certain opponents to this application for rezoning. 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 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of AU5Ust, 1949, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Anderson, Pipp1n,Sbaw and Sullivan. NOES Mr. Stoner. ABSENT: Mr. Ingstad. CHA1R~~oh ATTEST: hv. Secretary -3- , . . ~ intent of the Master ZoninG Plan of the City of Arcadia which was adopted and became effective on June 3, 1949, after a series of public hearings and which plan was unanimously approved by the Planning Com- mission and the City Council. 2. It is the opinion of the Commission that there have been no changes in circurrwtances relating to the petitioners' property, since this same matter was reviewed ro~ring the Public hearings prior to the adoption of the Master Zoning Plan, which warrant or justify the rezoning of subject property at this time. 3. under the terms of Ordinance No. 760, covering the planning procedure of the City of Arcadia, land use should be rezoned by the Planning Commission and the City Counci~ only in the event that such . rezoning is required by "public necessity and convenience and general \"lelfare". In the opinion of the Commission J;ublic necessity and con- venience and general welfar-e do not require or indicate the desirability of the rezoning requested by the petitioners. 4. The petitioners' claim that there is need for additional commercially-zoned property in the vicinity covered by their request, is, in the opinion of the Commission, refuted by the fact that there is a substantial area and frontage of land in the immediate neighborhood which has been zoned for business use for some time in the past, but which remains unused and undeveloped for commercial purposes. 5. The petitioners have pl'edicated their request for rezoning on the claim that they are being subjected to hardship under the present zoning restrictions effective on the use of this land. Under the . provisions of Ordinance No. 760, a property owner, who claims alleged hardship, can seek relief only through the medium of a Variance and not through a request for rezoning. 6. The action requested by the petitioners is, in the opinion of the Commission, contrary to good planning practice as it requests "spot" rezoning of his property without regard for the effect of such action on other properties in the immediate area, which may be subject to similar conditions. -2-