Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0008 '.1 , . . , . RESOLUTION NO.8. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMIS- SION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR A VARIANCE AFFECTING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 704 EAST LONGDEN AVENUE, IN SAID CITY. THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEHEAS, on the 4th day of August, 1949, there was filed with this Commission the Petition of Bernard R. Nolan . and Margaret F. Nolan, requesting a zoning variance on the following described property in the City of Arcadia, to wit: That portion of lot 125, Arcadia Acreage Tract. as per map recorded in Book 10, page 18 of Maps. records of Los Angeles County, beginning at a point in the northerly line of said lot distant 393.75 feet easterly from the northwesterly corner thereof; thence easterly parallel with the northerly line thereof 124.51 feet to the easterly boundary . line of the City of Arcadia; thence northeasterly thereon to the northerly line of said lot; thence westerly thereon to the point of beginning, except the westerly 87 feet thereof, being located on the southerly side of Longden Avenue east of Sixth Avenue, and known as 704 East Longden Avenue; to permit the conduct of a riding academy and a boarding stable for horses, and WHEREAS. said property is now located in a residential zone. to wit R-l zone, and WHEREAS, after notice as required by Ordinance No. 760, a public hearing on the matter was held before this Commission on the first day of September, 1949, and all interested 1. \0, "rt 'J>... 8- j . . .' , " . . (c) East of Santa Anita Avenue at the intersection of Live Oak Avenue. 4. It is the considered judgment of a majority of this Commission that the problem involved in this application has been subject to so much controversy and has been of such widespread interest, that the City Council would be warranted in seekinG the benefit of the public's will in this matter by referring the de- cision as to whether or not there shall be permitted a further expansion of business property in the City on Las Tunas Drive and Live Oak Avenue, to the voters of the City at large. 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 HERE~Y CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was special adopted by the City Planning Commission at a~~ meeting held on the 11th day of October, 1949, by the following votes: AYES: Mr. Anderson, Davis, Pippin and Sullivan. i~OES : None. ABSENT: Mr. Robertson, Shaw and Stoner. <- 1'V?rG) ,. . ~ Chairman, Plannine Commission. ATTEST: y. ~ , . --., . . . . . on the 22nd day of September, 1949, and all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard, and VlliEREAS, in the opinion of this Commission, the main- tenance of the several commercial uses hereinbefore described and set forth in said petition, in a residential zone, would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the sur- rounding property, and would adversely affect the comprehensive general plan of this City, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Commission recommends to the City Council of the City of Arcadia that the aforesaid petition be disapproved and denied for the following reasons: 1. The request of petitioners is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Master Zoning Plan of the City of Arcadia and particularly in relation to its effect on adjacent residential property, such Master Zoning plan having been adopted and made effective on June 3, 1949, after a series of public hearings and unanimous approval by the Commission and the City Council; 2. It is the concensus of the majority of this Com- mission, who heard the evidence at the public hearing and who are qualified to vote in this matter, that it would be an un- warranted extension of the present zoning in relation to the needs of the City of Arcadia; 3. In the opinion of the majority of this Commission the variance requested by petitioners is contrary to good planning practice as it involves business or commercial use0'f the afore- said property without regard for the rights of others located (a) in the same block and whose property fronts on the same heavily travelled highway; and (b) in the so-called "triangle" area whose request for business use was denied by the City Council, ~ .ur'lll. 1:_ bL. t__ __..81188.1;'811 of II!!!. P' ...1 L ~ l!:.....11!:l!:l!~;' and 2.