Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0058 . . . R~SOLwrION NO. 58 i, rt....SOLlfTI0lf OJ. 'l'J.-L.:. Ci'l'Y PIuJ:i:TDIG COI,l1HssIOIl OF Till.: GITY OF' "..RC...Dli-., C,.::".il"OJhliJ., R"';C01f;,..dIDnm TJu.. RLCLASSH'IC.I:rrOil or CLRT,.IK RLoi'.L F,WL.HTY Lo! Tiili CITY OP' ..RG""J).lil, 'rii," D:L3IhL 0:;1 CLRThlil RE';"ULS'l':WD n:L.CL"S~LcICLTIOl1 OF PRo.? 3TY, idD RE.COJ.ll,~~:':':W 'LiL GRi,iri.'IID OF .. V"IU,,;iC:C I:;FFEC'IING ClillT...LH Pj~OP:...RTY Dl 'f.i.L CI'rY OF ,.fiG,,])I.... THl:!; crr-x PL.i.J'll1'TIW COLi,J:SSIOil 01' TlL CITY OF ARCADIA, ChLE'0HH1A, DUES Hl',REBY PDID, DBTER~~Dru Ai.m RbSOLVE AS l<'OLLOI.S: \~REAS, on the 29th day of October, 1951, there was filed with this Commission tbe petition of Ross A. Rimes and June Uancy Himes requesting a change of zone classification, as follows: All of Lot 66, and that portion of Lot 69 lying northorlj' of Las Tunas ~rive and Live Oak ..venue, Santa Anita Colony, as shown on map recoraed in 300k 42, page 87, Liscellaneous Records of Los . ,1.11t;eles County, being located west of Santa ..ni ta ;'.venue and north of Las Tunas Drive, to be chunGed from Zones R-l and R-3 to Zones B-2, R-3, PR-3 and C-3, all as shown on map attached to the appli- cation on file in the office of the City Planning Co~ssion and open to public inspection. m:i:BE"S, after due notice, as required by the provisions of OrdInance ~o. 760 of the City of i~cadia, publio hearings were held on the matter by and before this Commission on ~ovember 13 and Novi;lmber 27, 1951, at which times all interested parties were ..;iven an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; . IlOl" T:t:...r1BFORL, Ii::. IT ;U"SOLV.i::.D, that this Commission make the followinG findings and recommendations to the City Council of the City of ,.rcndia: S~CTIon 1. That there were numerous protests received and heard at said hearings; that most of said protests were from res i- dents and pI'opert;\' ovmers on V:oodruff .~venue and sandra ,/;.venue; tl1nt the Woodruff Avenue protests stemmed largely from the loss of privacy which miGht result to the use of their rear yards for out- door living and the conse~uent arrangement of their homes, by the r. i , /, ~ > or;: ,/ , 58 -1- ,/ . . . . . construction of multi-story dwellincs on applicants' adjacent property, and from the probable dimunition of Woodruff Avenue property values by tenant occupancy of adjacent property; that the Sandra Avenue residents' and property owners' principal objection was the contemplated extension of SandraAvenue to Santa Anita ~venue, and particularly the extension of a street south therefrom to Las Tunas Drive, as the present dead-end Sandra hvenue would be subjected to heavy throu~h traffic thereby; that the protests of the Woodruff Avenue residents and owners will be largely met and ~eatly minimized by the imposition of the conditions hereinafter recommended; that the objections of the Sandra ",venue residents and property owners are. in the opinion of this Commission, ill-founded for the reason that good planning principles and the welfare and con- venience of the communits require the openinG and extension of the ~treets as proposed. reGardless of the exact use to which such property is ultimately put. SECTION 2. That the size, shape and location of a~plicants' ~roperty, and the use and developemnt of other property in the area, make it necessary and udvisable that the entire parcel be considered as a unit rather than as isolated parcels; that only by considering the entire parcel and problem can Good planning come to any portion thereof or to the area involved. SECTION 3. That for t~e purposes of clarity and brevity, the applicants' property is hereinafter referred to as parcels No.1, 110. 2, :ro. 3, No.4, Ho.5, ifo. 6 and no. 7; that each of said parcels is particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, the same as if herein now set forth in full. SECTION 4. That this Commission recommends the following classifications, uses and conditions upon the said parcels of applicants' property and for the reasons as follows: A. That parcel No.1, though classified as ~one R-3, is subject to the decision of the superior Court of the State of -2- . . . . . cnl~fornia in and for the County of Los Angeles, Department B (Pasadena) in Case No. C-3337, entitled, Ross ~. Himes and June Nancy Himes, plaintiffs, vs. the City of ;~cadia et al., defendants, wherein judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and aeainst the defendants, declaring that Ordinance No. 760 of the City of Arcadia is unconstitutional insofar as it restricts the use of parcel No. 1 of said property as herein described to R-3 uses, as defined in said ordinance, and declaring plaintiffs' riDht to use said parcel Jo. 1 for any use permitted in Zone C-2 in said ordinance; that Zone C-3 is more restrictive than Zone C-2 and applicants have requested that said parcel No. 1 be placed in and classified as Zone C-3; thut ti1e public welfare and convenience will better be served by placing said parcel [,0. I in Zone C-3, and this Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that said Parcel No. 1 be placed in and classified as Zone C-3. B. That the proposed development of parcel No. 1 for commercial purposes as permitted by the aforesaid court decision, require the availability of additional off-street parking facilities as incidental to said parcel No.1; that parcel No. 2 as herein described is the logical and proper ~arcel to be used for such additional off-street parking; that the classification of parcel No. 2 as Zone R-l would be contrary to principles of cood planning and would serve no useful purposes; that the classification of said parcel No. 2 as Zone PR-3 and the development thereof for either additional off-street parking facilities or uses permitted in Zone R-3, would be in conformity with the generally accepted principles of Good planning and would best serve the public welfare and con- venience; that this Commission recommends to the City Council that said parcel No. 2 be placed in and cla3sified as Zone PR-3. ~ C. That the classific.ation of parcel Ho. 3 described herein as Zone R-l would be contrary to generally accepted principles of eood planning and unless reclassified, would be difficult to -5- . . . . . improve for B-1 use at its location adjacent to the permitted and recommended uses of parcels No. 1 and ITo. 2. that if zoned R-2, parcel No. 3 would constitute an adequate buffer zone between the property to the east and the property to the west; that this Com- mission recommends to the City Council that parcel No.3 describEd herein be placed in and be classified as Zone B-2. D. That parcel Ho. 4. pres'ently zoned B-3 and excepted from the provisions of the above referred judgment, be and remain in and classified as Zone R-3; that said B-3 classification will constitute the lOGical transition from the remainin0 R-3 property to tho west thereof and the cODuuerclal property to the east thereof; that this Commission hereb} recommends that parcel No. 4 described herein be in and remain classified as Zone R-3. SECTION 5. That this Commission recommends to the City Council that the chan~e of classification from Zone R-l to Zone B-2 as to parcels No. 5 and No. 7 herein described. and from Zone R-1 to Zone R-3 as to parcel No. 6 herein described, be denied for the reason that the construction of two (2) or more story dwellings intended for the use and occupancy of anything other than sinGle family dwellings would be detrimental to adjacent property in the area, particularly in that it could decrease that portion of the value of the adjacent residences attributable to the development of rear yards and improvements facing thereon for outdoor livin~; that the use of porcels Ho. 5 and ;10. 7 for B-2 uses would be in conforwity with the accepted principles of goed planning and would act as a locical buffer between the various adjacent properties if the R-2 uses were subject to and limitEld by the following conditions: A. That the use of parcels Ho. 5 and jlo. 7 be limited and restricted to only those uses permitted by subsections 1. 2 and 5 of Section 6 of Ordinance ~o. 760, and B. That no structure be permitted thereon in excess of one story in heiGht. -4- . . . . . . SLC:l':LON 6. That the use of parcel 110. 6 would be in con- formity with the accepted principles of r;ood planninG and \"Iould act as a lo~ical buffer hetween the various adjacent properties if the R-3 uses nere subjoct to and limit~j by the followinZ conditions: A. 'i'h[,t the use of parcol ao. 6 be limited and restricted to only those uses vermitted by subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Section ]0. 7 of urdinance ;-10. 760 and customary accessory buildings. B. That no st~ucture be permitted thereon in excess of one story in heiGht. S.c..GTIO.l 7. 'l'hat this Commission recommends to the City Council tl1!...t u zone variance be granted to allow the above specIfied uses on parcels ~;o. 5, J;o. 6 and Ifo. 7. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of tbis resolution, and sh~ll forward a copy of the same to the City Council of the City- of ..rcadia. I ii.c;R:"'BY Gl:!.'RTI1Y thE. t the foreGoin~ resolution \7SS adopted by the City ~lanninG Commission at un adjourned regular meetinG held on the 4th day of ~ecember, 1951, by the followin~ vote: AYSS: Balser, Smith. Sorenson, ~eickert HOLS: YJ\opp ...BS.L.IT: Berky ;fOT VOTInG: Anderson ~= /.? '---T" ~'-4..."J . Chairman h'l'TbST: . . . Er..l::IDIT II A II P.~~c~ NO.1. A part of lot 66 and part of lot 69, Santa Anita Colony, as shown on map :recorded in Dook 42, page 87, :.iscellaneous Recol'ds of Los Angeles County, beginnine at a point in the east line of said lot 66, being also the west line of Santa Anita Avenue, distant south 295 feet from the northeast corner of said lot; thence west parallel with the north line of said lot a distance of e65 feet; thenoe south parallel with the east lin~ of said lot to tho northerly line of Las ~lDa3 Drive; thenoe easterly along the northerly line of Las 'i\mas Drive and Live Oak Avenue to the west line of Santa Anita Avenue; thenoe north thereon to the point of becinning. ri~;~EL NO.2. The south 117.5 feet of the north 29~ feet of the . eust 865 feet of said lot 66, Santa Anita colony. PARCEL NO.3. The south 117.5 feet of t~e north 295 feet of the east 75 feet of tho west 150 feet of said lot 66, Santa Anita Colony. PaRCEL No.4. The west 150 feet of said lot 66, Santa Anita Colony, excepting therefrom the no~th 295 feet thereof. PAnGh~ ~O. 5. The east 100 feet of the north l17.5 feet of said lot 66, Santa Anita Colony. PAHOEL 110. 6. The west 825 feet of the east 925 feet of the north ll7.5 feet of said lot 66, Santa ~nita Colony. PAnCEL ;;;0. 7. The east 75 feet of t~e west 150 feet of tho nort~" 1l7.5 feet of said lot 66, Santa Anita Oolony. .