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.
.