HomeMy WebLinkAbout0066
.r
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 66
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLAmIDm CONMISSION OF TEE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORHIA, RECOl>fi'lE~mING THJ<; GRANTIim OF A
VARIANCE TO PERI-lTT THE SLAUGHTER OF POULTRY IN CONNECTION
\VITR THE BUSINESS OF RETAn SALE OF DRESSED POULTRY UPON
SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.
, ~..? 7.:(;..".Y~~''''''''?--
;..,.: .L,;" .vf-
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of ~larch, 1952, there was filed with this Com-
mission the petition of Herbert Kalliwoda requesting a zone variance on the foll~;.Lng
described property in the City of Arcadia, to wit:
The East 38 feet of the nest 351 feet (measured at right angles to the
west line of said lot) of that part of lot 69, Santa Anita Colony, lying
southwest of Las Tunas Drive, as shown on map recorded in Book 42,
page 87, Hiscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County,
to permit the slaughter and dressing of poultry upon the above described property in
connection ;11th the retail sale of dressed poultry upon the premises adjacent thereto;
and
~REAS, after notice required by Ordinance No. 760, a public hearing on
. the :matter was held before this Commission on the 8th day of April, 1952, and all
interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard;
!lOti, TriEREFORE, the City Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia does
herebY find, determine, resolve and recommend as follows:
1. That there "ere no protests to the bI'antine; of the requested variance,
either written or oral.
2. That the properly in question is located on a heavily traveled
thoroughfare and truck route; that much of the property in the surrounding area is
devoted to uses of an }l-l character; that the property across the street is presently
unilnprovedj that the property immediately to the "est is vacant; that the property
.
immediately to the east is improved as and used for an automobile service station.
3. That the grantinG of t.l1e variance requested, upon the conditions
hereinafter imposed, will not, because of the development and the use of the
. surrounding property, be inconsistent with good planning practice or the provIsions
of the master zoning plan, or with the present development of t.lle neighborhood
in l.h:ich said property is located, nor will the granting of the var!an.ce as herein-
after recommended adversely affect the comprehensive general plan.
4. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights of the applicant for the reason that the present
development and use of adjacent properties are not conducive to the use of the
subject property for t.l.3 uses for which it is presently zoned for the reasons pre-
viously stated.
(" ...
Ji)
."
,,).-
--,.#
J.
-1-
r