HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 62-229RESOLUTION NO, 62 -229
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING APPEAL FROM
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT THE APPLICATION OF HOWARD ROBERT
SPOTTS, THOMAS F. MC ILROY AND NOTA B.
TOLBERT FOR A ZONE VARIANCE UPON CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10034, 10040 AND
10048 OLIVE STREET, FROM 70NE A -1 -1 TO
R -3
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, Howard Robert Spotts, Thomas F. Mcllroy and Note B.
Tolbert, hereinafter referred to as Applicants, filed on June 7, 1962,
an application for a zone variance, requesting a change of zone from
A -1 -1 to R -3, upon that certain real property located at 10034, 10040,
and 10048 Olive Street, Temple City, California, which real property
is legally described as follows:
Lot 8, 9 and 10 of Tract No. 10558 as per Map Book, pages 4
and 5 in the office of the County Recorder, County of Los Angeles.
WHEREAS, on July 2, 1962, after notice duly given pursuant
to law, a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission duly deliberated and con
sidered the merits of the aforesaid application for a zone variance
and did on July 23, 1962, recommend to the City Council by its Reso-
lution No, 62 -20PC that the subject application for variance be denied;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public Hearing, after notice
duly given, on August 13, 1962, at its regular meeting, at which time
all persons were given full opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temple City
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
1. Olive Street in the location of 10034, 10040 and 10048
has a paved roadway of approximately 35 to 40 feet and is an ordinary
city street not curbed or guttered at the said location and not de-
signed to carry heavy traffic.
2. Immediately adjacent to the applicants' property are
single - family dwellings which would be adversely affected by the vari-
ance requested if granted in that the apartment houses would adversely
affect the residential character of the area.
3. Olive Street is not a proper street for development of,
apartment houses at this time or in the immediate foreseeable future
4. There are ample apartment house sites in the area of
Baldwin Avenue and no need for apartment houses on Olive Street.
SECTION 2. Public necessity, convenience, general welfare
and good zoning practice do not justify a zone variance upon appli-
cants' property from A -1 -1 to R -3.
SECTION 3. The granting of a zone variance as requested
would be detrimental to the property in the general vicinity.
SECTION 4. The variance as requested is not necessary for
the preservation of substantial property rights of the applicants.
307
Res. No. 62 -229, page 2
SECTION 5. Based on the foregoing sections, the City Council
does hereby deny the application for zone variance requested in Case
No. 62 -37, and affirm the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 1962.
ATTEST: •ayor
r„,_ ,
City Clerk
308