HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 2171 1973-01-22
(
(,
I
\
~\
o
..-" 1;..
RESOLUTION NO. ..2/7/
,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 695 AND DENYING APPEAL A-7-72 FILED
BY JOHN S. PALMER/RICHARD MOODY.
WHEREAS, in the matter of Appeal Application No. A-7-72, the Planning Commission
of the City of Seal Beach did report aDd find as follows:
1. Subject case initiated by John Palmer/Richard Moody, 16325 So. Pacific
Ave., Sunset Beach.
2. Subject property described as Lot 1, Block A, Surfside Colony, cOllDDonly known
as A-l Surfside.
3. Subject proposal is to construct a single family residence in the R-l zone
with parking off Anderson Street and variance for a one-foot exterior sideyard.
4. Public Hearing was opened on October 18, 1972, continued to November 1, 1972,
and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 1972, the Planning COIIDDission denied V-5l-72 by Resolution
No. 695 for the reason that no hardship was shown for the one-foot sideyard and
that the applicant would not agree to install full street improvements on a
dedicated street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently appealed the Planning COIIDDission's decision
to the Ctiy Council; and .
WHEREAS, the matter of the appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of the
variance, V-51-72, came before the City Council for public hearing at its regular
meeting of November 27, 1972, and after receiving testimony the City Council
lawfully concluded and closed said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the matter of the appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of Variance
V-5l-72 was referred back to the Planning Commission with the following findings:
1. The lot on the seaward side was 24.75 feet wide rather than 26 feet wide as
shown on the original plans.
2. There appeared to be new facts to consider with regard to modified plans
presented by the applicant.
WHEREAS, on December 6, 1972 the Planning COIIDDission considered the Council's
findings and found:
1. That each of the Council's findings _s considered in relation to the total
proposal.
2. The mitigating qualities of each proposal was considered.
3. The Planning CoDllllission was of the opinion that a lot which was 3 inches
narrower in one di_nsion than the normal 25 foot wide lot was not sufficient
hardsh~p to warrant a two foot encroachment of the building into a required
three foot exterior side yard, on the second and third floors.
4. The Planning Commission did report back to the City Council recommending denial
of Appeal Application No. A-7-72; and