HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 2053 1971-12-13
I
I 5.
I
. '"
,-'
-.:
"
RESOWTION NO. ~O S ~
A RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 578 AND DENYING TIlE APPEAL OF
E. W. MULLINS1FOTOMAT CORPORATION FROM A
PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF UV-5-71 TO
PERMIT A DRIVE-THRU KIOSK SELLING PHOTOGRAPHIC
SUPPLIES AND FIlM PROCESSING AT A SERVICE
STATION SITE.
WHEREAS. in the matter of Use Variance Application No. UV-5-71. the Planning
Commission of the City of Seal Beach, after conducting a public hearing thereon
on October 20, 1971. did report and find as follows:
1. Subject case was initiated by E. W. Mullins, 351 Mariposa Ave., Los Angeles,
as the property owner. and represented by David A. Liles of Fotomat
Corporation. 4008 E. 5th St.. Long Beach.
2. Subject property is described as Lots 66. 68, 70, 72 and 74 of Block 212,
Bay View Tract. The location is the southeast corner of Pacific Coast
Highway and 12th Street.
3. Subject proposal is to operate a drive-thru kiosk selling photographic
supplies and processing of film at a service station site.
4.
The proposed dual use of a service station side is unacceptable under the
provisions of the zoning ordinance.
The proposal, if implemented. would compound an existing traffic congestion
problem .
6. The proposed use would be more compatible if located in a shopping center.
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach on October 20, 1971,
did deny Use Variance Application No. UV-5-71; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach conducted and lawfully
concluded and closed a public hearing at their regular, meeting held on
November 22~ 1971. concerning the"appeal by E. W. Mullins/Fotomat Corporation
from the Planning Commission denial of Use Variance Application UV-5-71.
'.
\
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Seal Be'l!.ch
as follows: .
1. All notices required by law and by ordinance of the appeal and public
hearing by the City Council upon this matter have been given. posted
and mailed as required by law, and
2. Each finding heretofore made by the Planning Commission is found to be
true and correct and each such finding was and is supported by substantial
evidence.
3.
The appeal of E. W. Mullins/Fotomat Corporation from the Seal Beach Planning
Commission Resolution No. 578 is denied. and the action of the Seal Beach
Planning Commission adopting its Resolution No. 578 is affirmed.
"
'.
.
I
I
- ..
Resolution No. ~ &> S'!r - 2
PASSED. APPROVED. AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Bcacli,
California, at a meeting thereof held on the 13.4:: day of ~,~ l.... ,/ ,
1971. by the following vote: -.f JJ
AYES: COUncilmen~....u:. .&."~.-r'-d J,A',.- ~,- ~.I~.cL,
NOES: Councilmen ~~
ABSENT: Councilmen ';7/..ho-'
,
Ah(~ drfJ/,j~A-''''
M~or '
ATTEST:
;;;tA/K< 'vL,
, y Cle
~'
~
-
-,
'J:.f>,.",..
'.... ."'''
...~... ,,/~
t,...~ 'l.
_0 ~'I-:'~'~
II: ..... ' ..
-r,.~ '":7
"c ;:.
....... ~ ('
f ;.:.." .....
..,: 1>..,.
. li:.";;~
. ,D-if...7
,...",:Ii' _
".").......,r ,... \
~~...;r..,..'\..,..
........ - ""'
... "-..\ .......-
..
,- ,