HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 2156 1972-11-27
,
I
I
I
,~
.
,
RESOLUTION NO. ~/~~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLU-
TION NO. 669 AND DENYING APPEAL A-5-72 FILED BY
EMANUEL GYLER/STAN GOLDIN FROM PLANNING COMMIS-
SION DENIAL OF USE VARIANCE UV-4-72 TO PERMIT
AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE WITH
VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
WHEREAS. in the matter of Appeal Application No. A-5-72, the Planning Commission of
the City of Seal Beach did report and find as follows:
1. Subjec1; case was initiated by Emanuel Gyler, 3606 Parkview Drive, Lakewood; author-
ized agent Stanley V. Goldin A.I.A.
2. Subject property described as Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block D, Tract No. l.
3. Subject proposal was to construct a 9 unit apartment building in the C-l Zone with
variances for: l unit over density, 4% over maximum lot coverage and less than
recommended side yard.
4. Public hearing was opened on July 19, 1972, continued to Aug. 2, 1972, continued to
Sept. 6, 1972, and
WHEREAS. on Sept. 6, 1972, the Planning Commission denied UV-4-72 by Resolution No. 669
for the reason that no hardship as defined under Sec. 2002 of Zoning Ordinance exists on
the subject property which would require 1 unit over density, 4% over maximum lot cover-
age and less than a recommended side yard; and
WHEREAS. the applicant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS. the matter of the appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of the Use Vari-
ance UV-4-72 came before the City Council for Public Hearing at its regular meeting of
September 25, 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 conunission's denial of Use Variance
UV-4-72 was referred back to the Planning Commission with the following findings:
1. Additional parking provided was more favorable than requiring the 6 foot side yard
setback .
2. The density of nine units proposed was comparable to other units in the area.
3. The irregular shape of the subject property appeared to be a factor to consider, and
WHEREAS. on October 18, 1972 the Planning Commission considered the Council's findings
and found:
l. That each of the Council's findings was considered in relation to the total proposal.
2. The mitigating qualities of each proposal was considered.
3. The Planning Commission was of the opinion that the mitigating qualities of the
Council's findings did not sufficiently offset the negative aspects of the total
proposal to warrant attention of the previous position of the Planning Commission
with regard to this matter.
4. The planning Commission did report back to the City Council recommending denial of
Appeal Application No. A-4-72; and
WHEREAS. on November 13, 1972 the City Council received the Planning Commission's report
and reviewed the findings contained therein.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach as follows:
.- -.
"
I
1
1
.',;.
Resolution Numbet
"
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 or mailed as required
by law, and
2. Each finding heretofore made by the Planning Commission is true and each such
finding was and is supported by substantial evidence, and
3. The appeal of Emanuel Gyler/Stanley Goldin A. LA. from the Seal Beach Planning
Commission Resolution No. 669 is denied, and the action of the Seal Beach Planning
Commission adopting its Resolutio~ No. 669 is affirmed.
PASSED. A:PROVED AND ADOPTED by th~~ty Council of t~C~y of Se,l Bepch, califo~a,
at a meet~ng thereof on the A.7';1-~ day of ~L ,197 :L..
by the following vote:
AYES: councilme~13.1"f1~,/..-,,A~.h~ e:Z~er )
NOES: Councilmen~
ABSENT: Councilmen ~~ .-/'"
~~~
M or
ATTEST:
//
, ~
,.
(i -/- J
, ~4 //7,-<r-,:'~ J'A:
(l1.-t . e17~k -,-, '-,
P' ....~"'_.... ...
..\. ....)....