HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 482 - 1970-09-02
-
-
.
RESOLUTION NO. 482
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH REAFFIRMING DENIAL OF SIX
FOOT HIGH FENCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK. (MORROW)
WHEREAS, in the matter of Appeal A-4-70, the Planning Commission
of the City of Seal Beach does report as follows:
1. Subject application was initiated by John C. Morrow,
247 B 17th Street, Seal Beach, California.
2. Subject property is described as Lot 43, Block 219,
Tract No. 10, commonly known as 247 17th Street.
3. Subject request is to permit a recently constructed six
foot high fence to remain within the front yard setback.
The fence is approximately 8" from the front property line.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission findings are as follows:
Findings
1. The findings of Planning Commission Resolution 440, denying
. Variance v-12-70, are still applicable.
2. A staff investigation and field survey of existing fences in
District I, concluded that most of the fences cited in previous
discussions as being in violation are side yard fences and
therefore subject to different requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Seal Beach does hereby reaffirm denial of Variance No. V-12-70.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this
2nd day of September- 19"70. .-/
~ ~_6. -J' t~_ 7 ?-'
Chairman of the P~nq~ng Commission
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
which was held Oll Wednesday, September 2, 1970, and carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Dorr, Knapp, Lanning, Morris
None
None
None
.
~.
Secretary Commission
0<.'-17- 17e:), ~
.
.
.
.
.
Page T\10
September 17, 1970
On thirty-eight corner lots in the survey area side yard fences six feet
or higher exiSted on the property 1 ine facing a dedicated street. The
layout of these lots appears as Exhibit "A."
When such a layout occurs it would not be difficult to come to the conclusion
that an illegal fence existed in front of dwellin9 unit #2. but in fact,
vie\1ed by our ordinance, the unit in the rear (#2) does not face the side
street. The fence as portrayed is legal along the side. A number of lots
on which this situation occurs may be seen along Landing Avenue.
After field observation and study of the fence ordinance as well as the
fencing provisions in the zoning ordinance, the present ordinances seem to
provide sufficient control. The variance provision has been established
for those cases with exceptional conditions.
mjj
d-.l\ ~ - \ '\ -.$:CuM