HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 588 - 1971-11-03
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO
588
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
APPEAL A-6-7l TO PERMIT CONSOLIDATION AND
EXTENSIVE REMODELING OF TWO DUPLEXES IN THE
R-3 ZONE (GYLER)
WHEREAS, 1n the matter of Appeal Appl:vcat1bn No .0.-6-71, the Plann1ng CarmnuslLon
of the C1ty of Seal Beach does report as follows
1 SubJect case was 1n1t1ated by EManuel Gyler, 3606 Parkv1ew Dnve, Lakewood
2 SubJect property 1S legally descr1bed as Lots 15 and 16, Block D, Tract No
1009 and 1S more commonly known as 1005 and 1007 Seal Way
3 SubJect appeal was to the den1al by the Plann1ng Carmn1ss1on of V-2l-7l wh1ch
proposed the conso11dat1on of two dupiliexes 1nto a s1ngle complex by j01n1ng
the two bu1ld1ngs, requ1r1ng var1ance cons1derat1on for s1deyards of less
than the prescr1bed w1dth, lot coverage exceed1ng prescr1bed max1mum, less
than the prescr1bed number of on-s1te park1ng spaces w1th less than the
requ1red turn1ng rad1us and W1 th structural encroachments 1nto the rear
yard setback Deta1led breakdown of var1ances requested 1S as follows
Prescr1bed
Proposed
S1deyard Setback
Lot Coverage
On-S1te Park1ng Spaces
Turn1ng Rad1 us
Rearyard Setback
6'
75%
8
24'
9'
3'
79%
5
20'
5'
WHEREAS, the Plann1ng Carmn1 SS10n find1ngs are as follows
1 L1m1 t1ng occupancy of the proposed development to s1ngle fBm111es only 1S
probably unconst1tut1onal
2 Leas1ng of park1ng space 1n the Mun1C1pal lot d1rectly to the west of the
app11cant's property 1S not yet a feas1ble alternat1ve to requ1r1ng on-S1te
park1ng space
3 Ex1St1ng garages are presently setback 9 feet from the rear property l1ne
4 Ma1nta1n1ng a rear yard setback of 9 feet would el1m1nate two var1ances and
reduce the degree of a th1rd Dete1led breakdown as follows
Hypothet1cally
Prescr1bed Supposed
S1deyard Setback
Lot Coverage
On-S1te Park1ng Spaces
6'
75%
8
3'
77%
5
I OO~--I()O ?-S-e4.t WQ..L\
.
.
.
.
.
.
Resolut10n No 588 - 2
5 The 24' turn1ng rad1UB prov1ded by the 9 f'oot rear yard setback DluSt be
Dlunta1ned 1n order to Dl&ke on-s1te park1ng space usable
6 The app11cant subDI1tted plans shOWl.ng a 9 f'oot setback He 1nd1cated, however,
that these were not acceptable 1n that access to the un1t 1n wh1ch he 1ntends
to l1ve could not be prov1ded f'roDl the rear through the garage Af'ter
eX&DI1n1ng the plans, C0DIDI1ss10ner R1pperdan, a l1censed arch1tect, 1nd1cated
that 1 twas h1s prof'ess10nal op1n10n that access to the apphcant 's dwel11ng
un1t could be sat1sf'actor11y prov1ded by redes1gn1Dg the sta1rw~
7 The app11cant requested the 1DIDIed1ate return of' the plans show1ng a 9 f'oot
rear yard setback
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plann1ng CODlDlunon of' the C1ty of' Seal
Beach does hereby report to the C1ty Counc1l and recODlDlends that Appeal A-6-7l
be approved subJect to the cond1t10n that the 9 f'oot rear yard setback be
Dl&1ntuned
ADOPTED AND APPROVED th1s
I hereby cert1f'y that the foreg01ng resolut10n was duly adopted at a regular
Dleet1ng of the Plann1Dg CODlDl1sS1on of' the C1ty of Seal Beach wh1ch was held on
Wednes~, NoveDlber 3, 1971, and carr1ed by the follow1ng vote
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
Lann1ng, R1pperdan, Knapp
None
O'Toole
Dunn
C0IIIl/11SS10ners
C0IIIl/11SS10ners
C0DIDI1ss10ners
C0DIDI1ss10ners
S~~f' ~h~ C0DIDI1ss10n
/OO~-IU07- ~Cu~