HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 587 - 1971-11-03
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO 587
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE APPEAL A-4-71 TO PERMIT
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING ADDITION ONTO
THE SIDE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE
SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH
CERTAIN CONDITIONS
(MILLER/DEAVER)
WHEHEAS, J.n the matter of Appeal ApplJ.catJ.on No. A-4-7l, the PlannJ.ng CommJ.ssJ.on
of the CJ.ty of Seal Beach does report as follows
1 Subject case was J.nJ.tJ.ated by DJ.ck Deaver, 913 ElectrJ.c Ave, Seal Beach,
authorJ.zed agent for Stan MJ.ller, 245 MarJ.na DrJ.ve, Long Beach
2. Subject property J.S legally descrJ.bed as Lots 5 and 6, Block 209, Bay VJ.ew
Tract and J.S more commonly known as 909 and 909l::! and 911 Electnc Ave
3 Subject appeal was based on the applJ.cant's contentJ.on that J.t was not
economJ.cally feasJ.ble to develop the sJ.te and provJ.de addJ.tJ.onal parkJ.ng
beyond the number of spaces proposed J.n consJ.deratJ.on of VarJ.ance V-15-7l
WHEREAS, the PlannJ.ng CommJ.ssJ.on fJ.ndJ.ngs are as follows
1 On August 18, 1971, the PlannJ.ng CommJ.ssJ.on conducted a publJ.c hearJ.ng and
subsequently denJ.ed VarJ.ance V-15-7l to permJ.t the constructJ.on of a bUJ.ldJ.ng
addJ. tJ.on onto the sJ.de of an eXJ.stJ.ng commercJ.al structure J.n the C-2 Zone
(PlannJ.ng CammJ.ssJ.on ResolutJ.on No 563)
2 The applJ.cant appealed the PlannJ.ng CommJ.ssJ.on decJ.sJ.on to the CJ.ty COUDcJ.l
(Appeal No A-4-7l)
3 On October 1, 1971, the CJ.ty CouncJ.l conducted a publJ.c hearJ.ng on the appeal
and UDanLmOUsly voted to refer the matter back to the PlannJ.ng CommJ.ssJ.on
requestJ.ng further report on the matter
4 On October 20, 1911, the PlannJ.ng CommJ.ssJ.on unanJ.mously voted to set a
publJ.c hearJ.ng on Appeal A-4-7l for November 3, 1971
5 On November 3, 1911, a publJ.c hearJ.ng was conducted by the PlannJ.ng CommJ.ssJ.on
on Appeal A-4-7l and the followJ.ng addJ.tJ.onal testLmony was receJ.ved
(A) an econOmJ.c study submJ.tted by Stan MJ.ller whJ.ch contended that the
proposed method of development was the only econOmJ.cally feasJ.ble way to
J.mprove the property, and (B) a statement to the effect that Stan MJ.ller
would be wJ.llJ.ng to allow the lease on the beauty shop to expJ.re and replace
the operatJ.on wJ.th one whJ.ch would be less J.ntense and requJ.re less on-sJ.te
parkJ.ng
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the PlannJ.ng CommJ.ssJ.on of the CJ.ty of Seal
Beach does hereby report to the CJ.ty COUDcJ.l and recommends that Appeal A-4-7l
be approved subJect to the followJ.ng lJ.st of condJ.tJ.ons
9tJ9- 709:1- 9//-fh;{J~CZv-t!
e.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Resolut1on No 581 - 2
1 That when the present lease W1 th the beauty shop exp1res, 1 t not be renewed
and be replaced W1 th a less 1ntense use requ1r1Dg no more than two park1ng
spaces
2 Park1ng stalls to be redrawn to the sat1sfact1on of the Plann1ng Staff
3 The plac1ng of two f1fteen-gallon street trees 1n front of the bU11d1ng
(New Zealand Chr1stmas Tree - - Metros1deros excelsa)
4 The recordat1on of the four lots of the bU11d1Dg S1 te as a s1ngle parcel
w1th the County Recorder's off1ce
5 Complete work1ng draw1ngs be subm1tted for the ent1re bU11d1ng to the
Bluld1ng Department and that the ent1re structure be brought up to Code
6 The standard eng1neer1ng cond1t1ons by the C1ty Eng1neer must be met
ADOPTED AND APPROVED th1s 3rd ds;y of November,
Churman of the P
I hereby cert1fy that the forego1ng resolut1on was duly adopted at a regular
meet1ng of the Plann1Dg COJIIIIUsS1on of the C1ty of Seal Beach wh1ch was held on
Wednesds;y, November 3, 1911, and carr1ed by the follow1ng vote
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
COIDDUss1oners
C0DIIIl1ss1oners
COIDDUss1oners
Dunn, Knapp, Lann1ng, R1pperdan
None
O'Toole
n1ng COIDDUss1on
107- 7'oJ{ - 7//- ~