HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 884 - 1975-01-15
.
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 884
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING VARIANCE V-36-74 AND
RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL DENY THE REQUEST
FOR RELIEF FROM CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY CITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2052 ON APPEAL A-4-71.
An application was duly filed by Jacqueline F. Miller, 711 Ocean Ave.,
Unit 109, Huntington Beach, CA requesting a zone variance to permit
intensification of a ,nonconforming commercial building by the construction
of a wall and thus creating a shop area, relief from conditions imoosed
by the Planninq Commission and City Council regarding removal of a use
from the building and request to allow additional uses in the building.
The subject property is zoned C-l, Service Commercial, and is nonconforming
by reason of: less than minimum rear yard setback, landscaping, loading
zone, turning radius, number of parking spaces and parking space dimensions.
It is also nonconforming because of: excess lot coverage, parking form
and nonconforming uses within the building.
3. A public hearing to consider said aoplication was set and held before the
Planning Commission on the 15th day of January, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. and
notice of the hearing was duly given.
1.
2.
4. Evidence both written and oral was duly presented and considered by said
Commission at said hearing.
The Planning Commission now makes the following findings:
1. The condition imposed by the City Council in Resolution 2052 on Appeal A-4-71
was imposed in order to provide for less intense use of the subject property
by removal of the beauty shop and replacing it with a use that would require
only two on-site parking spaces.
Request for relief from the condition was requested from the City Council
and the Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission.
Addition of a shop area was undertaken by constructing a wall without City
approval and no permits were issued for the construction.
Additional uses were placed in the commercial building without providing
additional parking, obtaining City approval, or obtaining business licenses.
There are no special circumstances applicable to the property different
from those of other property in the same vicinity and zone.
The variance will adversely affect the General Plan.
The variance would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
tjtJCj- 9/.5- -~~/