HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem S D
AGENDA REPORT K
DATE: June 11, 2001
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: Public Hearing -- Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
of Architectural Review of a Proposal to Construct a New
Mixed Use Structure at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Conduct public hearing to consider appeal of Planning Commission approval of
Architectural Review of a proposal to construct a new mixed use structure at 229 Seal
Beach Boulevard.
BACKGROUND:
On May 9, 2001, the Planning Commission considered the above referenced application for
Minor Plan Review (MPR) 01-6. The only person attending the meeting to discuss this
matter was the applicant's representative. With no request for additional consideration by
the public, the Planning Commission approved the application and adopted Resolution 01-
22 on a 5-0 vote as a consent calendar item.
An appeal of the determination of the Planning Commission was filed by Seretta Fielding in
a timely manner, and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a public
hearing.
FACTS:
• The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on May 9, 2001 to
consider MPR 01-6. The only person attending the meeting to discuss this matter
was the applicant's representative. With no request for additional consideration by
the public, the Planning Commission approved the application and adopted
Resolution 01-22 on a 5-0 vote as a consent calendar item.
Agenda Item
C:\My Documents\Minor Plan Review\0I-6.CC Appeal Staff Report.doc\LW\06-06-0 I
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
• An appeal of the determination of the Planning Commission was filed by Seretta
Fielding on May 16, 2001, and the matter is now before the City Council for
consideration at a public hearing.
DISCUSSION OF AREAS OF CONCERN OF APPEAL:
As previously indicated, the appellant is requesting the City Council to deny the requested
mixed use structure, in compliance with the provisions of Section 28-2940 of the Code of
the City of Seal Beach.
This matter was a consent calendar item before the Planning Commission and no persons
appeared to address the Commission regarding the application. Please refer to the Planning
Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 (Attachment 4).
For the purposes of this report, the following issue of concern as set forth in the appeal and
accompanying letter dated May 16, 2001 (Refer to Attachment 2) will be discussed:
A. The appellant states "A building six inches from our building would block access
to our existing four inch sewer clean out. This is located on the north side of
our building and was there when Walt Miller bought the property
approximately ten years ago. This common law easement has been in existence
since the construction of our building in 1949. To solve this problem there
would need to be an additional two-foot separation between our building and
the commercial portion of the project. A six inch separation between two
buildings would make it impossible to remove debris which will accumulate
over a period of time."
Staff Comment: Any common law easement issues are a civil matter between
the adjoining property owners. The Plumbing Code does not require a sewer clean
out to be accessible to an exterior area, it requires a clean out to be accessible;
meaning the existing clean out could be turned and be accessible from the interior of
the adjoining structure. Section 719.1 of the 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code, adopted
by reference as the Plumbing Code of the City of Seal Beach states:
"Cleanouts shall be placed inside the building near the connection between
the building drain and the building sewer or installed outside the building at
the lower end of the building drain and extended to grade."
B. The appellant states "When Mr. Miller's property was graded he directed the
landscaper to slant the water runoff into our building. Seasonal rainfall,
flooding and routine watering have created many problems. Over the last ten
years, the water drainage from this vacant lot has flowed onto and into the
north side of our building. I have discussed this with Mr. Miller only to be told
it is not his fault. New footings just six inches away would likely disturb our
existing footings with this soil condition."
01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 2
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
Staff Comment: Any previous land alteration impacts that have occurred
would be a civil matter between the parties involved. In order to obtain building
permits for the proposed structures, grading plans will need to be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering Department of the City.
C. The appellant states "The water table here is five feet and the property is in a
flood zone. The newer homes at the corner of Seal Beach Blvd. And Electric
were required to be elevated to avoid flooding,yet 229 and 225 are ground level
structures."
Staff Comment: Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06059C0036 E indicates
that portions of Seal Beach Boulevard between Electric Avenue and Landing are
within "Flood Zone AE". This designation indicates an area of flood hazard by a
100-year flood, and the base flood elevation is determined as 6. This information
will be considered by the Engineering Department and Building Department at the
time of plan check of the grading and building plans. Based on the analysis of the
plan check engineer's, the property grading and structural plans will be approved in
a manner consistent with the requirements of Chapter 9B, Floodplain Overlay
District. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter will ensure the lowest floor
of the new structures is 1-foot above the identified flood level. Depending on the
results of the grading plan check process, additional soil may need to be imported to
provide the necessary grade to achieve the indicated compliance requirement of the
lowest floor of the new structures being 1-foot above the identified flood level.
D. The appellant states "Since Mr. Miller's plans were approved over nine years
ago and 3/4 of his project is residential, I would like to see guidelines that are
more in tune with the residential changes occurring in the area. To give in-lieu
parking for a residential structure on a street that is already high density
apartments with no on-site parking is not in the best interest of the block or the
city."
Staff Comment: This issue addresses the long-term land use designation of the
area, which is not before the City Council at this time. The project reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission complies with all development standards of
the existing Limited Commercial (L-C) Zone. Further, the project as approved
provides the required 2 off-street parking spaces for each residential living unit
proposed. As approved in accordance with the provisions of the LC zone, in-lieu
parking is provided for the commercial portions of the project,not the residential.
The Planning Commission has previously indicated an interest in reviewing the
zoning and development standards for Seal Beach Boulevard from Electric Avenue
to Landing,and staff will be presenting a report to the City Council on June 25,2001
regarding the steps necessary to initiate the appropriate studies. At this time, the
01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 3
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
proposed project complies with all development standards of the Limited
Commercial (L-C)zone.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
APPLICATIONS:
Under Code Section 28-1158, all new construction in the Limited Commercial (L-C) Zone
shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Consent Calendar
Plan Review procedures as set forth in Section 28-2407.B. Section 28-2407.B requires a
consent calendar plan review, and sets forth the required submittals, application fees and
noticing requirements. The appeal does not primarily address issues related to compliance
with the design standards of the L-C zone. It focuses on property related issues that are
either addressed by plan review and approval processes of the City or issues that do not
require any permit issuance by the City. Those issues that do not require a permit issuance
and that do not violate any provisions of the Code of the City of Seal Beach are civil matters
between the affected property owners, and the City does not involve itself in those areas of
dispute.
In reviewing the design of a new structure within the L-C zone, the Planning Commission
must ensure that all development standards of the L-C zone are met. Areas to be reviewed
are:
❑ Permitted uses o Landscaping
❑ Building setbacks o Mixed-Use standards
❑ Lot coverage ❑ Parking requirements, and
o Building height ❑ Sign requirements
By adopting Planning Commission Resolution 01-22,the Planning Commission determined:
"(a) Minor Plan Review 01-6 is consistent with the provisions of the
Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a
"Limited Commercial" designation for the subject property and
permits mixed use developments. The use is also consistent with
the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies
of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land
Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the
General Plan.
(b) The proposed development complies with all development
standards of the Limited Commercial (L-C)Zone.
(c) The proposed Cape Code style architectural scheme is appropriate
for the beach character of Old Town Seal Beach."
01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 4
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
Staff has prepared a Resolution of the City Council sustaining the decision of the
Planning Commission as Attachment 1. If the City Council determines to sustain the
appeal, staff will prepare an appropriate resolution for City Council consideration at the
June 25 City Council meeting.
NOTED AND • :PROVED:
/ l/ i���
e Whittenberg Jo ' . Bahorski w ty Manager
ir Director of Development Servic-:
Attachments: (5)
Attachment 1: Resolution No. , A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Seal Beach Approving Minor Plan Review 01-6, a Request
for Architectural Review of a Proposal to Construct a New Mixed
Use Development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Attachment 2: Appeal of Seretta Fielding, dated May 16, 2001
Attachment 3: Resolution No. 01 — 22, A Resolution of the Planning Commission
of the City of Seal Beach Approving Minor Plan Review 01-6, a
Request for Architectural Review of a Proposal to Construct a New
Mixed Use Development, Consisting of a One-Story Commercial
Building at the Front of the Lot with a Three (3) Story, Two Unit
Residential Structure at the Rear of the Lot at 229 Seal Beach
Boulevard
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes, May 9, 2001
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Staff Report re: Minor Plan Review 01-6,
dated May 9, 2001
01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 6
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
Staff concurs with the Commission. The appeal focuses on drainage issues and general
zoning and planning issues and does not question whether the proposed development
complies with the development standards for the L-C Zone. As stated above, the
Engineering Department will review plans regarding adequate drainage, and the
Commission will be revisiting the zoning and development standards for Seal Beach
Boulevard from Electric Avenue to Landing. However, the proposed project complies
with all development standards of the Limited Commercial (L-C) zone as they currently
are written.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL:
Once all testimony and evidence has been received by the City Council, it is appropriate for
the Council to make a final determination regarding these matters.
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning
Commission,the City Council has the following options:
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, approving the
proposed development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard.
2) Sustain the appeal of Seretta Fielding, revising the decision of the Planning
Commission, and denying the proposed development application.
3) Sustain the appeal of Seretta Fielding, revising the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve construction of proposed development, subject to terms
and conditions other than those approved by the Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION:
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning •
Commission,the City Council has the following options:
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, approving the
proposed development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard.
2) Sustain the appeal of Seretta Fielding, revising the decision of the Planning
Commission, and denying the proposed development application.
3) Sustain the appeal of Seretta Fielding, revising the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve construction of proposed development, subject to terms
and conditions other than those approved by the Planning Commission.
01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 5
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. , A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING MINOR PLAN
REVIEW 01-6, A REQUEST FOR
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 229 SEAL
BEACH BOULEVARD
01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 7
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
ATTACHMENT 2
APPEAL OF SERETTA FIELDING, DATED MAY 16, 2001
, 01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 14
May 16, 2001
Lee Wittenberg
City of Seal Beach
City Hall
Seal Beach, California 90740
562- 431-2527
Re: Appeal Application
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 01-22
Minor Plan Review 01-6
Dear Mr. Wittenberg
I am appealing the Planning Commissions decision on Walter Miller's property located
at 229 and 225 Seal Beach Blvd. for the following reasons:
1. A building six inches from our building would block access to our existing four inch
sewer clean out. This is located on the north side of our building and was there when
Walt Miller bought the property approximately ten years ago. This common law
easement has been in existence since the construction of our building in 1949. To solve
this problem there would need to be an additional two-foot separation between
our building and the commercial portion of the project. A six inch separation between
two buildings would make it impossible to remove debris which will accumulate over a
period of time.
2.When Mr. Miller's property was graded he directed the landscaper to slant the water
runoff into our building. Seasonal rainfall, flooding and routine watering have created
many problems. Over the last ten years, the water drainage from this vacant lot has
flowed onto and into the north side of our building. I have discussed this with Mr. Miller
only to be told it is not his fault. New footings just six inches away would likely disturb
our existing footings with this soil condition.
3. The water table here is five feet and the property is in a flood zone. The newer
homes at the corner of Seal Beach Blvd. and Electric were required to be elevated to
avoid flooding, yet 229 and 225 are ground level structures.
4.Since Mr. Miller's plans were approved over nine years ago and 3/4 of his project is
residential, I would like to see guidelines that are more in tune with the residential
changes occurring in the area. To give in-lieu parking for a residential structure on a
street that is already high density apartments with no on-site parking is not in the best
interest of the block or the city.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Seretta Fielding.
g
223 Seal Beach Blvd.
Seal Beach Ca.
562 430-2434
•
•
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 01 - 22, A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
MINOR PLAN REVIEW 01-6, A REQUEST
FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, CONSISTING
OF A ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT
WITH A THREE (3) STORY, TWO UNIT
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT THE REAR
OF THE LOT AT 229 SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD
01-6 CC Appeal Staff Report 15
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 01 - 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH APPROVING MINOR PLAN REVIEW
01-6, A REQUEST FOR ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A
NEW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT,
CONSISTING OF A ONE-STORY
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT THE FRONT
OF THE LOT WITH A THREE (3) STORY,
TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT
THE REAR OF THE LOT AT 229 SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On April 12, 2001, Walter F. Miller submitted an
application for Minor Plan Review 01-6. Specifically, the applicant is seeking
Architectural Review of a proposal to construct a new mixed-use development at 229
Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed development consists of a one-story commercial
building at the front of the lot with a three (3) story, two-unit residential structure over
parking at the rear of the lot.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.B
of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application
for Minor Plan Review 01-6 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303 (New
Construction), because it involves the construction of only two (2) apartment units in an
urbanized area and other small commercial structures; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3),
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may
have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 3. A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on May 9, 2001 to consider the application for Minor Plan Review 01-6.
Section 4. The record of the hearing on May 9, 2001 indicates the
following:
OI.6.CC Appeal Staff Report 16
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
(a) On April 12, 2001, Walter F. Miller submitted an application for
Minor Plan Review 01-6.
(b) Specifically, the applicant is seeking Architectural Review of a
proposal to construct a new mixed-use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The
proposed development consists of a one-story commercial building at the front of the lot
with a three(3) story, two-unit residential structure at the rear of the lot.
(c) The subject property is legally described as Orange County
Assessor's Parcel Number 199-062-36 and is located in the Limited Commercial zone of
Old Town.
(d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of
6,666 square feet(62.5' x 106.67').
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH&SOUTH A mixture of commercial and residential uses along
Seal Beach Boulevard in the Limited Commercial zone (L-C).
EAST The Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach
Boulevard in the Public Land Use/Recreation zone(PLU/R).
WEST A mixture of single family and multi-family residences in the
Residential Medium Density zone (RMD).
(f) The Planning Commission originally considered and approved a
similar request in 1992 and again in 1996.The Coastal Commission granted approval to a
revised plan and scaled back plan for the development of the property in 1996. In 1997
the City approved construction plans for the project in accordance with the approved
plans from the City and Coastal Commission. However, the project was never
constructed. The same plan as was previously approved by the City in 1997 is the plan
now being considered by the City.
(g) The City has received one written response in opposition this
minor plan review request.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in § 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28-1158 of the City's Code, the
Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) Minor Plan Review 01-6 is consistent with the provisions of the
Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Limited Commercial"
designation for the subject property and permits mixed use developments. The use is also
01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 17
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those
elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the
proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
(b) The proposed development complies with all development
standards of the Limited Commercial (L-C) Zone.
(c) The proposed Cape Code style architectural scheme is appropriate
for the beach character of Old Town Seal Beach
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Minor Plan Review 01-6, subject to the following conditions:
1. Minor Plan Review 01-6 is approved for architectural review at 229 Seal Beach
Boulevard, Seal Beach. The proposed project entails the construction of a one-
story commercial structure at the front of the lot and a three-story duplex at the
rear of the lot.
2. Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code requirements
for construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach
(adopts by reference 1997 Uniform Construction Codes with local amendments).
3. Final building plans shall indicate 177 square feet of landscaping within the
required front yard setback and an additional 323 square feet of landscaping
elsewhere on the property.
4. The applicant shall sign and record an agreement to participate in an in-lieu
parking program for a total of seven (7) parking spaces.
5. The applicant shall post a surety bond in the amount of$3,500 ($500/space) for
in-lieu parking fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Once a specific in-lieu
fee is determined, the applicant shall pay the fee in full and the bond will be
released.
6. The applicant shall record a covenant on the Title of the property requiring that
the occupants of the residential units shall be involved in "non-residential" uses
on the subject property.
7. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved
through MPR 01-6, as amended herein.
8. All standard permit issuance fees of the Department of Building and Safety and
the Department of Public Works shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit. This condition would entail payment of the following fees and/or
submission of additional plans:
0I-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 18
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
o Grading Permit: Grading plans to be approved by the Engineering
Department and a grading permit to be issued by Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
❑ Building Department standard conditions of approval:
❑ Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code
requirements for construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the
City of Seal Beach (adopts by reference 1997 Uniform Construction
Codes with local amendments).
o Payment of all required fees at time of submittal of plans for plan
check/issuance of building permit:
o Plan Check Fee(pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
a Building Permit Fee(pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Environmental Reserve Tax (pursuant to Code § 22-52)
o Construction Excise Tax (pursuant to Code § 22-14)
o Park and Recreation Non-Subdivision Fee (pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 4816)
o Transportation Facilities and Programs Development and
Development Application Fees (pursuant to City Council Resolution
No. 4816)
o , Orange County Sewer Connection Fee
o Public Works Department standard conditions of approval:
o City Sewer Connection Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
4816)
❑ Grading Plan Check Fee Deposit(pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
4816)
o Right of Way Improvements:
o Replace deficient or inadequate sidewalk abutting lot or construct all
new as determined by the City Engineer.
o Replace deficient or inadequate curb and gutter abutting lot or
construct all new as determined by the City Engineer.
o Make all public pedestrian access, including but not limited to
driveway approaches, access ramps, sidewalk abutting lot ADA
compliant.
o Rehabilitate half the section of the street abutting the frontage of the
property as determined by the City Engineer.
o Rehabilitate the entire alley section abutting the frontage of the
property as determined by the City Engineer.
o Street Improvements:
o Underground all overhead utilities abutting lot including but not
limited to electrical, phone, cable.
o Street Trees and landscaping:
o Plant new street trees and landscaping in the public right of way as
determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation in accordance with
the City's Street policy.
o Public Utilities:
0I-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 19
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11,2001
❑ On commercial developments with City maintained water facilities,
replace any water lines, hydrants, or facilities as determined by the
City Engineer or take over maintenance of the water lines as a private
on-site system.
❑ Replace existing sewer laterals as necessary as determined by the City
Engineer.
❑ Upgrade water services as necessary as determined by the City
Engineer.
o Replace existing public facilities such as street lighting, water and
sewer lines and related appurtenances serving the property if in the
determination of the City Engineer the existing public utilities are
insufficient or are in need of replacement.
o Ocean Water Quality:
o Provide that stormwater pollution requirements as determined by the
City Engineer including but not limited to the following:
❑ Minimize runoff to impermeable areas/reuse storm water.
•
9. This Minor Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an
"Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence
of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the
Planning Department; and until the ten(10) day appeal period has elapsed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of May , 2001
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners BROWN, CUTULI, HOOD, LADNER, AND SHARP
NOES: Commissioners NONE
ABSENT: Commissioners NONE
ABSTAIN: Commissioners NONE
David Hood, Ph.D.
Chairperson, Planning Commission
re Whittenberg, Secretary
Planning Commission
0I-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 20
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval ofMPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11,2001
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 9, 2001
01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 21
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2001
1 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral
2 communications.
3
4
5 CONSENT CALENDAR
6
7 2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2001.
8
9 3. RECEIVE AND FILE: Amicus Curiae Briefs by the American Planning
10 Association re: "Anthony Palazzolo v. State of Rhode Island," and "City of
11 Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. And Monterey-Del Monte
12 Dunes Corporation."
13
14 4. Minor Plan Review 01-6
15 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
16
17 Applicant/Owner: Walter F. Miller
18 Request: Architectural Review of a proposal to construct a new
19 mixed-use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard.
20 The proposed development consists of a one-story
21 commercial building at the front of the lot with a three- (3)
22 story, two-unit residential structure at the rear of the lot.
23
24 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
25 Resolution 01-22.
26
27 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as
28 presented.
29
30 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0
31 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp
32 NOES: None
33 ABSENT: None
34
35 Mr. Boga advised that approval of Minor Plan Review 01-6 and adoption of
36 Resolution No. 01-22 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council.
37 The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow
38 morning.
39
40
41 SCHEDULED MATTERS
42
43 5. Memo to Planning Commission re: Review of Policy Statement for Covered
44 Roof Access Structures.
45
2
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01-6
Architectural Review—229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 11, 2001
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: MINOR PLAN
REVIEW 01-6, DATED MAY 9, 2001
01-6.CC Appeal Staff Report 22
May 9, 2001
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject: Minor Plan Review 01-6
229 Seal Beach Boulevard
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Applicant: WALTER F. MILLER
Owner: SAME
Location: 229 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD
Classification of Property: LIMITED COMMERCIAL(L-C)
Request: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A
NEW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 229 SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF A
ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT
WITH A THREE (3) STORY, TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
AT THE REAR OF THE LOT.
Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA
REVIEW.
Code Sections: 28-1158, 28-2407.B.
Recommendation: APPROVE MINOR PLAN REVIEW 01-6, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS,
AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-22.
C:\My Documents\Minor Plan Review\01-6-229 SBB.PC Starr Repott.doc\LW\05-01-01
Minor Plan Review 01-6.229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9. 2001
FACTS
• On April 12, 2001, Walter F. Miller submitted an application for Minor Plan Review 01-6.
• Specifically, the applicant is seeking Architectural Review of a proposal to construct a new
mixed use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed development consists of
a one-story commercial building at the front of the lot with a three (3) story, two-unit
residential structure over parking at the rear of the lot.
• The subject property is legally described as Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number 199-
062-36 and is located in the Limited Commercial zone of Old Town.
• The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of 6,625 square feet (62.5' x
106.67').
• The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH & SOUTH: A mixture of commercial and residential uses along Seal
Beach Boulevard in the Limited Commercial zone (L-C).
EAST: The Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard in
the Public Land Use/Recreation zone (PLU/R).
WEST: A mixture of single family and multi-family residences in the Residential
Medium Density zone (RMD).
• The Planning Commission originally considered and approved a similar request in 1992 and
again in 1996 (Planning Commission Resolution 96-21 and Minutes of April 17 and May 8,
1996 provided as Attachments 5 and 6, respectively). The Coastal Commission granted
approval to a revised plan and scaled back plan for the development of the property in 1996.
In 1997 the City approved construction plans for the project in accordance with the approved
plans from the City and Coastal Commission. However, the project was never constructed.
The same plan as was previously approved by the City in 1997 is the plan now being
considered by the City.
• As of May 2, 2001, staff has received no written responses to its mailed notice regarding
Minor Plan Review 01-6.
OI-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 2
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May9, 2001
DISCUSSION
On December 1991, the City Council approved Zone Change 2-91, ZTA 4-91, GPA 2A-91 and
GPA 2B-91 which created the Limited Commercial zone, L-C. and changed the zoning along
Seal Beach Boulevard between Landing Avenue and Electric Avenue to L-C zoning.
Development Standards for the L-C zone are set forth in Article 11.5 of Chapter 28 of the Code
of the City of Seal Beach. Section 28-1158 requires that the Planning Commission perform an
architectural review of all new construction in the L-C zone.
The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199-062-36, is located in the
Limited Commercial zone (L-C), on a 62.5' x 106.67' lot (6,666 sq. ft.). The subject property is
currently vacant.
STRUCTURE
The applicant is proposing to construct a one-story 1,898 square foot commercial structure at the
front of the property with a three-story duplex at the rear of the property. The residential
structure consists of four (4) garages at the first floor and two (2) 1,797 square foot residences
above.
The front structure is proposed to be single-story and comprise the retail component of the
project. The retail structure is proposed to consist of a 1,316 square foot store area and a 588
square foot storage area. The retail structure is located a minimum of 3.5' from the front
property line, and has a varying setback due to the building design. Along the southerly property
line, the commercial structure is setback 6", while on the northerly side, the setback is 13'-3".
The commercial structure is "L"-shaped. A courtyard area of approximately 23' x 50', 1,150
square feet, is proposed between the rear of the commercial structure and the residential portion
of the development.
The remaining portions of the first floor structure are devoted to the 4 off-street parking spaces
for the proposed residential units, located off of the alley at the rear of the property (1,222 square
feet), a lobby area for the residential units (302 square feet), and an electrical room (95 square
feet). This portion of the structure is setback 12' from the alley property line, and 5' from the
southerly and northerly property lines.
The second story consists of the first living floor of the two residential units, comprising the
entry, laundry room, family room, two bedrooms and a stairway to the third floor living area. On
this level each unit comprises 897 square feet and 68 square feet of common stairway landing
area. The third story consists of the remaining living area of each unit, comprising the living
room, dining room, kitchen, ''A-bath, and a master bedroom, including bathroom and closet area.
On this level each unit comprises 900 square feet and 61 square feet of private deck area. From
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 3
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
the third floor master bedroom, an exterior stairway provides uncovered access to a 240 square
foot roof deck for each of the residential living units. The Family Room and Bedroom 3, on the
second floor, and the Living Room and Master Bedroom, on the third floor, are cantilevered 2'
and 1' respectively over the downstairs garage area for each unit, providing a minimum of a 3'
side yard setback.
LANDSCAPING
The plans submitted for architectural review do not quantify on-site landscaping. As this review
is limited to architecture, the plans are not required to provide development details. However,
the proposed project will require 177 square feet of landscaping within the front yard setback and
an additional 323 square feet of landscaping on the property. These landscaping requirements
can be met within the proposed setback and central courtyard areas of the project.
Through the proposed conditions of approval staff is recommending the applicant be required to
provide the required on-site landscaping and to quantify the landscaping on the final building
plans.
OPEN SPACE
In addition to the landscaping required on site the applicant is proposing approximately 2,000
square feet of open space on the ground floor along the northerly property line and between the
commercial and residential components of the structure.
ARCHITECTURE
The applicant is proposing wood sided Cape Code style structures with the street elevation
themed after the Seal Beach pier.
Staff believes the proposed architectural scheme is appropriate for the Limited Commercial zone
and will be a positive asset to the community as a whole.
PARKING
The proposed structure is required to provide 11 parking spaces. A total of four (4) parking
spaces are proposed for the subject property. The proposal calls for all 4 spaces to be devoted to
the residential units. The applicant will be required to provide seven (7) in-lieu spaces as
provided for in Section 28-1156(A)(5). The City has yet to determine the appropriate fee for in-
lieu parking along Seal Beach Boulevard, so staff is recommending a condition be added
requiring the applicant be required to post a surety bond in the amount of$3,500 ($500/space)
prior to issuance of a building permit.
RECOMMENDATION
01-6-229 SBB.PC StatT Report 4
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relative testimony presented
during the public hearing on Minor Plan Review 01-6 conditionally approve this request.
Staff is recommending that all standard permit issuance fees of the Department of Building and
Safety and the Department of Public Works shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
This condition would entail payment of the following fees and/or submission of additional plans:
o Grading. Permit: Grading plans to be approved by the Engineering Department and a
grading permit to be issued by Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
❑ Building Department standard conditions of approval:
o Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code requirements for
construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach (adopts by
reference 1997 Uniform Construction Codes with local amendments).
o Payment of all required fees at time of submittal of plans for plan check/issuance of
building permit:
o Plan Check Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Building Permit Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Environmental Reserve Tax (pursuant to Code § 22-52)
o Construction Excise Tax (pursuant to Code § 22-14)
o Park and Recreation Non-Subdivision Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
4816)
o Transportation Facilities and Programs Development and Development Application
Fees (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Orange County Sewer Connection Fee
o Public Works Department standard conditions of approval:
o City Sewer Connection Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Grading Plan Check Fee Deposit(pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Right of Way Improvements:
o yReplace deficient or inadequate sidewalk abutting lot or construct all new as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Replace deficient or inadequate curb and gutter abutting lot or construct all new as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Make all public pedestrian access, including but not limited to driveway approaches,
access ramps, sidewalk abutting lot ADA compliant.
o Rehabilitate half the section of the street abutting the frontage of the property as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Rehabilitate the entire alley section abutting the frontage of the property as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Street Improvements:
o Underground all overhead utilities abutting lot including but not limited to electrical,
phone, cable.
o Street Trees and landscaping:
01-6-229 S B B.PC Staff Report 5
Minor Plan Review 01-6. 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
•
a Plant new street trees and landscaping in the public right of way as determined by the
Director of Parks and Recreation in accordance with the City's Street policy.
o Public Utilities:
o On commercial developments with City maintained water facilities, replace any water
lines, hydrants, or facilities as determined by the City Engineer or take over
maintenance of the water lines as a private on-site system.
a Replace existing sewer laterals as necessary as determined by the City Engineer.
❑ Upgrade water services as necessary as determined by the City Engineer.
❑ Replace existing public facilities such as street lighting, water and sewer lines and
related appurtenances serving the property if in the determination of the City Engineer
the existing public utilities are insufficient or are in need of replacement.
❑ Ocean Water Quality:
a Provide that stormwater pollution requirements as determined by the City Engineer
including but not limited to the following:
a Minimize runoff to impermeable areas/reuse storm water.
Note: All fees established by City Council Resolution 4816 are reviewed on an annual basis,
and may be adjusted. Fees are generally revised during the budget adoption process, in June
or July of each year. At the time of the applicable permit issuance, the applicable fee as then
in effect will be required.
Staff's recommendation is based on the following:
• Minor Plan Review 01-6 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the
City's General Plan, which provides a "Limited Commercial" designation for the subject
property and permits mixed use developments. The use is also consistent with the remaining
elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and
reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the
General Plan.
• The proposed development complies with all development standards of the Limited
Commercial (L-C) Zone.
•
• The proposed Cape Code style architectural scheme, including pier theme, is appropriate for
the beach character of Old Town Seal Beach.
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. Minor Plan Review 01-6 is approved for architectural review at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard,
Seal Beach. The proposed project entails the construction of a one-story commercial
structure at the front of the lot and a three-story duplex at the rear of the lot.
2. Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code requirements for
construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach (adopts by
reference 1997 Uniform Construction Codes with local amendments).
O l-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 6
Minor Plan Review 01-6. 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
3. Final building plans shall indicate 177 square feet of landscaping within the required front
yard setback and an additional 323 square feet of landscaping elsewhere on the property.
4. The applicant shall sign and record an agreement to participate in an in-lieu parking program
for a total of seven (7) parking spaces.
5. The applicant shall post a surety bond in the amount of $3,500 ($500/space) for in-lieu
parking fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Once a specific in-lieu fee is determined,
the applicant shall pay the fee in full and the bond will be released.
6. The applicant shall record a covenant on the Title of the property requiring that the occupants
of the residential units shall be involved in "non-residential" uses on the subject property.
7. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through MPR 01-
6, as amended herein.
8. All standard permit issuance fees of the Department of Building and Safety and the
Department of Public Works shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. This
condition would entail payment of the following fees and/or submission of additional plans:
❑ Grading Permit: Grading plans to be approved by the Engineering Department and a
grading permit to be issued by Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building
permit.
a Building Department standard conditions of approval:
o Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code requirements for
construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach (adopts by
reference 1997 Uniform Construction Codes with local amendments).
❑ Payment of all required fees at time of submittal of plans for plan check/issuance of
building permit:
❑ Plan Check Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
❑ Building Permit Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Environmental Reserve Tax (pursuant to Code § 22-52)
❑ Construction Excise Tax (pursuant to Code § 22-14)
❑ Park and Recreation Non-Subdivision Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution
No. 4816)
o Transportation Facilities and Programs Development and Development
Application Fees (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Orange County Sewer Connection Fee
o Public Works Department standard conditions of approval:
a City Sewer Connection Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
a Grading Plan Check Fee Deposit(pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
❑ Right of Way Improvements:
o V Replace deficient or inadequate sidewalk abutting lot or construct all new as
determined by the City Engineer.
OI-6-229 SBB.PC Stat7Report 7
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
o Replace deficient or inadequate curb and gutter abutting lot or construct all new as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Make all public pedestrian access, including but not limited to driveway
approaches, access ramps, sidewalk abutting lot ADA compliant.
❑ Rehabilitate half the section of the street abutting the frontage of the property as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Rehabilitate the entire alley section abutting the frontage of the property as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Street Improvements:
o Underground all overhead utilities abutting lot including but not limited to
electrical, phone, cable.
o Street Trees and landscaping:
o Plant new street trees and landscaping in the public right of way as determined by
the Director of Parks and Recreation in accordance with the City's Street policy.
❑ Public Utilities:
o On commercial developments with City maintained water facilities, replace any
water lines, hydrants, or facilities as determined by the City Engineer or take over
maintenance of the water lines as a private on-site system.
o Replace existing sewer laterals as necessary as determined by the City Engineer.
o Upgrade water services as necessary as determined by the City Engineer.
❑ Replace existing public facilities such as street lighting, water and sewer lines and
related appurtenances serving the property if in the determination of the City
Engineer the existing public utilities are insufficient or are in need of replacement.
❑ Ocean Water Quality:
❑ Provide that stormwater pollution requirements as determined by the City
Engineer including but not limited to the following:
o Minimize runoff to impermeable areas/reuse storm water.
9. This Minor Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the
ten(10)day appeal period has elapsed.
At
r e Whi enberg
Director of Development Servi -
Attachments: (6)
Attachment 1: Resolution No. 01 - 22, A Resolution of the Planning Commission
of the City of Seal Beach Approving Minor Plan Review 01-6, a
Request for Architectural Review of a Proposal to Construct a New
Mixed Use Development, Consisting of a One-Story Commercial
01-6.229 SBB.PC Staff Report 3
,'Minor-Plan Review 01-6,229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
Building at the Front of the Lot with a Three (3) Story, Two Unit
Residential Structure at the Rear of the Lot at 229 Seal Beach
Boulevard
Attachment 2: Code Sections
Attachment 3: Application
Attachment 4: Plans
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Resolution 96-21 re: Minor Plan Review 96-
2
Attachment 6: Planning Commission Minutes: April 17, 1996 and May 8, 1996
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 9
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 01 - 22, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH APPROVING MINOR PLAN REVIEW 01-6,
A REQUEST FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, CONSISTING OF A ONE-STORY
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT THE FRONT OF THE
LOT WITH A THREE (3) STORY, TWO UNIT
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT THE REAR OF THE
LOT AT 229 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD
OI-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Repon 10
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Skiff Report
May 9, 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 01 - 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
MINOR PLAN REVIEW 01-6, A REQUEST FOR
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT,
CONSISTING OF A ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT WITH A
THREE (3) STORY, TWO UNIT RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE AT THE REAR OF THE LOT AT 229.
SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD
THE PLANNING COMMISSIO pRAS
F THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On April 12, 2001, Walter F. Miller submitted an application for
Minor Plan Review 01-6. Specifically, the applicant is seeking Architectural Review of a
proposal to construct a new mixed-use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed
development consists of a one-story commercial building at the front of the lot with a three (3)
story, two-unit residential structure over parking at the rear of the lot.
•
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.B of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Minor Plan
Review 01-6 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303 (New Construction), because it involves
the construction of only two (2) apartment units in an urbanized area and other small commercial
structures; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 3. A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning Commission
on May 9, 2001 to consider the application for Minor Plan Review 01-6.
Section 4. The record of the hearing on May 9, 2001 indicates the following:
(a) On April 12, 2001, Walter F. Miller submitted an application for Minor
Plan Review 01-6.
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 1 1
•
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9. 2001
(b) Specifically, the applicant is seeking Architectural Review of a proposal to
construct a new mixed-use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed
development consists of a one-story commercial building at the front of the lot with a three (3)
story, two-unit residential structure at the rear of the lot.
(c) The subject property is legally described as Orange County Assessor's
Parcel Number 199-062-36 and is located in the Limited Commercial zone of Old Town.
(d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of 6,666 square
feet (62.5' x 106.67').
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH & SOUTH A mixture of commercial and residential uses along Seal
Beach Boulevard in the Limited Commercial zone (L-C).
EAST The Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard in
the Public Land Use/Recreation zone (PLU/R).
WEST A mixture of single family and multi-family residences in the Residential
Medium Density zone (RMD).
(f) The Planning Commission mall considered and approved a similar
g Y PP
request in 1992 and again in 1996. The Coastal Commission granted approval to a revised plan
and scaled back plan for the development of the property in 1996. In 1997 the City approved
construction plans for the project in accordance with the approved plans from the City and
Coastal Commission. However, the project was never constructed. The same plan as was
previously approved by the City in 1997 is the plan now being considered by the City.
(g) The City has received no written responses in opposition this minor plan
review request.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in
§ 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28-1158 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission
hereby fords as follows:
(a) Minor Plan Review 01-6 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Limited Commercial" designation for the
subject property and permits mixed use developments. The use is also consistent with the
remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent
with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with
the General Plan.
O l-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 12
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
(b) The proposed development complies with all development standards of the
Limited Commercial (L-C) Zone.
(c) The proposed Cape Code style architectural scheme, including pier theme,
is appropriate for the beach character of Old Town Seal Beach
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Minor Plan Review 01-6, subject to the following conditions:
1. Minor Plan Review 01-6 is approved for architectural review at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard,
Seal Beach. The proposed project entails the construction of a one-story commercial
structure at the front of the lot and a three-story duplex at the rear of the lot.
2. Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code requirements for
construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach (adopts by
lizreference 1997 Uniform Construction Codes with lo dments).
b
3. Final building plans shall indicate 177 sgi.t!i�e eet of landscaping within the required front
yard setback and an additional 323 square feet of landscaping elsewhere on the property.
4. The applicant shall sign and record an agreement to participate in an in-lieu parking program
for a total of seven (7) parking spaces.
5. The applicant shall post a surety bond in the amount of $3,500 ($500/space) for in-lieu
parking fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Once a specific in-lieu fee is determined,
the applicant shall pay the fee in full and the bond will be released.
6. The applicant shall record a covenant on the Title of the property requiring that the occupants
of the residential units shall be involved in "non-residential" uses on the subject property.
7. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through MPR 01-
6, as amended herein.
8. All standard permit issuance fees of the Department of Building and Safety and the
Department of Public Works shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. This
condition would entail payment of the following fees and/or submission of additional plans:
❑ Grading Permit: Grading plans to be approved by the Engineering Department and a
grading permit to be issued by Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building
permit.
o Building Department standard conditions of approval:
o Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code requirements for
construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach (adopts by
reference 1997 Uniform Construction Codes with local amendments).
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 13
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
❑ Payment of all required fees at time of submittal of plans for plan check/issuance of
building permit:
o Plan Check Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
❑ Building Permit Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Environmental Reserve Tax (pursuant to Code § 22-52)
o Construction Excise Tax (pursuant to Code § 22-14)
o Park and Recreation Non-Subdivision Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution
No. 4816)
o Transportation Facilities and Programs Development and Development
Application Fees (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Orange County Sewer Connection Fee
o Public Works Department standard conditions of approval:
o City Sewer Connection Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
o Grading Plan Check Fee Deposit(pursuant to City Co colution No. 4816)
❑ Right of Way Improvements: ��
o Replace deficient or inadequate sidewal'1C' u ting lot or construct all new as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Replace deficient or inadequate curb and gutter abutting lot or construct all new as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Make all public pedestrian access, including but not limited to driveway
approaches, access ramps, sidewalk abutting lot ADA compliant.
❑ Rehabilitate half the section of the street abutting the frontage of the property as
determined by the City Engineer.
o Rehabilitate the entire alley section abutting the frontage of the property as
determined by the City Engineer.
❑ Street Improvements:
o Underground all overhead utilities abutting lot including but not limited to
electrical, phone, cable.
❑ Street Trees and landscaping:
o Plant new street trees and landscaping in the public right of way as determined by
the Director of Parks and Recreation in accordance with the City's Street policy.
❑ Public Utilities:
o On commercial developments with City maintained water facilities, replace any
water lines, hydrants, or facilities as determined by the City Engineer or take over
maintenance of the water lines as a private on-site system.
o Replace existing sewer laterals as necessary as determined by the City Engineer.
o Upgrade water services as necessary as determined by the City Engineer.
o Replace existing public facilities such as street lighting, water and sewer lines and
related appurtenances serving the property if in the determination of the City
Engineer the existing public utilities are insufficient or are in need of replacement.
❑ Ocean Water Quality:
o Provide that stormwater pollution requirements as determined by the City
Engineer including but not limited to the following:
o Minimize runoff to impermeable areas/reuse storm water.
01-6-229 SBB.PC State'Report 14
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
9. This Minor Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an"Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the
ten(10) day appeal period has elapsed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of May , 2001 by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners
P.
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
David Hood. Ph.D.
Chairperson, Planning Commission
Lee Whittenberg, Secretary
Planning Commission
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 15
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
ATTACHMENT 2
CODE SECTIONS
"Article 11.5. Limited Commercial Zone
Section 28-1150. Declaration of Legislative Intent. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the
LC - Limited Commercial Zone - to establish reasonable standards that permit and control
limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses. It is not the intent of
this zone to allow uses which are purely residential in nature. Furthermore, it is the intent of this
part to:
A. Encourage commercial, service, institutional and office uses that do not attract large
volumes of traffic and continuous customer turnover.
B. Limit and discourage development of strip-type, highway-oriented commercial uses that
create traffic hazards and congestion because they require numerous individual curb cuts
and generate higher traffic volumes.
C. Minimize visual and functional conflicts between residential and nonresidential uses
within and abutting the zone.
D. Encourage elimination of curb cuts for vehicular access and promote more efficient and
economical parking facilities, utilizing both on-street parking, off-street parking and off-
site parking facilities.
E. Encourage uses that minimize noise and congestion.
Section 28-1 151. Permitted Uses.
In the L-C zone, the following uses only are permitted and as hereinafter specifically provided
and allowed by this article:
A. Retail specialty shops including, but not limited to, the sale of gifts, antiques, flowers,
books, jewelry, apparel, tobacco and related supplies, or craft shops, making articles
exclusively for retail sale on the premises.
B. Personal service shops including, but not limited to, tailor, barber, beauty salon, shoe
repair, dressmaking, or similar service uses.
O1-6-:29 SBB.PC Staff Report 16
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
C. Business offices including, but not limited to, security and commodity brokerage, real
estate sales, travel agency, employment counseling, insurance sales, advertising, mailing,
and stenographic services, and other services of a similar nature.
D. Studios for dance, art, music, photography, radio, or television.
E. Professional offices for lawyers, engineers, architects, landscape architects, urban
planners, accountants, economic consultants, doctors, dentists, chiropractors, or other
practitioners of the healing arts for humans, or other professionals of a similar nature.
F. Residential uses located only on the second floor and above, and only in conjunction with
a permitted or conditionally permitted non-residential use.
G. Nursery schools, day care centers, private or trade schools, outdoor play hours shall be
limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
H. Any use determined by the Planning Commission to be of a nature similar to the uses
listed above.
Section 28-1152. Use Limitations. Limitations in this section apply to uses proposed after the
effective date of the section and changes to existing establishments caused by expansion or
reduction of space or change of service/product mix. If one-third (33-1/3%) of an establishment's
floor area or gross receipts, as defined in Section 11.1, are derived from a conditional use, the
establishment will be so categorized, and a conditional use permit shall be required for the
operation of the establishment.
A. No business shall operate before 7:00 a.m., or after 10:00 p.m., unless a Conditional Use
Permit is secured.
B. No use shall be permitted in which more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the floor area
is devoted to storage unless a Conditional Use Permit is secured.
C. All activities and storage must be carried on within a building unless a Conditional Use
Permit is secured.
D. No establishment shall have an exterior service window unless a Conditional Use Permit
is secured.
E. The maximum floor area occupied by a single establishment shall be 3,000 square feet,
unless a Conditional Use permit is secured.
Section 28-1153. Conditional Uses. The following uses may be permitted by the Planning
Commission as a Conditional Use, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-2503:
O1-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 17
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
A. Television and appliance repair.
B. Bakery for production of articles to be sold at retail only on the premises.
C. Conversion of residential use to a non-residential use, provided all other applicable
standards of this Section are met.
D. Outdoor sale and display areas.
Section 28-1154. Standards and Criteria for Conditional Uses. The Planning Commission may
authorize a conditional use if it conforms with the following standards and criteria:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the provisions of the General Plan.
B. The proposed use is compatible with uses of property within the immediate area.
C. The proposed use will not attract large volumes of vehicular traffic.
D. The proposed use is of a similar architectural scale to existing development in the zone or
will use an existing building for its purposes.
E. Minimum visual and functional conflict will be created between the proposed use and
nearby uses.
F. Anticipated noise and congestion created by the use will be comparable to that created by
nearby uses.
G. The use shall not require servicing by, or deliveries of materials, stocks, or supplies by
trucks having more than two axles.
H. The proposed use will not contribute to the domination of one type of use within the
zone.
Section 28-1155. General Provisions. Lot Size, Open Space. Bulk and Yards.
A. Minimum Lot Size:
Width 25 ft.
Depth 100 ft.
Area 2,500 sq. ft.
B. Yard Dimensions:
1. Front yard abutting street:
01-6-229 SBB.PC Surf Report 18
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
Commercial 6 ft. average - 3 ft. minimum
Residential 12 ft. average - 6 ft. minimum*
2. Side yard abutting street:
Commercial 10% lot width average - 5% lot
width minimum, to a maximum of 5 ft.
Residential 15% lot width average -
10% lot width minimum, 8 ft. maximum*
3. Yard abutting alley:
Rear 9 ft. on 15 ft. alley
12 ft. on 12 ft. alley
13 ft. on 11 ft. alley
(second stories may encroach 1/2 the required setback)
4. Yard not abutting street or alley:
Commercial none
Residential 3 ft. minimum, 10 ft. maximum**
(Ord. No. 1358)
C. Lot Coverage:
1. The non-residential development shall be limited to a maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of 0.90 for lots having less than 5,000 square feet of area. For lots having
more than 5,000 square feet of lot area, the non-residential development shall be
limited to a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.75, but not less than 4,500
square feet.
* Exception: For required residential parking spaces on lots of less than thirty-seven and one-half
(37.5)feet in width,an encroachment into the exterior side yard for the length of the garage will be
permitted. The intent of this provision is to provide an interior garage width dimension of eighteen
feet.
** Yard dimensions for residential uses are for second story and above yards, as residential uses are
not permitted on the ground level.
2. The residential development shall be limited to one residential unit for each 2,000
square feet of lot area with a maximum residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.85,
for lots having less than 5,000 square feet of area. For lots having more than 5,000
square feet of lot area the residential development shall be limited to one
residential unit for each 2,000 square feet of lot area, with a maximum residential
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.70.
D. Maximum height:
1. Main Building:
Lot width less than 37-1/2 ft 30 ft.
01-6-2229 SBB.PC Staf Report 19
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
Lot width more than 37-1/2 ft
a) Rear 1/2 of lot, 3 stories, maximum 35 ft.
b) Front 1/2 of lot, 2 stores, maximum 25 ft.
2. Accessory Building 15 ft.
3. A structure shall not encroach into the residential setback as defined by an
imaginary plane described by a 45 degree angle sloping inward from a point six (6)
feet above the existing grade of an adjoining rear setback line in an "R" District.
4. A basement devoted exclusively to parking shall not be counted as a story.
E. Landscaping Requirements:
1. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the area of the required front yard setback
shall be devoted to landscaping.
2. A minimum of five percent (5%) of the lot area shall be devoted to landscaping,
not including the required front yard setback landscaping.
F. Mixed-Use Standards: Structures used for mixed commercial/residential use shall be
subject to the following:
1. No new residential units may be located on the ground floor, all new residential
units shall be located only on the second floor or above, where the ground floor is
occupied by a permitted or conditionally permitted non-residential use.
2. Each dwelling unit shall have a useable exterior open space area of at least eighty
(80) square feet, with a minimum dimension of eight (8) feet, not utilizing any
required landing areas required in accordance with the Uniform Building Code for
required access to the residential portions of the subject structure.
3. No new non-residential uses may be located above the second floor.
4. New residential uses shall only be permitted only in conjunction with a non-
residential use, designed as integral portion of the non-residential use and intended
for occupancy by the operator/owner of the adjoining non-residential use.
(Ord. No. 1346; Ord. No. 1358)
Section 28-1156. Required Parking. Parking Space Size. Form and Type.
A. Parking Requirements:
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 20
Minor Plan Review 01-6. 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
1. Residential use parking requirements shall be in accordance with the provisions of
Section 28-802. District I and Section 28-803.
2. Non-residential use parking requirements shall be in accordance with the
provisions of Section 28-1203 and Section 28-1304, as applicable for the non-
residential use.
3. Residential use parking requirements may be met by the provision of tandem
parking up to two (2) spaces in length, so long as access to the alley from the
residential use spaces is not restricted.
4. Non-residential use parking requirements may be met by the provision of tandem
parking.
5. In lieu of providing a portion of the on-site parking spaces otherwise required for a
non-residential use, an applicant may pay an in-lieu fee as provided in this
paragraph. Such fee shall be calculated in an amount necessary to offset the City's
cost of re-striping, closing curb cuts, and other improvements necessary to create
additional parking spaces on the portion of Seal Beach Boulevard within the L-C
zone. Fees may be accepted in lieu of up to four (4) parking spaces per 2,500
square feet of lot area on the property for which an application is filed, provided,
however, the City may not accept a fee in lieu of parking spaces unless the
applicant proposes to devote to a commercial use that portion of the surface area of
the lot which equals seventy-five percent (75%) of the area which would be
occupied by the parking spaces otherwise required for the use in question if those
spaces were provided on the site.
6. The required non-residential parking requirements for new commercial/service
uses may be met by the provision of additional on-street parking spaces as a result
of the closure of existing curb cuts, on a space for space basis.
4 Section 28-1157. Sign Requirements:
A. Residential and Non-Residential use sign requirements shall be in accordance with the
provisions of Section 28-1800 through 28-1812, in general.
B. Specific sign requirements for residential uses shall be in accordance with Section 28-
1804.1.
C. Specific sign requirements for non-residential uses shall be in accordance with Section
28-1804.3.
Section 28-1158. Design Review:
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 2
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
A. All requests for new construction pursuant to this Article shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission in accordance with the Consent Calendar Plan Review procedures,
as set forth in Section 28-2407.B.
(Ord. 1346, S5)"
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 22
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
ATTACHMENT 3
APPLICATION
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 23
April 17 , 2001
Planning Commission
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
City Hall - 211 8th Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
Re : Minor Plan Review
May 9, 2001 meeting
Property: 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Request to activate expired permit issued 1996
As a result of changed circumstances
Honorable Members :
I will be out of state on your scheduled meeting date . I have
authorized Kent Trollen of Seal Beach to represent my interests at
the meeting .
My circumstances have changed. The circumstances of the City, as
they impact the L-C zone, also seems to have changed. I have
remarried and want to return my residence to Seal Beach with my new
wife . Her son, presently a professor in Taiwan, wants to return and
get on staff at Cal State Long Beach. My son has just celebrated his
20th anniversary in his old bicycle shop. We are all here to stay.
It' s time to move forward. There will be absolutely no changes to the
plans other than any required by the present code .
I ask for your approval at the hearing scheduled for May 9, 2001 .
I understand that improvements are being - considered for Sea]. Beach
Boulevard south of Coast Highway. I support that . However, I
understand a continuation of the planted center divider is planned
from Coast Highway to Electric . I believe that would be a big
mistake ! ! This section of Seal Beach Boulevard is exactly the same
width as Main Street, 56ft . Imagine what a planted center divider
would do to the business access and parking on Main Street .
True, there is interest in changing the L-C zone to R-1, leaving
existing businesses as non-conforming, with a 40 to 50 year waiver.
But the planted center divider would further restrict ocean views of
existing or planned residences . This section of Seal Beach
Boulevard, the "Gateway", is also the primary exit for emergency
vehicles as well as visitor traffic and OCRT busses . If cars were
parallel parked and a bus stalled in the outbound traffic lane, any
emergency vehicle coming up would be stopped in its tracks, and
possibly impounded if other vehicles were behind. I think some of
you may remember when this issue was brought up to Dave Bartlett' s
plan back in 1989 .
I believe the best interest in developing the L-C area is to stick to
the present program, with my project being the showcase . To make a
change, a local development plan would have to be approved by the
Coastal Commission, and I am told that residential development is at
the bottom of their list of priorities, especially with our beaches
nearby.
If that does not suit city planners, then continue what we have by
making the street into an R-3 zone allowing upscale apartments, with
on street diagonal parking. Keep in mind, the Navy owns the other
side of the street, and at best, it could be developed into a
continuation of the Electric "green belt" . The existing businesses
could stay without a waiver because we now have "mixed use", status
quo. Apartments next to the preschool, copy store, and apartments
next to Pacific Electric Right of Way, fitness center, accounting
offices and travel center . Does that make sense?
The present problems owners have in developing the L-C zone are :
a . Short lots, 103 feet deep, not the usual 117 feet deep;
b . Dense high speed traffic;
c . A flood zone requiring raised floor levels;
d. With setbacks, the maximum living space on a 25 foot lot
is some 600sf less than found in the interior streets
single family residential developments .
Kent Trollen, in attendance, will be pleased to answer any questions
in my absence . I thank you for your support and consideration.
Sincerely,
UJOIkevw1^-----
Walt Miller, Owner
229 and 231 Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach
Tel . 562-598-8455 FAX 562-430-0912
App(icaLian fcr: (C)ecx one amore'
T❑� Acdtt r:to Non-Cort;cr n .y^ 5t-Jcure
Tw—Stow C.a:ara
U S:ru ,.:re n L-C tone
O E,sro St:C.ase in Flood Zork. PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION
Acss y Sir;v'.u2 in Rear Se ack
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No.: ? 0 l - La Date Filed:
Date Complete:
Planning Commission Date: Date Com lete:
1. Property Address: 2 9 OL CrA 6E4cif
C4,
2. Applicant's Name: W 4 1...t"- sit, 61 (4,z-e&
Address: /4.3 t SFr 4 6b ck-c Lr C L D � 8e4c.o CA.
Home Phone: (5(03.} L, °Iy- (-133 q
Work Phone: (j^. Jr G. 3 -$ YS5- FAX. 6024 AA o be t 2.-
3. Property Owner's Name: W A r c & P-
Address: -2.61 � ,4(_ �J D Q.� 43 6`A-C - O4
Home Phone: (T( . Fi2 $ 4155-
4. General Plan and Zoning Designation: Li K•, , r eq C9.1 y eA_cck4 L- C
5. Present Use of Property: C>►v DE V Lo P��
t)cer0 Gt SE
6. Proposed Use of Property: C v ‘,, Ale/cc/A-4. 7/4,6"S ip s 7co'o D4.4) C->'
7. Request For: Ai 1 1v p/& �pr� kctli =
8. Describe the Proposed Improvements: ke-r rtt 1,13 i Lyre k,c �l� b►°
4 OLD Two v,v i /6'c'10A- ,:r E N-r 12 (7( A-1
9. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the
character of the surrounding neighb hod: Pko v t q agi 4 t V e W o kk
CA2.vc .=0 -r" c) L` k C r Q v 7—.b 4/4 .4Ac7-.VI , d'
City of Seal Beach • 211 Eighth Street • Seal Beach, Califomia 90740
Telephone: (562) 431-2527 • FAX: (562) 431-4067
(Rev. 2198) 6
I
10. Describe how and if the approval of this Plan Review would be detrimental in any
way to other property in the vicinity: 11/4 ,VE-G.-a-r,Vc- l71 pµ.c,�--
11. Proof of Ownership
Staff is to attach here a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant
Deed provided by the applicant.
OR
Signed and notarized Owner's Affidavit to be completed and attached to the
application.
12. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed): ,1344 ' Ci r i
T . 4Lo k 2a : , —s / o1.7
By: By:
(Signature of Applicant) (Signature of Applicant)
W A4 L,ry it. F 1 v( I L L
int Name) (Pint Name)
1)/ (a /0 I
(Date) (Date)
For Office Use Only
This is to certify that I have inspected the foregoing application and found it to be thorough and complete. ti conforms to
the rules of the City of Seal Beach governing the filing of an application:for a Consent Calendar Plan Review item
(Print Name) (Signature) (Print Title) (Date)
•
City of Seal Beach •211 Eighth Street• Seal Beach, California 90740
Telephone: (562) 431-2527 • FAX: (562)431-4067
(Rev.2/98) 7
PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CAL'FORNIA }
CITY OF SEAL. BEACH }
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
(I)i�W Al A- L.Trc 4 P Irv) r L C. C \
�� (Name)
swear that (I am)/(g44-eFe) the owner of the property at:
2 2-G
c4L C 4- ,81„v D 4 '0 e-4G f}- CA-- g D 7Y p
(Street Address) (Cty) (State) (ZIP)
and that (1 am)/ter) are familiar with the rules of the City of Seal Beach for preparing
and filing a Plan Review application. The information contained in the attached Plan
Review application is correct to the best of (my)/(J -$ icwledge and (I approve of
this application to do the following work: CbtiSr/t,v cr' (;2 ICY c
$f-t ne Ar v D TWO Li A/ 4 T C- '4 r-,415&.vr
�f� MILE Fes- , l 3 a 9 �d
(�nnt Name) (Signature) (Date)
Z.3 ( crAL E c1.4- .t(� � ��1A-L 6 a 54V�
(Address-Please Pnnt) (Cty, State&Z p) (Telephone)
SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
THIS i Y OF /14/fr - `v I r JIM BAIAAM
y rin' A ' NOTAflY1 UBLIC 29 L FOANIA U)
Orange Count
Notary' ublic +Y Gmm.bones Jan.19.2005
City of Seal Beach • 211 Eighth Street • Seal Beach, California 9C740
Telephone: (562) 431-2527 • FAX: (5E2) 431-4067
(Rev. 2198) 9
Applicant's Affidavit
Radius Map for Public Hearing
I, IAA- L 1�& F t'1 I 1. , certify that on the ( 2 day of AT k i- ,
Aar) � , I prepared an ownership/occupant list and radius map, which included
properties and residential dwelling units entirely within or partially within one hundred
feet (100') of the most exterior boundaries of the roperty being considered in the
above-referenced case known as (address) 2 Q,,9 �e-ikt. 6 ,F a.co-t- $A D
Property Owners. The names and addresses listed were taken from the latest records
of the Orange County Assessor. Such names are recorded in the records of the
County Assessor as being the present owner(s) of both the property involved in said
case and of property in the immediate vicinity thereto.
Occupant Notification. I obtained the mailing addresses of occupants within 100' of the
subject property in the following manner: .S v S At IA) /u c,
�(4/ A/ k Cote A4 rr • b. 4 .9.0.,1l,1/• e.ogt-it- C
I certify that said ownership/occupant list and radius map are correct and accurate to
the best of my knowledge. I also acknowledge that any errors in this information will
constitute an incomplete application and may invalidate its approval.
PRINT NAME
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
4-71/ --/o/
DATE
City of Seal Beach•211 Eighth Street• Seal Beach, California 90740
Telephone: (562)431-2527 • FAX: (562) 431-4067
(Rev.2/98) 8
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANS
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 24
1
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9,2001
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-21 RE:
MINOR PLAN REVIEW 96-2
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 25
I
•
RESOLUTION No. 96- 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
MINOR PLAN REVIEW 96-2, A REQUEST FOR
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
AT 229 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD. THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF A ONE-
STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT THE FRONT
OF THE LOT WITH A THREE (3) STORY, TWO
UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT THE REAR
OF THE LOT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On April 2, 1996, Walter F. Miller("the Applicant") filed an
application with the Department of Development Services for Minor Plan Review 96-2. Through
MPR 96-2, the applicant seeks Architectural Review of a proposal to construct a new mixed use
'development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed development consists of a one-story
commercial building at the front of the lot with a three (3) story, two unit residential structure at
the rear of the lot.
•
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a)and § II.B of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Minor Plan
Review 96-2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303 (New Construction), because it involves
the construction of only two (2) apartment units in an urbanized area and other small commercial
structures; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3),because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 3. A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning Commission
on April 17, 1996 and continued to May 8, 1996 to consider the application for Minor Plan
Review 96-2.
Section 4. The record of the hearings on April 17, 1996 and May 8, 1996
indicates the following:
(a) On April 2, 1996, Walter F. Miller submitted an application for Minor
Plan Review 96-2.
C:\My Documents\Minor Plan Review\MPR 96-2.PC Resolution.doc
Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-21
May 8, 1996
(b) Specifically, the applicant is seeking Architectural Review of a proposal to
construct a new mixed use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed
development consists of a one-story commercial building at the front of the lot with a three (3)
story, two unit residential structure at the rear of the lot.
(c) The subject property is legally described as Orange County Assessor's
Parcel Number 199-062-36 and is located in the Limited Commercial zone of Old Town..
(d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of 6,469 square
feet (62.5' x 103.49').
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH & SOUTH A mixture of commercial and residential uses along Seal
Beach Boulevard in the Limited Commercial zone (L-C).
EAST The Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard in
the Public Land Use/ Recreation zone (PLU/R).
WEST A mixture of single family and multi-family residences in the Residential
Medium Density zone (RMD).
(f) The Planning Commission originally considered and approved a similar
request in 1992. The matter has been tied up at the Coastal Commission since that time.
Recently the Coastal Commission granted approval to a revised plan and scaled back plan for the
development of the property.
(g) The City has received two written responses in opposition this minor plan
review request.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in
§ 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28-1158 of the City's Code, the PIanning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
(a) Minor Plan Review 96-2 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Limited Commercial" designation for the
subject property and permits mixed use developments. The use is also consistent with the
remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent
with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with
the General Plan.
(b) The proposed Cape Code style architectural scheme, including pier theme,
is appropriate for the beach character of Old Town Seal Beach
Page 2
O:\...\MINOR PLAN REvuEw$\962 RESOLuTiON BC:Bc
Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-21
May 8, 1996
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Minor Plan Review 96-2, subject to the following conditions:
1. Minor Plan Review 96-2 is approved for architectural review at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard,
Seal Beach The proposed project entails the construction of a one-story commercial structure
at the front of the lot and a three-story duplex at the rear of the lot.
2. Final building plans shall indicate 177 square feet of landscaping within the required front
yard setback and an additional 323 square feet of landscaping elsewhere on the property.
3. The plans shall be amended to provide an average front yard setback of six (6') feet with a
minimum setback of three (3') feet.
4. The applicant shall sign and record an agreement to participate in an in-lieu parkin` program
for a total of seven (7) parking spaces.
5. The applicant shall post a surety bond in the amount of$3,500 ($500/space) for in-lieu
parking fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Once a specific in-lieu fee is determined,
the applicant shall pay the fee in full and the bond will be released.
6. The applicant shall record a covenant on the Title of the property requiring that the occupants
of the residential units shall be involved in"non-residential"uses on the subject property.
7. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through MPR 96-
2, as amended herein.
8. This Minor Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an"Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the
ten(10)day appeal period has elapsed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of May, 1996 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brown, Campbell, Law, Sharp
NOES: Commissioners ---
ABSENT: Commissioners Dahlman
Page 3
D:\...\MINOR PLAN REVIEWS\9 2 RESOLUTION BC:BC
Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-21
May 8, 1996
/5/Patricia E. Camp , Chairperson
Planning Commission
W'hittenberg, Secretary
Planning Commission
•
•
Page 4
O:\...\MINOR PLAN REVIE`NS\96.2 RESOLUTION BC:BC
Minor Plan Review 01-6, 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Planning Commission Staff Report
May 9, 2001
ATTACHMENT 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
APRIL 17, 1996 AND MAY 8, 1996
01-6-229 SBB.PC Staff Report 26
i
•
Trtc 3-City of Sol Beath Mom(Coleargo Maur.4)4y t,19%
5. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated April 22, 1996 re: Not:ce
of Preparation of EIR-Merger of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Areas.
6. Receive and File: City Council Staff ReF.•)rt dated April 22, 1996 re: Receipt
of DE.LS - Disposal and Reuse of Long leach Naval Station.
MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1
AYES: Sharp, Brown, Law, Campbell
ABSENT: Dahlman
Consent Calendar item #1 was considered separately.
1. Minor Plan Review 96-2
[Continued from April 17, 1996}
Address: 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Applicant: Walter Miller
Property Owner: Walter Miller
Request: Architectural review of a proposal to construct a new
mixed use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The
proposed development consists of a one-story commercial
building at the front of the lot with a three-story, two-unit
residential structure at the rear of the lot.
_- Commissioner Brown commented that he and Mayor Hastings visited the site last week, meeting
with the applicant. They reviewed the plans, went over the grounds and the applicant shared
the history of the project.
) MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Minor Plan Review 96-2.
Before the vote, Director Whittenberg indicated staff had prepared a Resolution indicating
approval of this item which the Commission had delivered to them Monday cf this week for
their review.
+ . Commissioner Brown amended his Motion, the Second accepted the amendment:
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Minor Plan Review 96-2 through the
J .!'. adoption of Resolution No. 96-21, subject to all Conditions of Approval noted in the staff
.t1.'; ; report.
MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 - 1
Al; AYES: Sharp, Brown, Law, Campbell
Y/?*t ' ABSENT: Dahlman
3
L 7Q' -, -, S i �' ;C, '-!3z. 0. ,, #,,�4 I %ft. - 3 x ,,
.r u''z"'4411—:%,..4.".x' N�.i s D''' 4�'4- '''� •�✓ •� S: 'tl #' Y�`,'-7 �rt s1 tit:^,.$.,..t} J' "!t ?..!,.7' y ;^!:;':::.,,,',.K
' , Yes .r� c .;�r'Kt .. i +" ,,a.r W: '.., ?- s.
r., x�� ,-;g g14-4r K 1 �'t".E^"t ri ,'
1 z , '14 j S� .r+it,1071:','...,;' .�'+f,,'FX s�'�r,'t's�" t '.r'+r a'�
3f 4..;.0;4,3,...:;.1-_,,:.,..:::";, w ..�, w`,, ra-e eY 5 t K
.'r 1''MY' : ` 7,P)b ee ': o; � t ti �° g � .,
■•
. hcs 3-Cu ar 1..1 lio.cit 7tamaing Commission Mama of April 17.l9
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to act by Minute Order, authorizing the
t
. Planning Commission Chair to sign Resolution 96-18 immediately when it is ready.
.
MOTION CARRIED: 4- 0 - 1
i AYES: Brown, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell
ABSENT: . Law
. Mr. Steele explained the ten calendar-day appeal period would begin once the Chair signs the
resolution.
2- nnor Plan Review 96-2
. 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
. The applicant and property owner, \Valt Miller, requested architectural review of his proposal
.
to construct a new mixed use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed
development consists of a one-story commercial building at the front of the lot with a thr=-
o- .
..• , stry,,..i...,„ o
,:.tw unit residential structure at the rear of the lot.
Commission Questions on Staff Report
• Ci2iiircn Campbell, referenced and questioned page 5, Condition of Approval #6:
. , ... ..
, .
•
-..,.. . -4.;f.-ci=' i':-,;;*:".&1:'- 6 The applicant shall record a covenant on the Titk of the ProPenY ,
-:,::...7:!,n.
1r"...,•;;,i....,:::1 . :- • -•."-"'i 0 .-,..
t
•7':....f.:*...,.z....i ..,."4'.7.'.
.;•)t.'0-01.T.,):?...‘ requiring that the occupants of the residential tusks shall be involved in • -; ':-.•
'non-resideruial•uses on the subject property.
of
S1---01 • '' ' ' r :-.':-.:
Mr.Whittenberg said the Conditon's wording was correct'He explained the pie-requisites
the Limited Commercial (L-C) zone allow only for a residential use in coordination with a
, .
. ' -' menial use which occurs on the same property. One of the City's goals was .o reduce
.A:,,, ••.,;.., commercial•-;.51--if.%, r -A,fk .
0,
''''' ''':• vehicle trips and encourage people to live close to their business location_ The building's . . .., 0.:..
.
occupants must be related to the commercial use on the property. This condition was imposed .
. ..
!.t1,5:;1••••• , ,i;:-..i-::, _, in 1991
. .
. ,
J.,
t. , ,, .,,7N ,-`4. ;,livok.f.,!-,;..,:,....:„:,:. ,. - - . . . .
::i=7. t:-‘'-- -.At •-•'!---,-,-; :••••'4,:'a.:".
• 4.,....„0 , -,.. ,....;',*„..-,,,,, .....- •...`
'' 4r1'...''''''- - Campbell, referenced and questioned page 5, Condition cf Approv-al/3:.,...77 , tt ...,,,,.... -+:7.,1.4,.„,..
4,K .
- - : : .s a zr 41/A.C : ,?:. y
.*:-.444.1." . '' :' ''-' ..'"7- '-'- Aoil*.&4:3 ,.•,-; sz.—,:The'plans shall- be amended to provide an awrage front yard setback
,,..„r'a,-4- ...," • 'p; !it-=-4 4--,, ..!,..*-'4,41....,...-,* ,..,.:;-i..1
'■:'' '-''' '1'•11;'"'''.1'nI.''',":"."•^44,::-7 l''''.;"-'/-'2'7-.fiX (6')feet with a minimton setback
#,. s-,„:".42' ---,,.,,.;-,7J•-, .....4**,,-,--0,:s.-.Jr,,,,,,,!;,`.:::;..'.,A,,,,t,
%15,-.•-•• -'1..--LT, ,.--.t. '..,.., ...,<-7.*:',Ar; -!s-•:.:. . .1. • , ,'',-:.,,:.?..-..:: • . • ‘•' :,:'A.,'‘;„,:'.-.-'-:•;'-.-"V•;•'-',';::^-114,44c.,:i,',.f.iglik Jef:',4%ti,'..M.1447,:-...rat, ,--;:t-;40.4,,),`,i- ",›...7kt._
-. i•,•,, ..:"=. •,.-,',2 - ' 5,1,-li.vi..,.. ..,147A.,:,,,,,::::.,,,,.4,,:4.... ,'.,''.0:.??,.;.:.;':,.:1'.:,'„ei,',.,Tf°,:::,•,1...,.= - ' - : ; -';...27';<°:::.,,,y,::::1:,/....1-:::,17,,, .:::;,.. .,......re)„..:41g,..4$,Ca., c-,-,-..'i':ti.„1A1441.,,,-:-;',...
#7j1.211,4-2eIrn61-:' if this met municipal Code requirements? 'The Director
„I.
;,,,4:,...z..,,i;,,...-.,,,:.,:,,•.,.*: ,:.--- -----.„ .....,., . , . „ 4.;-''..-.-',, .^.• ...'.':'' - :' .'..?'''..... '''....%.'/'•::::1.-7*e4:1,. '1.0.k*I'i4:::3,1,'!!•i'N' ■•••t:::''..•.•.
•'t;441 ,.„,44.1`!'ilft•••••'741-i.16.,t77.44'3.''''.:,•;0;:-•-•:.':`r ' - '.. '•-•,;,:;:-. 7:*.-:--"•'''''''''';'''. - ." ' . . • .' '''''''.:./.10;-40,,i1"''f:•::.-tg.*"::k
Tim.-- Ch.'' '.ir,;ir..fm-enced the two letters received by staff today,noting they expred=_ concn er. that.......f....",;,,,,,...31,:ip:0,....."61.15,-,...,
the ..7e of this structure would be overbearing and they requesting downsizing
g.
,,,,v..,...--...... i„...„,,,,,..:„....,_.,:,,,,,,,,,,..-,,,,,,,,,,-,.. mto,,,,-4,,i.s-:,•?:: . .:,,,-;;;,:,,,,,,,..,.:;;T:07„, -40,,,;.,...... ..,..,..„;„15,:.,,,,.-,,,:vs ,k4v-,-,,..-4„,,•::: :::?.. 9.,....:‹. .-.-- .....,.., • ..,.-•, - ..:4 i'...1.
'...•:.f":'§',-.1 r----.,4-.J.. „.L.. : '11''''';"'74.:fg"'-':'.... ''r.'i `Nrft.i..,`I'Ji• . ''."?`';Y•.: .,'•',.:.,%,•;:nA'f', z..:,;°A.,10t:01". .. e-- set.71",''If-:.-...-kr-',...ii,g-K..,rt, •,-;c; ,.,;..---',i-i. -,..4....i.:-
.-::.k,„ {i?'-f..i*,,,4:',.,...f.J7s.„,,F.-*,:L„', :- 0:,'...', ...,;, 11,,44:;6...., ,,F.,,r4..c.t17; 1,, A.- -, ' ,.-,... fv.-.„.,,A1,3„‘k. )41%'.="Tti,-,..-e‘'.•'-''=': ': 2.' ,.'5": -,;'$•••'...'11•4.;', ..P%• ;.-:-•-•::'
--;"i-:F4*-;:, :',-=',,!_,...:-.t,_,-i-t;-.t!,,,'....-Jr ,,:.,.:.,,i.,,,..;:‘,.i.--.:::.• ..... ..,?..:.p,:f.; -,;:51,4;:,;,,, ,....,4;,4-,...' . -::...r...:::4:„&z.,,,47,0.,64,1?,...-?.,:r..4.4,4-40:4,.. .:,..7,.-..,.-,.. ......-....:.:4-1,,f,...:;:-. 44.:...ii-Ace.:i.,,_...,....,,,,-:
.,,,,,t45,..,s.-:-, --.-i.,:i.',:g,..',4,'4,-,10,..,;:.:,-Ao.,;-.-:.:;:;:.2.:7.:1:-..v...!..... ..... -..k.:::,.,..,-,....:-,.4.(-'1,.,,„.'.3:,;-4:,,,i;...t..' . .:....qz.pi.iarn-r:P”--,:'.--ik,ipke;;4.,..,.•',,, .::,.. ....:-:.;:2....'.....:::-.4iVii':-...f:::0-,-;?"? "; L',i.2:.
.,,,...,,-,, -,,.4,2.)5,,.:,,,,%xj.1.,;.:,:„..gi:,,._:-='.:::..!:".... ;-... ..„.-"If.g.';.'!4,..y.!.:41;•2;;:`...1-?,.???. ..: -. ..'2::::-.......,'S iztli.'-, ,, :-.f.'":1;1:.?.-.1.".'iltii.:,::::...:.,_.,..,.-.45'.5.'"-=-: 4-e-.17.41-4.:.:-?V`'4'17-.'
.11'.f.'....:;-..'4,,::,-13,.4 .-''.....'". "fi*&42.1:1teikftlfig'.;,::-:'......;e•er4:4141,2, ''',.=. -...,::..,::47. ';$',;:-.:..1:;. 1;!_,.:7 ..4.-`4.,-.0 '-r',.. 7,. 1:-4,;;;;v.h.;-„,,,:,-"-;:,:i:
-.?,,;..St;;.--,,v It,., i'.7-.,::...,.'.7414.7-',.=`,: r.,-..---.•- -.''.4.,;,,,,X1/..-::'-'.:.r,t41,11.r: At.it'A'`-'. .--::''..,.-,.,...',' '.'--,;.:1;;.-.it,'. :- , ...,- --,
'...e. --''''..t..A".. ---"--';',.,4",-.,:1,-. ....$4r... -.4'::,..,"tIDcli''-'4:•-i.. :::: ■•••;■. -;', ...1_2:,,':-jiatv '''--.',a-;... ' "
, ;•- ,,, .- . '..,,, ..-,- -',.,;:t24-,A‘'.2,-*•.‘ - ..,:„..
i
,,,,,F;44A,.-7-.;.it-,,,,,,:.-A.,i-7:.;..--.'",:„....1.?1,:'41t-'3refe.cils,`,.;.,,,:t,4tit.:- -=.1,..117,1. ke,e0:.,..., ris.:40.1V7`;,, ..,,.,4,,,r".-e7r°1-. 1.•;,. '.,;:.,4,-.:1=:;',. .s3rg;r^-- -,:;'''h' ""l?':11;,g' '' '''!".. ''''' ''','F'.'''-'.,•,--'''--i:''''...-'"
,.
.4.xti,-,..--.:.:-.,::' ,yr.,..,:,:,[1:::,..,-,i...r...7,2,5:- ,.:,,tr,:z.:'-'4"4;-;.:==';.'.,:-:‘:,:7'• 4z1:-:"4-‘4',".7.4.,..*s-, '17`4W:7011,1'411'''''' ''''-'','f4"-".,.‘". •if.11."--•!=:-:::::.;,-"i--'1••_K•.'4'.'-it.,.4;54.<1.41-4f,:':kr\%V`i•-;/..:::-%'-'"""1:Lq.'t:'-'-,`..'-'-'•‘--'1*,-;:`■;
,,....- --,•= ,..--..- •fi..,-. . ...,7).,i ",-"! :,-.-A.,,k•—„, .-•-'14,'-'f...4-•- 1,•?•‘:-F.-t-,)----,,.,,,„rito,„i'..-4,-*/. ,.. 's--T.ii .,..,-..t.•4,-.,..:.,,!'s,--;:=','.7;‘,. .,-,-,-.',z-;-.,-4;1;,-- -‘,..r..0..4-44z.;t:',...174-e--t.'.?-,,-.4:-.----,'-'---.-:-.', ?;,-;-•"-N-.
--- .,;;;;3,t.,-;.,':'.-.,".-..-:.. :.••''..,• -;,-..;:,-- -„::-,,Cig.,•,.`"...`41-7.448-•,:, . ..,.;f77,44,,.:b 03,51---,,..ii.;,,,,,,,z, ..,-„‘q.14‘,.:!,,,,_,,...--,,,t..,,.„..,,..74.,....-...,..t...t. ') -,,04.,;:t.74icc,4„:-..;,,.i';‘,,,,,,,,,,;.,4,:;,-;:i.L.r.m.::,,,,,,:.:2...,,'''''...74,7t. '',Z.'''',:7''''''':r::',',V;':Ii-iV...'";a'■'''A..':.' .
j:,,‘...:'•A.■;2',,;...;.'''',..:.'1:-";',..',... ‘:-.,.i':.1.-::',1* ;1,04:Dt4.L.P7.41rtqk t'ia'1' ,!,-6'','3-:§,-4.;.1-"R'ef.t; 1-.7,"':". ‘,4---- .' ':,',-1,..1', 2"::4.4:«Ali-Lx..,?.t.'1 .,::,t. "fc:3=%.4'1:r --- , ''7„..;,ri-a4;*...;(,-;.-4,6.t. .4.;.kst,f,„
';''4.1'7.'..c. ''''''''''''-'''''f':'-`'';':.'':'f'''ze'4;ii I-' ''' .7 '``.".''''.'. *.4.1i.;2.'"...-'"4'27. '''''.."Itt'l;". e'' '''''I'l!);'''.14.;".s ' '--''''12'. ' '4' i?-.-=0=',R49-',■:'A-", ,,,e.ff' :!'''),''''rf'4-',,-='-,41:v:/Q-....'
.. „4..1a.,,,,,t_..-::!,;;•:-..,,.%-Li::,-:;',"•?.;!•,a(n4;-. . ;k04-z.,41-,,,A::.,;•tfketz.:5,;4;:gt.:4,,;q;11--,1"5;:.4,"" .•`?74-'4.:',.:-.:•-•',',',,,:iik,;.....'tt:S4'1:'-, t'-'"•`.‘ ''-n-"'''' -''''''''' - '
' N''''''j-- ''''''-'''''''''''''';;` -',. .-' '4,'- ,-.1,-,4;7',',3:i:,- -. ',ft....11---,&,,givz.-44:-1....,,,v.A-...-.., . - - •
•
. flee 4•Ch of Sol Hod rt®q Carmm.o•.1.4xuao.D!A,•rnl 17,14%
i
The Director explained the basic application is a r ,uest to build a 1900 square feet sir.gie story
commercial structure at the front of the property, along Seal Peach Boulevard. At the r:ar of
the property, off the alley, the applicant proposes ground Ieva1 parking of four spaces for the
two proposed residential units. Above this would be two two-story residential units of
approximately 1900 square feet each. The plan, with modifications as not in the stiff report,
do comply with all provisions of the L-C zone. Staff provided copies of the Iet,e.rs received to
Walt Mille; this evening. The Director suggested it might be appropriate to allow Mr. Miller
time to respond to those letters and perhaps allow the letter writers to comment also.
The Chair asked if this would be a Public Hearing? Mr. Whittenberg said it would be a hearing
but not a Public Hearing. Because the item had been pulled off the Consatt Calendar, it would
1 be at the Commission's discretion as to who would be allowed to speak. Commissioner
Dahlman said he would like to hear from the applicant and anyone else who is cncerned. 'i
,
Walt Miller ' 229 Seal' BI a h Bo'jlsvard. Sell Beach
Mr. Miller, referring to the two letters received, said lettervritcr Mr. Tandy rents a residence
at 230 17th Street and letterwriter Ms. Katz, who lives at 234 14th Street also wrote a similar
letter. He assumed they had discussed this among themselves. He emphasized this project was
rt. designed to meet the parameters of the newly-introduced L-C zone. The project was • .
* �;hY unanimously passed in 1992 with parkin; at ground level, commercial on the second level and
wr residential ors the third floor. The dimensions of the height and width have remained the same.
- The California Coastal Commission objected to the commercial units on the second floor and
:et, requested he change that. After a lengthy argument he modified the plans and the Coastal
s,4.: i Commission approved it. The building's design is set to scale down — with a single story
..., i facing Seal Beach Boulevard. It will have a
;Z replica of a pier deck to give it scale. There's a
j courtyard between the two buildings to again set it f_rtti bark. If passing by on Seal Beach '
m:4l' ; . Boulevard it will probably be one of the more attractive structures iii Seal Beach. The
.U' '�� r tmiquaness of the L-C zone is that it sits on Seal Beach Boulevard with no one in front of the
property to obstruct the views and it will remain as such as long as the Navy's there. The rear
r0• , of the property sits on an alley and the alley doesn't obstruct anyore's view. This property,
' % ::y joining with the property he owns next door, will make a statement that the City of Seal Beach
*" , will appreciate.. His proposal covers 53% of the site whereas new houses cov= 85% - 90%
'': " e*,'';;: . i He feels he, his daughter and his architect have done an exceptional job in making open space
{' in this project and to do anything different would destroy what they have strived to do in the last
;Z1 sr, . r. SIX years. Any time you strive for innovation, you run the risk of someore getting concerned
�' ^ 1 s,,r , about%t'. The comments in these two letters talk about a boxy, hrge structure and he pointed
'4 .�. art that there's a 35 boxy structure on Ocean by Seal Way which has a flat roof; it a box
ti c;� ' :::,?.,-4.,.A,,:;'''' However,it's a permitted use and it's an attractive building.:All the two-story buildings being
1:
built in town have flat roofs so pcopk can use the roof deck as their!bird story_ His project
. . '' } does not have a flat roof, it has a pitched roof. He noted there is a parapet roof in the middle
ti'..,mow-,' "! 8+ . .I ' .
�. r . �40i and balconies. It's an architec urally sound approach_ -
• . .
..... ... ;
rx , . . . .. _
J • �
, .
.`3eYt
-aft^ Y-�.r__�.'�..� i �y,'410.'�� `. * +hl: .. T {,..•
4 H r i44•�a`R'M 3,y 3"R34. ^�•� �.tf . .Q. -.L �1 f{
:3t' .r v :+` t "' i, �. � .' " .igh.;•r.- .z.�..,�'',' �� 'S,feite
1F417-. 4`3 y� - -�{-�. .., .q-.4 4fg t !
Brko.-+ L }7¢..o7-d:r? 1 + ;i�:G hh.' t 1:
..
t
r.,y
t'''' ''''..??•1"4,7,--.:
4 1 "lit , -
Me 5•Cs/d 6d licr.b PLmiot C.o....` Milano!of Apnl 17.1996
Commissioner Dahlman asked how he proposed to work Condition of Approval #6, where the
occupants will be involved in the business downstairs? Mr. Miller replied that he has designed
an opportunity to, for example, telecommute. The family room is separated on the second floor
and that could be used for a person working out of their home. This is being encouraged by
everyone— by the Internal Revenue Service, General Electric and many large companies. He
felt that is a very valid feature. Someone could also have a business located there. They could
live and work in the same area and this is the theory behind the L-C zone.
l John Tandy • 230 17th Street Seal Beach
Mr. Tandy introduced himself as a professional Planner who has lived in Seal Beach for seven
plus years. He said most aspects of this plan are wonderful, such as the frontage along Seal
Beach Boulevard, which does not create a two-story box. He felt the wooden materials to be
used are more appropriate for a beach area than stucco. He said he would like to see a
reduction of the residential portion of the building in the back so there is more of a stairstep
t articulation. This is a large structure, 35' in height and each of the two apartments is 1900
1 square feet. This would have less of an impact on the existing residential neighborhood.
1 Chairperson Campbell asked if he had talked with Mr. Miller? Mr. Tandy said no.
1
The Chair asked if anyone else wished to comment on this project; no one came forward.
Commissioner Sharp said he was on the Planning Commission throughout this plan's inception.
He thought it would be an asset to the City and its local area. He saw no reason to not approve
'+ It.
;1 Commissioner Brown asked why no parking is provided for the commercial parking? Secondly,
11,:„.,:i.:,::7:.-,:::::41 he didn't see any way in which Condition of Approval #6 could be enforced.
- . Mr. Miller explained the site had C-2 zoning in 1986 when his project was initially proposed.
z l `I One of the conditions to allow this property to be developed was to eliminate curb cuts and to
,A1. give a arldn credit on the street -- because of the Na property across the street. To
ra� . > P g Navy P Pent
x:' ;' ,`. eliminate a curb cut and to put commercial traffic into a residential 12' alley means you cannot
''': :; - :. have commercial parking on-site. He noted that the alley for his commercial property next door,
1--,_ .,_1'''''-i ls,•f:r�-r,•`.tV 3 w;r +
,� ` f i'l which he has owned since 1975, has not been used for commercial traffic other than trash
f.4-4.. 4 ,.pickup. The L-C zoning was a compromise to allow him an opportunity to do something with
r '
k, `°� .�,..a� 44':'. his property: The Coastal Commission wanted 17 parking spaces on a 60' x i00' lot. The City
r� �, ,�'',:a",).%,,...',,,,„'
•„..,',,,T,-;:::: proposed and finalized commercial off-site parking spaces in exchange for the L-C zoning. This
2,: ..E' , ,,a,z project was designed with that in mind. He is allowed 10 credits for this lot and he's using 7;
^”7v „t i' ., they are in-lieu spaces. The theory is if commercial spaces were put on-site there would be no
way to get the cars off or on the site without a curb cut. When a curb cut is put in beach access
'" w -.�cK F is hindered. Commercial traffic in the alley is untenable because there's no two-way traffic.
tyT r :
' z~; '. He noted his bike shop was an attraction to the beach access and the L-C zone was designed and
, limited to encourage beach access and improve the street.
l M
+�K•l�y } •
£ on
� t < y , -w -..`
r t•
J
,��g�y a r ,v.,,,-,:l.". � mr 9 'pr r � ?'• ` a�� L �C ''.:7'''.-
Yr " � ee.1,4,4.,- - `^' : � _ tit"' •r,°4'- + F k' '� i +E yy.
^
,. K � , rt -;. ho-
1
2t,
Net 6-CLy of Sol aoeh r namg cammia;ou 1Asato of A onl 17.1946
/ The Dirxtor said the proposed conditions are enforceable. The City regularly imposes
covenants on property and they are enforced. The Covenants are recorded on the property and
would show up in a title search. Future owners would know the restrictions.
Commis;iorer Brown said he didn't see how that could ever be cnforrble. He felt the City
can't enforce the violations it has on Main Street. And felt it almost ludicrous to try to enforce
i something going on inside a building. He said he would prefer, it deference to the complaints,
i.
to continue this matter to the next meeting so he could visit the site and see what the residents :
are tniking about.
•
•
Mr. Miller said there is no buildin g in town that's built to the alley specifications. The City
has never considered people objecting to the back view of a house when standing in the alley.
Alleys have garage doors, overhead balconies, trash cans. This property was stepp.i-up —
from Seal Beach Boulevard. The building behind the single story has to be three stories because
's'4;,,the parking is on the first floor. He has been working on this project over four years at this .. • r
,s f.point and to delay it would put his construction time off again. For me it's an extreme lt,.4 � .
g i ` i financial hardship. So I'd like to answer any questions you have tonight And even go out with ,;''1�.+ uti
:s you after the meeting's over if that's necessary a ,F>+
$ rte' s C.+fir . ' r+ +b ,':. - .. � ;. ,,,.�• ,.,,,,�`; "1'` ;
Commiss:orer Brown said the City has two letters from residents requesting changes. While may.
a • ��` ' ` they rnay/rr.ay not be appropriate the u se of the Planning Commission is to represent all the , > r"`rrf .
nx Kl� ,,R, Y Y Y purpose �. ,� :
d `� ' 1 4 people of Seal Beach. He noted that Renee and Fanny Boilen have had delay after delay through Y .t.
;' ;.64%; , .,:no fault of their own. "That's the on going sepal drama of the Planning Commission"_ '
ti
��� hwf� , .�T J r rC�E4J :,',:z.;:-.:::,:.',:.:.1t:. r ..� Y -.,.. '.ycy �.. SA 4 y.' ... R f ,
. ��?�' ..i444"i, ��ryop7, t �f•�"y,* '�Y /K � '�'a
c Me Miller said he was not familiar with their situation but the plan under discussion'- tonight is , X
. not different than it was in 1992. He noted Mr. Tandy's only concern seemed to be a stepped y, ", }
�"' _'approach so his alley view would be:ricer. He said alley views have never been an issue before_ • ; ; r
2 �.'.��c 4 *In every;alley in this town you'll see apartment houses 'stucco not attractive but they're three 4a , a"m '�}.
r4 of�"T 1 F. s f y �ty� k3,� � K.
' � :stones"' If you live in a bungalow next to a two-story house it looks like you're in a canyon ». y:
a�; be use they're enormous. But those new buildings are built to Code_ He said he's within the y
,W City's r uu r�ients and 'ne has sacrificed to do it He urged the Commission to consider his Y�y•rffi▪ i,nr: - i '�co_mments. +'-sue .•„. .r �.ii-7i 3�`1. �3p ;1; �;��
-,s} tg�.,:The Chair,rephras.ng Commissioner Brown,`said he seemed to be saying that if the appli=-1t
Y r has visited four years, another threewe`ks won't matter. She said the Commission wants to 7::
,make tare}`,it's doing,things right and not have;problems after the fact_ 4`
t• '.?'' y 4 h .H {J..r `r�• 1-^t 7�,� v`'r "19 1- t .6'
y:`r av it �i sT'.y, •l".'.x iJ ..t ,y ctylfx` }y-.,y.��L -
f Yx 1�, �/, _d3a' -,:n. �a.., ,:; Wi...iei. 5.„..4m,.. f'Z.T,^.
� s ,x.,,Com�missioner Sharp pointed out-that Mr Miller hasn't.waited four years, he's been four years r
°., 4 ¢, •, ran the process of getting his project approved.` He's done everything he could possibly do.. And
'',V.--4:74-:Z;r s � agreed that the rear view from the alley isn't usually considered.
.r Commissioner Dahlman said the-recent letters aDp�to be.more toward the zoning of the area f:
A than the specific project ”When the Ietters say the h ouse'is boxy when viewed from the rear it
+�7 f 4-� � `ei`''° f F�.' ia,A.` �. K yam. y. 't,, fi ._i /'2 ;
x tn7� 2 '';.r.;-, kt :. .. J f ,.tA":'- phi JL,.�..'��,5 .•'w'a'tt■
-
r .
l
•
+. Ate 7-C5[y a&iJ Bc.a punning Commas. ion Minuted April 17.19%
must be remembered the project totally complies with Code requirements for the ZTA. And,
the ZTA was subjected to Public Hearings over several weeks before either Commissioner
Brown or Chairperson Campbell were on the Commission. Mr. Miller's proposal is consistent
with the meaning and intent of all those hearings.
1 Commissioner Brown said this is an Architectural Review and not question of whether it's in
t
compliance.
fMOTION by Brown; SECOND by Campbell to continue Minor Plan Review to May 8, ,
< 1996.
.`� MOTION CARRIED: 2 - 1 - 1 - 1
AYES: Brown, Campbell
NOES: Sharp
,
ABSTAIN: Dahlman ..
..•_a ABSENT: Law
The Commission asked if two votes in favor were sufficient to pass this Motion? The Director !
said yes, a procedural Motion may carry with a majority of the quorum.
'_..f
�.YtL>�:✓`r 7. t c t Jv...y-:•4 TTtr rjciii?;>,K-
':fF:a L[rrt!..,f4aV.y.�r"..."p'i x y r,f`i. 'w R `,+`... .'i 'bh ,,.6.x v 0a�.%
+.
...,.
fi-g
.411,• E n r II k� i 1 ,c y 6 it ,,._, .4.,i,...,cb :[ . :,=.:. .+.' >'.,,w p..
,
'r
t y
.}.a. r
?1
"a
..
4, ,, �,,. ▪ . v4 pi ea 74 •+ kw ° 1 Y x t,ty t ti c
C4 ; e ° c r� a" 'n y � h,F x Y i r 'Y "; } „ S, �uY , r' k r ;a f w r; �1 a., t
i,•1
.B r ` u,.'rr . x -» t r4"..i�;,, ,.S� ;: ;. Y 1,� u </.....:: rr'F 1 4 S eF. � *v�y •, , - f 2!.7 x•L c "A, ' + ^3 ett$Y Y.}�iir ; . ASz#M r z, -:::„7:,..''..'..':-.•••• :::'F.
. ..-r,re ,,,a `F'-. 4k 4`".k-: �t,/,:1� 1, ,[ ,,$; ,.".7 wn�.e ;!•'V i L�FCt 6 [ 1, v;,,,,.,.;,1,1 W ly4I f J/ ' 4.,.; hn J5,, '. „Y ' l, w. -: t€w5 J x •'4t 9 t f•x ! xr r • �• ,1 q ! eg„^ ,A d '"' `✓ MA h. � � �Fe! .5,r iti��+�4 ��. - e . t I' � r -.Niti t. 'i,c Mf ' N t l ,. ,,', 4;*,s'?U: 'q -tit•:t;t`- z NT 's ' r. � r”":' � 4 :ftfU,J. r C 4 r + t 1. r a d -•-, ; 14,4 y r ..ra {+p>; YVF Y,ti Gv sr �,•• k.•:- :K1- 1. w �us °'3c t a l ?tX 1 r j s r 2 s + r a& n+S s h �b ; Y ri Y � .• , • , - � � y! rIf - r y _.,I. t,,w e.. hs ".,H x Lr' {r, .s yt v , 'r Y ,2'4- 1 r: ma t,.i,:t., tt� t+: [�. 0 ,� � t5, • • U �x ,iHT ' a ', 44.tN /. 7.t•a 4 j v" .i 1L 743'r k,- 9{ J0 r. f ' "r r''. `-.. ai, +"1 C �77 .7:!':..• K s' 'x 4" ,3 � r c.:'• .1 F z - YMy. 4 t ci° . n a -YV.•0 1?7 E . s 4",,,, 5+�'r *� '�'r''r' .nom, � Y.. ,,N� s y _ : •N.s: . ' P .- h �. f :-r 30 ��, s .4 � i.-J !<". yy ,,r^ c,. se %aF� 1-.,. r.' A� r^ y Ji:,'"V11.r9, ' ' ” $v, `,r. .IXF4Q .!SZI„A a 54,1,.4; 'Y•7, 7't ; # Y'f, .4, ,„4,.,' + }•ry,. n • 4� � )?”' N�, "4 6 j 'c . 'fa . ,t + /xat n ',..fP iF"J glr4" '* s r �� w f, : L , 4 W ! 't -•,• �y ....,".,a'y `,,m .r s; .w 3°+ : t dy� : + 7'.3g. 5'..+ r ' . s. X r ca ''; °, t Iry • F? *.Ai , "v': r .1A ,! i,y i € r, + � j ?� ,. .. .o . � • t' . V t�- },4 �r�' Isr r .c � tI i C�` �2• • t � °�2 r � p w a 4 1 , � �.,: a �� .c p f �d . Jg .r, s :R F .a p. , � ykr f .r x ,r , �< ' �. '' .a1fi . vt t-/Ta K. c T[ !'a x 4r', . „yZ„ " a ..„..4„ r' �> Q . "M'I N . ar i 1 : Y6G uI't:,n b 1,�. f f „C �r+ k • h 3 � t y , , '1 t `vA���r&l:F i, -+.. Sy': 1 . c 3-;' .w. .� sy„ 1 i :: y r i i. �s yi, g[ a,�"E im lq i : .L �C zC-k ti v Tt a y ` ;w 1• 3 rW' r 'r:, s� X- ''ie. �r r .1 �9!t s:t � � " £ tR� r^r r $
� y� �y.y 1 T l ,-? k , Y F it1 ,r yi d:C r.,y i a. .t rt�v , a 'h } ,,} . r tw 1.' c t{. > aS a °�
.,, 4 { .ti;, . .-. 74 4 ;;W q, "5 +� :ii-a,f:', ,% ! 44400 c °, 4+ ` y o ',i , � :J' .,:f tt .t',+f d f l Yv 1 -13;'. Y L" .G.F +P: vr 1. ' 4v....w d f:40$ :.�e a ' y r a:l+ t* ✓, . x i a
' ' .4 il.;e_, s� 9 �t 4 <,. :C^0° , i.:3i' ?al °r,� 1 i.4.744. 1.,- {t- 7 Zr ` ' ..: 7,•:+ -.I• -• . Ef N , s {t `? `yi -w. P Y ¢>Y4 at ,, ltv.. � d of + 'Y ,i .h, .v C .1 i evaz.:A a + T ;it .,.-.,-.,1,,,:,T, q . y tom. lr° 1 • ° : e! a '1 r. �h ,'7.`"k r,,'''-',,,„.k.' ,A
h .. ;rE ;lp,, . ' :aYn AN+d'. , r,y w,„,,, Mf1�.i+ d i'a7`3�• 's 1 v a te 4 rqa i}r0i YJ t. . t ,; w•">r"3 .�wit. Ya,, 6^:g" 4.--,0 X `y ` ;3'• ",;.xi; ni'¢a:;; c` .•y7'd' t /.. � 't ' ,i, •jJm A F' r+V'er 'r�if r A tF` :3� . � t `t6 y ¢ s 7.F• . ,»p r :?rr i,; [ �kc� .1.'",,..,i ". bh,I sa '.,y2 :� „by 21 ,;t? Y r r 1 }•!�'-"x f yY��:q4 lr.'Il- -k %; � r9d N 4' sy,;v l tt a ,,A � i�q,rvfY :s 1 1K [ c,hiF�� � �'?7:E::' ;� .:i
�e•. + K. u< rc i^ i .} .�T��. r J,.. �..• ::. J+-,; a-',.- .r t Ft.-.. 77,:.•,-�s.�... ',
••..-,:.„.,...,it,-_,,.,:,...i..„.
<A ;�•L „S^.�; '� ,, "ra r:=s.st.,�,•y,.. ,t.,4..;i+r.4 t -.b ;• 1�"'e,, ice' `+' � "t�, `r./ stJ - :y ,, ,,. 1•
Z b , e "?.- �;' `,F `-T.Z:4:tti .�.r7 t'4,Va'[.s a c3.-i.v2Y •.e t i �'f ' . ��' „ ., -x �, .}° t•"fK„ . a-�aC t:-F_ "71-•' z. .��-.3�.i..?'M,..[rr.`• a�3a...._ .c4 fi n..� -.a:t.l ,- _,•.. .... •- . ..., _ .. .. �,.:.. -. . '
1
ills
, Io
Seal peach Planning Commission
•
My name is Steve Caldwell and I reside at 220 17t St.,Seal Beach. This letter is in regards to the Appeal
of Planning Commission approval at 229 Seal Beach blvd.,Seal Beach.
My property,my home,and my family will be adversely impacted by the proposed planned structure at the
above mentioned address. I do not approve,or in any way,agree with,the proposed plan to build a three
story multi-resident structure in this neighborhood area. The proposed multi-story,multi-residential
structure at this location,would affect both the area on Seal Beach Blvd.,as well as the alley area behind
the structure. The additional traffic would adversely affect traffic in the alley. There is already excessive
traffic in the alley,which is designed for access to the residential garages. A multi-residential building will
only increase the traffic in the alley way even more.
I urge you to listen to the residents in this area,and their concerns about this planned project. There is a
definite concern for safety with increased traffic,and the obvious lack of accessibility to the proposed
building.
The proposed plans for this structure indicate only a 6 inch clearance between the new building and the
existing building. How can you even think that 6 inches is adequate for fire safety,and accessibility to
either building? Should a residential building not have adequate walk ways to get from the front to the
back on the sides,without having to go around the block and through the alley? Residents,as well as
visitors have no access to the back units,without using the alley. Again,more traffic in the alley.There are
many children in the neighborhood that play at both ends of the alleys,and this proposed planned multi-
level,multi-residential structure seems to lack concern for the safety and privacy of the current residents in
this area.
, , /0/ //i
dr
� �
Qo -