Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 416 - 1970-04-01 .............---- - .~ . , . . - ~ - _ ..1.... I. l _ . p \. '.< ...of.. ~ ". ~_.. ~";::T~:~-:~~'--- ::= .~e~__.~'_'~_~''-<~~~M .~~.=-'" --'j . A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CONNISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REAr'FIRHING ITS APPROVAL OF DEVELOPNENT OF THE DOW CHEMICAL PROPERTY BY R & B DEVELOPMENT COMPANY UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PLANNING CO~lMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 385 AND CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 802. (PRECISE PLAN NO. PP-1-69) I I I l IDIEREAS, in the matter of proper development of the Dow Chemical Co. property located at Pacific Coast Hi8hway and the San Gabriel River in the City of Seal Beach, the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach does report as follows: 1. By Resolution No. 380 the Planning Commission did approve rezoning of said property from M-2, Heavy Nanufacturing to R-4, High Rise l1ultiple Residential Zone, and said rezoning was subsequently adopted by the Seal Beach City Council by Ordinance No. 798. 2. By Resolution No. 385 the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach did approve Precise Plan No. PP-1-69 which provides the precise controls for proposed development of the property by the R & B Development Company and said Precise Plan No. PP-1-69 was subsequently adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach by Ordinance No. 802. 3. A letter of request for reconsideration of said approved 'development was submitted by Miss Julie A. Dorr to the City Council on March 2, 1970. The City Council forwarded said letter to the Planning Commission for its consideration. eIDIEREAS, the Planning Commissi.on findin~s are as follows: 1. Actions taken by the Planning Commission and City Council, as stated above, were in conformance with law and the provisions of the Seal Beach General Plan. 2. Staff has prepared a report in response to the statements and questions raised in Miss Dorr's letter. Said staff report is hereby included in its entirety. City Council referred to Planning Commission Julie Dorr's letter of March 2, 1970. Staff comments on Miss Dorr's letter are as follows: Miss Dorr opens by labeling the R & B apartment development as "significantly substandard." This is exactly the reverse of the actual situation. The project is in an area of the community which is primarily developed with 75% lot coverage on extremely small lots. Thi~ proposal consists of an excellently conceived complex.of.multiple residential units, community recreation and living facilities aqdropen.space. Land coverage by buildings is only 26%, meaning that there is more open space provided than for any other neighborhood in the City. This is very good environmental planning. Parking is provided aL a 1.5/1 ratio as requried by Code, whereas studies of similar projects presently operated by R & B indicate a range of auto population ratos of 1.3/1 to 1.4/1. . -- I. I - ..--- . Resolution No. 416 "' _ Therefore, it can be expected that this development will have more than adequate parking on-site. All of the parking areas are thoroughly landscaped and are designed to be as innocuous as poss1ble. The question of acceptance of reduced size apartment units is discussed in the points which follow. l 1. "Discredit to the community in offering a land developer building code variances no individual, non-corporate builder would be granted;" No variances to the building code have been allowed. It is presumed that Miss Dorr is referring to variances to the City's Zoning Ordinance. As you know, the Planning Commission considers each variance request on its own merits regardless of the size of the proposal or the nature of the applicant. However, large scale projects, such as proposed on the Dow property, are usually presented to the City by means of a Precise Plan or a Planned Development. Such proposals must be cons1dered in their entirety, including any variances from the zoning ordinance which ~he Commission considers reasonable in order to achieve an acceptable total project. Many cities in California and across the nation now include Precise Plan or Planned Development provisions in their zoning ordinances 1n order to provide for reasonable flexibility in creating large scale projects. Obviously it is less possible to apply such provisions to small parcel developments of limited scale. It should be noted that in Resolution NO. 385 the Planning COlrnnission's findings concerning this project included the follmling: "The proposed development is in basic conformance with the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. . "The proposed development will not be detrimental to the character of the zone and neighborhood and will enhance property values. Hecause of size and scope of the proposed development many of the requirements of the zoni.ng ordinance are not strictly or logically applicable." The primary zoning ordinance variances included in approval of the Precise Plan were reduced size apartment units. uncovered parklgg spaces, and reduced width of a portion of the parkipg spaces. Finqings No. 5(j) states the Commission's consideration in regard to approval CD the reduced size apartment units: "The zoning code requires a minimum of 700 square feet of floor area per dwelling unit in the R-4 Zone. Subject application proposes a range of apartment sizes, with the smallest (bachelor unit) being 405 square feet. The average size for all hallways, stairs, etc. included, the average is 912 square feet per unit. In addition a large amoupt of planned recreation areas is planned on-site outdoors. Due to the scope and overall planned nature of this project and the large amount of common area.'facilities and amenities provided, the apartment unit sizes are acceptable-as submitted." Findings No. 5(1) indicates your consideration concerning uncovered ~parking: . "The zoning code requires all residential zone parkiI.lg to be in a garage or carport. The Redevelopment Plan requires-.l:l covered parking. The proposal requests approval of open parking, except for 32 spaces in the lower level of the parking structure. Applicant indicates that it is not possible to - ,~ -.---.- . . . ResolutIon No. 416 - ~ - place structures (carports) along the northwesterly side of the parcel, adjacent to the river, since title company will not insure such structures on the Long Beach side of the city line until title is cleared. Applicant also states that experience indicates the advisability of providing open parking for such large projects in order to enhance security and aesthetics. For the reasons above stated and the fact that this is a unique parcel due to the city line which crosses the property, the proposal for open parking is acceptable, subject to future review by the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Agency when title is cleared (see conditions of approval below.)" Condition No. 5 indIcates that uncovered parking is allowed on a conditional basis, subject to further review when title is cleared on the portion of the property adjacent to the river: "Uncovered parking is allowed on-site until such time that title is cleared thus allowing construction of shelters on the Long Beach side of the city boundary line. At said time the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach shall review the total development for reconsideration of the need for covered parking. Should SUcll need for covered parking be found to be unnecessary, no further action shall be required by the developer. Should it be determined that such covered parking is necessary then developer shall'proceed to construct approved parking shelters within a perIod of six months from date of said determination. These shelters shall be at the ratio of 1:1 and shall be located at such spaces on site as are d~termined acceptable." Finding No. 5(m) indicates your consideration concerning a portion of the parking spaces to be allowed to be reduced in width: "The zoning code requires 9 foot by 20 foot parking spaces with adequate access. Policy has been for adequate access to be determined as 24 foot wide drives for 900 parking. Redevelopment Plan calls for 190 square feet of parking space per auto. Subject proposal is for 24 foot wide aisles, all spaces to be 20 foot deep (including 2 foot overhang over curbs), 75% of spaces to be 8'6" wide (for standard cars) and 25% of spaces to be 7'9" wide (for compacts and sports cars). Based upon applicant experience and investigation by staff this is detelmined to be acceptable criteria for par,king and access drives." All other variances were of a minor technical nature and were considered reasonable in relation to the total project design. 2. "Such crowding as is proposed is unhealthy for both dwellers and the community;" This statement is not valid in that the project is neither crowded nor unhealthy. Commissioners and Councilmen have had opportunity to personally visit other developments of similar design which have been constructed and operated by R & B. In contrast to existing residential development in the older part of our City, this proposal includes a large amount of landscaped open space and many community recreation facilities. As mentioned earlier, the total land coverage by buildings is only 26%, as cOl:lpared to new apartments in nearby areas which cover 75% of their small lots. The excellent community ~acilities include such health-maintaining features as men's and women's ~, exercise rooms, sauna~lirlpoo] large swimming pool. ,.., baths. tennis and V01_:lll courts and n ~. I 3. "Added automobile traffic and general noise pollution will be diffuscd to the community at large by such crowding;" . This facility is located to provide controlled vehicular access only onto arterial streets intended to serve the total community. No traffic will be generated into other residential areas. The ncarest residential area is Bridgeport, which is separated from the proposed First Strpet arterial road by a wall, a small park (Schooner Park) and future landscaping which will bc installed along the street. The on-site front parking area of R [. B is separated from the nearest residence in Bridgeport by at lcast 180 fcpt, with several bands of landscaping to be included in this distance. 4. "Negotiations as described at the City Counc:i,l meeting of February 16, 1970, pertaining to a share-cost burden betwcen the taxpayers of this community and R [. B for a needed access road to that company's land development is unfavorable to the community at large;" . This is ~ primarily an access road for R [. B. First Street is to be construction as an arterial street in conformance with the master plan of arterial streets and highways. It will serve residents of this City and visitors as a direct access to the beach and ocean front recreational areas, which are regional in their significance. The construction of such arterial streets is paid by State gasoline taxes and by County Arterial Highways Funds, which are both derived from road users. The frontage improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, etc. will be paid for by R & B. This is not unfavorable to the community at large, as it will provide needed arterial circulation in the same manner as Seal Bcach Boulevard and \,estminster Avenue, which were built with highway users funds such as this. Ultimately this strcet will connect from Ocean Avenue to Westminster Avenue and the future Coastal Freeway near Westminster Avenue. 5. "The agreement entered into with R & B Development Corporation by this City in its entirety and most particularly in regard to building code variations granted, seems to raise a question of ethics if not legality." The agreement between the City and R & B is both legal and ethical, and does not.allow variations from building codes. Variances from the ~oninr. ordinance for such a master-planned complex, were considered reasonable in the judgment of the Planning Commission and City Council as stated above. Concerning Miss Dorr's final statement about public notice, it should be stated that this project received more publicity than most, not only by lcgal public notice, but also by stories in the newspapers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach does adopt Findings No. 1 and 2 (including all points of the Staff Rcport) as its position in this matter and does hereby reaffirm its approval of development of the Dow Chemical Company property by the R & B Development Company under tcrms and conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 385 and City Council Ordinance No. 802 (Precise Plan No. PP-1-69). . ~ -~ ".... ..."",,,"D ch:1s 'day of April, 1970. - I 1 ! " . , .;: ./-^_',' Ii .,{},<:"'-/0'~ ~airman of the Planning Commission ~I I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach which "as held on Wednesday, April I, 1970, and carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Barton, Crowley, Knapp, Lanning, Morris None None L:. a~Ce.:.__.A- '/;-" ~ /. .' _{. ~--c: __L ~.-.re..~ ' t -_I_~ ,. - -___n_ etary of the Plannfn Commission 1 'I . . -- ~--------