HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/06/16 Item 21 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 21
Meeting Date 6/16/87
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: (a) PCS-87-9 - Consideration of a tentative
subdivision map for Vista Cortina, Chula
Vista Tract 87-9, located at the
southeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and
Eastlake Drive - Brehm Communities
(b) Public Hearing: P-87-10 - Consideration
of precise plan and development
standards for Vista Cortina, Chula Vista
Tract 87-9
(c) Public Hearing: PCZ-87-0 - Consider-
ation to redesignate 22.42 acres from
RP-13 to RP-8 in EastLake Shores - Vista
Cortina
Resolution Approving the tentative map for Vista
Cortina, Chula Vista Tract 87-9
Resolution Approving the precise plan for Vista
Cortina
Ordinance 2211 Redesignating 22.42 acres from RP-13 to
RP-8
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ( SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ' (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
This proposal involves a tentative subdivision map, precise plan, and change
in land use district for the development of 162 single family residential lots
and two open space lots on 22.42 acres located at the southeast corner of
Lakeshore Drive and EastLake Drive.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve PCS-87-9, P-87-10 and PCZ-87-0 subject
to the conditions listed at the end of this report and contained in the
resolutions offered for Council adoption.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On May 13, 1987, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended that Council approve the proposals in accordance with
Planning Commission Resolutions PCS-87-9, P-87-10 and PCZ-87-0. The
Commission made several changes to the staff recommended conditions which are
discussed later in this report.
Page 2, Item 21
Meeting Date -6/16787
DISCUSSION:
The project site consists of 22.42 acres identified as Area R-11 on the
EastLake SPA Plan. The site has previously been graded and is elevated above
Lakeshore and EastLake Drive with views to the west, north and east. The
central portion of the property has been graded to form a second large pad
area yet higher in elevation than the balance of the site. The Camelot
development, an attached residential project, and the lake are located to the
west of the site across Lakeshore Drive, and the Villa Martinique development,
another attached residential project, is located to the north across EastLake
Drive. An open space lot abuts the site to the east and vacant United
Enterprises holdings are to the south.
The site is one of only two remaining uncommitted development areas within the
EastLake Shores neighborhood -- the other being Area R-10 which abuts the
property on the southwest. The EastLake SPA Plan designates the site for
attached development at a target density of 10 dwelling units per acre and a
maximum yield of 201 total units. The EastLake Planned Community (PC)
District Regulations place the site in the RP-13 District which allows for
either attached or detached development with a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq.
ft. Many of the development standards for the RP District such as setbacks
and lot coverage are listed as "SP" which means they are not predetermined but
'e issues to be addressed and approved with the Precise Plan.
The project involves the creation of 162 single family lots served by a public
street system with access off both Lakeshore Drive and EastLake Drive. The
project also includes two open space lots with a total area of 2.3 acres. Due
to the elevation of the site and orientation of the lots, many of the
dwellings will enjoy views out from the rear of their homes and lots. A
cul-de-sac has been created in order to exploit the views from the raised
central portion of the site. Thirteen lots will be served by five private
access drives off the public street system -- at the terminus and elbow of the
cul-de-sac, and at the southeast, southwest and northwest corners of the
property.
The lots average at least 40 ft. in width and 85-90 ft. in depth, with a
minimum lot size of 3,200 sq. ft. and an average lot size of 4,030 sq. ft.
The project features four floor plans. One plan is a single-story, three
bedroom unit with 1 ,169 sq. ft. (22 units/14% of the lots) ; two are two-story,
three bedroom units with 1 ,411 sq. ft. and 1 ,541 sq. ft. (81 units/50% of the
lots) ; and one plan is a two-story, four bedroom unit with 1 ,701 sq. ft. (59
units/36% of the lots). The architectural style is Mediterranean, with
concrete tile roofs and stucco exteriors. The roof and wall planes are offset
and varied, and stucco pop-outs and "surrounds" along with multi-paned windows
have been used to add substance and interest to the front elevations. Window
openings on second-story rear elevations have also been treated with surrounds
in order to add interest to these exposed portions of the units.
Page 3, Item 21
Meeting Date 6/16/87
Because of the variation in lot size, average lot coverage for the four floor
plans varies from 18% to 30%, with an average floor area ratio varying from
30% to 42%. With the exception of 15 lots, all of the units will maintain a
minimum 15 ft. front setback (min. 19.5 ft. from inside edge of sidewalk) --
the exceptions being certain lots with the single-story floor plan where front
setbacks have been reduced to as little as one foot (min. 5.5 ft. from inside
edge of sidewalk). Sideyard setbacks will be either 5'/5' or 6'/4' (min. 10
ft. between dwellings) , while rear yards will be a minimum 15. ft. usable thus
providing at least a 600 sq. ft. (15'x40' ) usable rear yard area.
Each of the dwellings will be served by a two-car garage to meet off-street
parking requirements. With the exception of the 15 lots noted above, all of
the driveways will be at least 19.5 ft. from the inside edge of sidewalk which
will provide additional off-street parking. On-street parking will consist of
curb space to accommodate 150 cars, or a ratio of 0.93 on-street spaces per
unit. Two additional guest spaces have been provided at the end of the access
drive serving the three lots at the terminus of the cul-de-sac.
As noted above, the majority of development standards are established with
precise plan approval . Consequently, a set of development standards have been
proposed which will govern future additions (please see exhibit). These
standards include a prohibition against all building additions except open
ttio covers with a maximum area of 300 sq. ft. and a minimum 5 ft. rear yard
setback. A maximum total average lot coverage of 40% is also established.
The standards would be recorded with the final subdivision map.
The Precise Plan submittal also includes a landscape concept and fencing
plan. The landscape concept calls for the installation of indigenous plant
materials and irrigation systems on the open space lots as well as the major
slopes interior to the development. The open space lots will be maintained by
the EastLake Maintenance District, while the interior slopes will be owned and
maintained by the individual property owners. The concept plan also calls for
one street tree on each interior lot and two on each corner lot. The
selection of specific plant materials and planting and irrigation plans will
be subject to review and approval by the City Landscape Architect.
The fencing plan shows a wide variety of fence designs, including: a stucco
retaining wall either alone or topped with a 3 ft. high open wrought iron or
solid wood fence where it coincides with sideyard lot lines; a 3.5 ft. high
wrought iron fence with stucco pilasters at 40 ft. on center for the lots
backing on to and elevated above Lakeshore and EastLake Drives; a 3.5 ft. high
wrought iron fence without pilasters for the rear of the elevated lots served
by the cul-de-sac; a 3.5 ft. high solid wood fence for the rear of the
elevated lots along the easterly and southerly boundary of the project; a 5
ft. high solid wood fence for the rear of lots at-grade with adjacent areas to
the south and also internal to the development both between units and on
exterior side yards; and finally, a 5 ft. high wrought iron fence with
ilasters for the common boundary between the site and Development Area R-10.
Page 4, Item 21
Meeting Date 6/16/87
The street names are: Street "A" = Southshore Drive, Street "B" = Waterside
Drive, Street "C" = Ridgewater Drive and Bluelake Lane, and Street "D" =
Shoreview Place.
ANALYSIS
The proposal is consistent with the EastLake SPA Plan and PC District
Regulations. The site is designated for a Residential Planned Concept of
detached and/or attached units with a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq. ft. and a
total yield of 201 dwelling units. The Vista Cortina project will offer a
small lot detached product with a minimum lot size of 3,200 sq. ft. (4,000 sq.
ft. average) and a total yield of 162 units.
The proposed land use designation change from RP-13 to RP-8 is solely for the
purpose of consistency. The only difference between the two is that the RP-13
District allows a lot depth of 50 ft. , while the RP-8 District requires a lot
depth of 90 ft. Thus the RP-8 standard is more representative of the deeper
lots proposed in the Vista Cortina project.
Lot coverage and setbacks are established with the approval of the site plan.
The area and bulk figures reflected in the Vista Cortina plan are generally
consistent with the City' s zoning standards for small lot (5,000 sq. ft. )
ngle family detached development which call for 40% lot coverage, 45% FAR
dnd setbacks of 15 ft. in the front and rear and 5 ft. on the sides. The
exceptions in the Vista Cortina plan are the 15 lots containing the
single-story floor plan which have front setbacks of less than 15 ft. and in
some cases as little as one foot (5.5 ft. from inside edge of sidewalk) .
The single-story plan has been used on a total of 22 lots to provide some
height variety to the streetscape and to serve the market that will not
purchase a two-story home.
The provision of adequate on-street parking is always an issue with small lot
developments because reduced lot widths coupled with standard curb cuts
reduces much of the curb-side parking. In the present case, the project
provides an adequate overall ratio of almost one on-street space for each
unit. The problem is more acute on inside corners and curves, however, and
the 18 units located from the elbow to the terminus of the cul-de-sac (Street
D) are served by seven on-street spaces; a ratio of only 0.4 spaces per unit.
In order to improve this condition, we have recommended that one lot be
deleted from the west side of the cul-de-sac. This would allow the lots to be
adjusted to provide up to two additional on-street spaces and two guest spaces
at the end of the access drive serving lots 123 and 124. The four additional
spaces and one less lot would improve the parking ratio to 11 spaces for 17
units (0.65 spaces per unit) .
The fence plan raises several issues. Fencing as a design element becomes
ore important as lot sizes decrease because of the close proximity of private
pen space and interrelationship of the dwellings. Fencing should complement
the architecture of the homes and unify the entire project. The fencing
program for Vista Cortina is particularly crucial because of the project' s
elevation and thus visual prominence in relation to surrounding areas.
Page 5, Item 21
Meeting Date 6/16/87
The wrought iron "view" fencing proposed for the rear of the cul-de-sac lots
(Lot #' s 106-128) and also the lots backing up to Lakeshore and EastLake
Drives (Lot #'s 1-27) is only 3.5 ft. high with vertical bars at 6 inches on
center (see fence designs "A2" and "C" in the development standards). While
this may maximize view potential , it will not contain pets or small children
and, in staff's opinion, there will be justifiable pressure from homeowners to
supplement the fencing with individual solutions. Therefore, we have
recommended that this fencing be raised to five feet in height with bars at
four inches on center. This should not adversely effect views, and is in fact
the design used by Brehm for the view lots at Rosewind in EastLake Hills.
Similarly, the fencing shown on the rear of the view lots located along the
easterly and southerly boundary of the project site (Lot #'s 31 -60;
inexplicably, lots 27-30 show no above-grade fencing in the rear) is also
proposed at 3.5 ft. high. Although this is solid wood (see fence design "Al "
in development standards) it would provide containment for only the smallest
pets and there would again be valid pressure to increase the height
haphazardly by individual property owners. We believe this fencing should
also be increased to 5 ft. either with the solid wood or a wrought iron fence
as described above to preserve views. If the 5 ft. high solid wood option is
chosen, we would further recommend the use of masonry pilasters at 20 ft.
centers in order to break-up the monotony of this long, straight run of
,ncing.
The balance of the fencing program -- for areas exposed to public view at
exterior side yards and between units -- consists of 5 ft. high solid wood
fence. We have strongly encouraged the use of stucco walls at these locations
in order to complement the architecture of the dwellings and unify the
interior of the project. Heavy stucco walls are associated with the
Mediterranean style of dwelling proposed for Vista Cortina and are the only
design solution referred to in the EastLake Design Manual as appropriate for
Mediterranean projects in EastLake Shores. Consequently, we believe this is a
significant design element and a poor choice for the application of economy
measures and have thus recommended the use of stucco walls or equal subject to
staff review and approval .
Finally, the development standards document is rather vague with regard to its
subject matter. It refers to a maximum "average" lot coverage of 40% and
refers the reader to the adopted Precise Plan for setbacks. We prefer the
approach used for the Cottages development whereby the document contains a
detailed list of standards and restrictions, and includes a tabulation for
each lot showing the exact lot size and coverage for the floor plan it will
accommodate. This approach brings everything together for the benefit of the
property owner as well as the City. This has been recommended as a condition
of approval .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
.le Planning Commission chose not to recommend the deletion of one lot on the
basis that it would not significantly improve the parking situation on the
cul-de-sac. The Commission also chose not to endorse staff' s proposal to
reduce the spacing on the wrought iron fencing from 6 to 4 inch centers, or to
require stucco walls rather than wood fence on exterior side yards and between
units.
Page 6, Item 21
Meeting Date-7/16/87
STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Following is a list of the staff recommended conditions of approval . The
first two conditions are related to the precise plan, the remainder are
related to the subdivision map.
1 . The fencing plan shall be revised to reflect the following changes
(designations refer to fence designs and locations) :
a. A2 and C shall be raised to 5 ft. high with bars at 4 inches on
center.
b. Al shall be raised to 5 ft. high with masonry pilasters at 20 ft. on
center; or, in the alternative, fence design C as revised may be used
at all Al locations.
c. E shall be a stucco wall or equal .
d. B2 and B3 shall have wrought iron at 5 ft. above grade with bars at 4
inches on center. This design shall be carried across the rear of
lots 27-30.
e. Revised designs and details shall be subject to staff review and
approval .
2. The development standards shall be revised to contain a detail listing of
development standards and restrictions, as well as a tabulation of the
exact lot size and coverage for each residential lot. The development
standards shall be subject to staff review and approval and shall be
recorded concurrently with the final map.
3. One lot shall be deleted from the west side of Street "D" and the
remaining lots shall be adjusted to provide two additional on-street
parking spaces and two guest spaces at the end of the access drive serving
lots 123 and 124.
4. The developer shall dedicate to the City streets A, B and C as shown on
the Tentative Map for public use.
5. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full street
improvements in all the streets shown on the Tentative Map within the
Subdivision boundary. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited
to: asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and
water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, and fire
hydrants.
6. The land incorporated in this project lies within EastLake Assessment
Districts 86-1 and 85-2. Participation in those districts is required as
specified in Resolutions 12288 and 12546 of the City Council .
Page 7, Item 6/16487
Meeting Date
7. All work within the public right-of-way shall be done in accordance with
the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, the San Diego
Area Regional Standard Drawings and the Design and Construction Standards
of the City of Chula Vista.
8. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street. Drainage shall not
flow over slopes.
9. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance
easements along all applicable streets within the Subdivision. Said
easements shall extend to a line 10 feet from the back of sidewalk.
10. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein
developer agrees to the following:
a. Pay the fair share of the cost of public improvements to be provided
under the "Public Financing Plan," Phasing Plan and Development
Agreement as needed for access.
b. No protest to the establishment of a Facilities Benefit Assessment
District. Said District will allow the developer to anticipate
future reimbursement by other benefiting parties.
, l. The developer shall grant an access and utility easement to subsequent
owners of Lots 14, 15, 54, 66, 112 and 123. Said easement shall be shown
on the Final Subdivision Map.
12. Sewers serving 10 or less units shall have a minimum grade of 1%.
13. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the
grading plans.
14. The knuckle and cul-de-sac shall be designed and built in accordance with
City Standards.
15. The developer shall submit evidence acceptable to the City Engineer to
demonstrate that the dry-lane requirements are met along all the streets
within the Subdivision.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC 3921P
/CC 4°1'64
by the City Council of by the City Co.incil of
Chula Vista, California Chula
� Vis e //:t
, California
Dated a► - 9 q '
Dated