Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/04/10 Item COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 4 Meeting Date 4/10/84 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-80-13-B - Consideration of revised development for lots 324 and 325 of Hidden Vista Village (Windjammer Condos) - Financial Scene, Inc. a. Resolution /i.5-7'5? Approving revised development plans for Windjammer Condominiums on lots 324 and 325 Hidden Vista Village SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning /_ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager 0 This item involves consideration of a revised plan for the development of lots 324 and 325 of the Hidden Vista Village Subdivision with a 100-unit condominium project to be known as The Windjammer. The proposed project is located at the northwest quadrant of East "H" Street and Hidden Vista Drive within the Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area of the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The Environmental Impact Report, EIR-79-8, for the Hidden Vista Village development was previously certified by the Planning Commission and City Council . On February 2, 1984, the Environmental Review Coordinator found that the information contained in EIR-79-8 was adequate for the proposed project and satisfied CEQA review requirements and recommended that the EIR be recertified with the notation that the information contained therein was considered. RECOMMENDATION: That Council : 1 . Recertify EIR-79-8 with the notation that the information in the report was considered; and 2. That Council concur with Planning Commission recommendation. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 14, 1984, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that City Council approve the revised development plan for lots 324 and 325 of Hidden Vista Village in accordance with Resolution PCM-80-13-B. DISCUSSION: Approved SPA Plan In 1980, the City Council approved the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for the Rice Canyon area of the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan as well as the tentative map for the Hidden Vista Village subdivision encompassing the entire SPA area. Also, approved at that time was the development proposal for lots 324 and 325 (approximately 9.3 acres) with a 102-unit condominium project. • Page 2, Item 4 Meeting Date 4/iu/84 The development proposal consisted of a combination of four-plexes, six-plexes, and eight-plexes. Approximately two-thirds of the units were to be three-bedroom units with remaining one-third two-bedroom units. The units were to be served by a private loop street with access from Hidden Vista Drive. The buildings on the periphery of the property were three-story split-level units and the interior structures two-stories in height. The buildings within the interior were served by private cul -de-sac streets. All the units on the periphery were to have a one-car garage and one open parking space. The interior units were to have a two-car garage. The guest parking was to be located within parking bays located on the inside of the loop street. The architectural styling of the buildings was of contemporary design with stucco exteriors, wood trim and balconies, and either shake shingle or mission tile roofs. Revised Development Plan The applicant has submitted a revised plan for the development of the two lots which will contain 100 units instead of the 102 units as originally proposed. The reduction is partially due to the change in the basic structure type. The revised plan consists of 28 duplexes and 11 four-plexes to be developed in two phases. The following is a breakdown of the proposed project: 1 . There will be four basic floor plans: Unit BR Size Number Stories Parking 1 2 960 S.F. 10 1 1 or 2 car garage ** 2 2 116 S.F. 36 2* 1 or 2 car garage ** 3 3 1380 S.F. 28 2* 2 car garage 4 3 1484 S.F. 26 2* 2 car garage * Townhouse ** Plus one assigned open space for one-car garage units of which there will be a total of 15 one-car garages. 2. Phasing Phase I Phase II (Lot 324) (Lot 385) Total Duplexes 12 16 28 Four-plexes 7 4 11 Total 19 20 39 Unit 1 6 4 10 Unit 2 20 16 36 Unit 3 14 14 28 Unit 4 12 14 26 Total Units 52 48 100 Page 3, Item 4 Meeting Date 4/I1j/84 3. Parking Spaces Phase I Phase II Total Two-car garage 80 (40 garages) 86 (43 garages) 166 (83 garages) One-car garage 12 Assigned open space 12 5 17 12 17 Guest parking 30 42 Total 134 108 242 Note: Required parking per R-3 regulations - 212 spaces Assigned parking ratio: 2 to 1 4. Miscellaneous a. There will be a swimming pool (Phase I) and a restroom/storage building in the center of the project. b. Perimeter fencing will be a 4-foot high fabric/wire mesh (black) with wood supports and railings. c. Each unit will have a private patio area defined by a 3-1/2 foot high wall . 5. Architecture The architecture of the proposed buildings is of contemporary design with a combination of stucco and wood siding exteriors, heavy composition shingle roofs and wood trim and garage doors. Colors will be earth tones, light brown, beige and grey. ANALYSIS The applicant has indicated that the revised plan is necessary to meet present market demands in that the buyers are seeking more individual privacy which is better accomplished by the duplex and four-plex concept rather than the four, six, and eight unit structures as originally proposed. The change in structure type has resulted in the loss of two unis in order reto achieve a desired separation between structures (approximately minimum) and a minimum setback of 22 feet from the private street to the face of the garage (all straight-in garages) . Another significant change is the elimination of the three-story split level structures along the periphery of the project to two-story townhouse units. Since the first floor of these units is level , the grading concept will be changed slightly. The developer has been able to move the structures back further from the top of slope which extends down to the adjoining streets. This should result in a softer and less bulky appearance of the project from the street. /�-iis7,' Page 4, Item 4 Meeting Date 4/10/84 The project meets all of the condominium requirements relating to private storage (each unit has a garage) , private open space (patios) and parking. In fact, the parking of two spaces per unit exceeds present requirements. The 42 guest parking spaces should be adequate. CONCLUSION Except for a reduction in the total number of units from 102 to 100 units, the revised development plan is similar to the original proposal with respect to circulation and architectural styling. The revised plan, however, will not be as massive in appearance due to the elimination of the three-story buildings on the periphery, a greater setback from the top of slope and the change in structure type to duplexes and four-plexes instead of the larger structures as originally proposed. It is, therefore, appropriate to recommend approval of the revised plan. FISCAL IMPACT: None. AL:fp WPC 0868P by the City Cculcil of Chula Vista, Caliornia noted ��� --//57�1