HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/06/19 Item 21 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item -6-- 21
j9
Meeting Date 6/W84
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: (continued) Consideration to rezone 3.75
acres at the southwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and
Melrose Avenue from R-1 to R-3-P-14 - Alanda-Bach
a. Ordinance 0 7/ Amending zoning map or maps established by
Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code rezoning
3.75 acres at the southwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Road
and Mel rose Avenue from R-1 to R-3-P-14
SECUN& i ad Nd AND ADOPTION
SUBMITTED BY: Planning Director (G' (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 14' 0
This item was continued from the City Council meeting of May 15, 1984, in
order that more information be provided on the following:
1 . the cost of on and off-site improvements (single family versus multiple
family) ;
2. the density of the proposed project compared to a less dense project such
as 8 or 10 D/U 's per acre;
3. the impact and desirability of vehicular access onto Telegraph Canyon Road;
4. the pros and cons of pedestrian access through to property; and,
5. the pros and cons of a three-way stop sign at Telegraph Canyon Road and
Melrose Avenue
The Council also referred the project to the Safety Commission for review and
report.
On May 15, 1984, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-84-20 and no further action is required to act on this request. A copy of
the April 24, 1984, report is attached hereto.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council concur with Planning Commission recommendation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 28, 1984, the Planning
Commission by a vote of 6 to 1 recommended that Council enact an ordinance
approving the request to rezone the subject property from R-1 to R-3-P-14 in
accordance with Resolution PCZ-84-F.
Page 2, Item b--- 21
Meeting Date 4 (e--(744
DISCUSSION:
At the time of this writing the Safety Commission had not yet reviewed the
proposed project. However, a meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 13th. A
verbal report of the Safety Commission's review will be presented at the
Council meeting.
The applicant has prepared a report which addresses the issues as outlined by
the City Council . The staff has reviewed the report and has found that the
cost estimates used by the applicant are reasonable and realistic. The
following represents a summary of the report.
Improvement Costs - The public improvement and grading and grading costs for
the proposed 48-unit project is estimated at approximately $119,000 (*$2,500
per unit), whereas a 14-lot single family subdivision would be $443,200
($31 ,600 per unit) , a difference of $324,200. The theoretical sales price of
a single family home then, not even including land costs, is estimated between
$115,000 and $120,000. The developer estimates the cost of each condominium
unit, as proposed, would be $78,000.
* It should be noted that interior sidewalks and paving required to complete
the project would bring the per unit development costs to approximately
$5,000.
Density - The following table reflects the sales price, monthly payment and
income qualifications at various densities:
Density (Net) Sales Price Payments/Mo. Annual Income
14 DU's/acre $78,000 $ 830 $30,182 to $39,840
10 DU's/acre $86,700 $ 923 $33,564 to $44,304
8 DU's/acre $95,800 $1021 $37,127 to $49,008
The average income in the vicinity is $40,617.
The applicant has indicated that townhouse projects cost more because of the
difference in construction and would require more paving in order to have the
garages closer to the units.
Vehicular access - The applicant will design the driveways to the satisfaction
of the City 's Traffic Engineer and a center lane in Telegraph Canyon Road will
facilitate left-turn movements onto the site.
Pedestrian access - The applicant believes a pedestrian access is undesirable
and will not solve the existing problem.
Three-way stop and traffic - The applicant is amenable to absorbing the cost
of the stop signs if it is determined to be desirable. The report compares
the traffic between the proposed project and a single-family subdivision which
C>
Page 3, Item -b- 21
Meeting Date-4F1:2713214,-/ 9-f/
connects El Capitan Drive to Melrose Avenue. The existing 37 homes on El
Capitan Drive and the 14 additional homes proposed if the area were developed
as R-1 would generate an estimated 350 trips a day on Melrose Avenue versus 68
trips by the proposed project. The increase by the single-family land use
would result from no direct access on Telegraph Canyon Road whereas the
proposed project is relying on Telegraph Canyon Road as the major access point.
ANALYSIS:
The Planning Department concurs with the applicant that a pedestrian access
would likely cause more problems in the area than it would solve. Such an
access would increase the potential of crime and vandalism because it may be
obscured from vision by fencing, buildings and topography. The current
pedestrian traffic movements, as observed by the Planning Department, could
easily adjust by using Telegraph and Melrose as opposed to cutting through the
subject property. Any pedestrian access, however, only makes sense in a
corridor along the west property line. The applicant would be willing to
install such access but would want the City to have the liability.
The most significant issue is one of density. It is the staff's opinion that
the project has been designed in such a manner as to reduce its impact on the
adjoining single-family areas. The units do not exceed two stories and are
one story adjacent to the area to the south utilizing split level
construction. The building mass and access has been designed to complement
the adjacent single-family area. A reduction in density would not necessarily
reduce the impact. The density of the project is 10.7 units per gross acre
(13.8 net) which is lower than the upper range of the General Plan at 14 units
per gross acre. The applicant has demonstrated that unit pricing would have
to be increased if the density were reduced. In addition, the applicant has
supplied the Council with data (unit size and price) relating to other
attached and single family housing in the area. Income data for the average
and median households with the subject census tract was also included. The
data provided some valuable comparisons. However, it is not possible to
conclude from the data that reduction of density and an increase in pricing
would result in a non-feasible development (for example, at 10 DU's per
acre). It does not appear that single family R-1 development would be very
expensive.
The density assigned by Council to this piece of property can best be
addressed by the details of the precise plan. If Council is not comfortable
with the plan based on issues such as compati bi l ty with the adjacent
single-family area, building bulk, or traffic, it should be left R-1 or zoned
to a more restrictive R-3 category such as R-3 P (10) or R-3 P (8) . It was
the conclusion of both the Planning Commission and staff that the plan
submitted was appropriate for the area and therefore, recommended for approval .
As stated previously, the stop sign issue will be presented verbally at the
public hearing. As to the traffic volumes and turning movements onto
Telegraph Canyon Road, Planning and Engineering feel the design is adequate.
The full improvement of Telegraph Canyon Road, the location of driveways and
the planned width all appear to comply with Chula Vista standards and traffic
engineering criteria.
, ��� FISCAL IMPACT: None
WPC 1019P
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ-84-F
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE
3.75 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TELEGRAPH
CANYON ROAD AND MELROSE AVENUE FROM R-1 TO
R-3-P-14
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a rezoning was filed with
the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on February 28, 1984, by
Alanda-Bach, and
- WHEREAS, said application requested rezoning of 3.75 acres of
property located at the southwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Melrose
Avenue from R-1 to R-3-P-14 subject to the following precise plan development
standards, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing
on said rezoning application and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely 7:00 p.m. , March 28, 1984, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no
significant environmental impacts and adopted the Negative Declaration issued
on IS-84-20.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the rezoning is
consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice support the
rezoning from R-1 to R-3-P-14, and the findings in support of applying the "P"
Modifying District are as follows:
The property or area to which the P modifying district is applied is
an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land
uses and the development of a precise plan will allow the area so
designated to coexist between land usages which might otherwise be
incompatible.
The attachment of the "P" District will enable the City to
restrict vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the adjoining
residential streets and to require completion of the dead-end
streets in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property
owner and/or the City appropriate control or flexibility needed to
achieve an efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed
in the adjacent zones.
The attachment of the "P" District is required to limit the
density to a maximum of 14 dwellings per net acre in keeping
with the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends the
the City Council adopt an ordinance to rezone the 3.75 acres located at the
southwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Melrose Avenue subject to the
following precise plan development standards:
a. No on-street parking shall be allowed on Telegraph Canyon
Road.
b. The disposition of all dead-end streets adjacent to the
property shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer (both on and on-site improvements) prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
c. No vehicular or pedestrian access shall be permitted from
Myra Avenue, Maria Way and El Capitan Drive.
d. Alley type returns shall be required on Telegraph Canyon
Road.
e. A masonry wall shall be installed at the terminus of each
dead-end street with said wall extending along the property
line to the nearest existing fence or wall on the
properties on each side of the street. Reflectors shall be
installed for safety purposes. Said walls shall be part of
the street improvement plans. The design shall be subject
to the approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of
the property and the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 28th day March, 1984, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners R. Johnson, Pressutti, E. Guiles, Shipe, Cannon and
O'Neill
NOES: Commissioner Green
ABSENT: None 7 C.G,G'�,,- ail
t Ica',
ohn W. O'Neill , Chairman
ATTEST:
Ruth M. Smith, Secretary
WPC 0882P I`)A
?AN ENE IIIMMIMINIV , um ,r_ ,......_ . sir _
ENTRADA M' 11111 1
, ; lo
zest_ ...t .ri
ayI
iiii ihmai-tailit.
m V\si immAlllints
14,4,„ cAmuvoi-•.' •i dis,...
i■-eximmosiallii,
111111111111 Rot
CAW°N
a
TELEGRAPH - Cj t.
Y 1 k a f
.::•:::::.fir.. , :.:
0 in SF
SF
L' ..........................................
ap . MMIEN: ;:';';'n'ii'MI-NaiiVitNiiiiiiM::::: ,, SF.
{i::::::::i}}?`;::::<::<:i::iii:.:;;�:i:iiiii:Y•::::{:iii: ' :::
•I. . :::;:.>.::`;i::;: i::a`:$:}{:}}::{}::i:i:i3:ry:::iiiiiii:: ................ *..... .. . It
SF
P.MI SF ......... ........................... ...... ................ ................... ,Sum s p-SF SF
SF Ir.a I SF Nat.
SF
p� SF SF rema SF SF 2
f ,MI fl T • SF SF SF SF rn u
el III _ OWE r _< .
1: u L " STREET
• 1111 #'' imm• • a 1
- 7
E
IV _
O D m_<
H I
Z :� ' • r
1 co 7>
x • • • • • • • m '
•
�,m i
( A/ana d - Bach LOCA7"OR
, if
)'").9 (iii
PCZ 84 F
I,0 ,. REQUEST ZONE CHANGE FROM
_ R-/ TO R-3-P-/4
NORTHS.W. COR OF TELEGRAPH CNY RD
AND MELROSE
••---. laminwilf Z i-
111111 UMW 2
D v lillati A
I • 115
Viol M/lyp � 11 11 I II I I 1111
Rd-
7%gr ph -ConYon .a
'it IIIIROGOS ,
c
CApiTA =
4"` N 44- �
y
' - ii.'. .i." :::
:I MI i MI r N0
iii - „Irma Kg , .
C .
, m•
, !a
i 1 , ,
II
ii: *1
_< , .
i 1
. STREET
t min a i
3j
MU
1
. . . . 7.
,-,.. 0 _<;, z ' m D .. m r.
;r 11111 frl
IIII IF
A. Ed In La 4.
,,A\ j
),a Staff Subdivision Concept Exhibit. B
PCZ-84- F
le• ' z
fil)
--____— .
Offs' s.w. Cor. of Telegraph Cny/Me/rose.
D _( t Ilia 11.111111b'•
- Z 1.11 7D � ®
ID H ',
■
? fci illiMpli _ Ii
Cgmiy0
:74. 141811 11%1%111 i
Rd _
•irsi T%grooh Can
:." ili„,„,„„,:.„.:i.::::I •:
Et 1-
a ., . ..- .: ,
::?:4:ia!:!-:f ni.i.t:***:..:'::..E: :.;.:fic:i:.:::a i
IliaLid
s 1 .•.....1 IOW
Iii 3 11111 i'
W
m
MIME .< .:
i
STREET
s
6
I ffl l
p - D m
o
.1 co Er
E
PI ■
Staff Subdivision Concept. (Exhibit. C
0`4
PCZ--84-F
--- s.W. Cor. of Telegraph Cny Rd.
NORTH Moires*
i.
p ' ( 1'`z iiiENTRAIDA
1,13 1017-Tr l U MI.2 I
NMI= -6P� v°�� �a I CAMEO 0 I L t'' t 1111.
r.tit TELEGRAPH
.............
............
r:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..................................6::::::::::.:.......::...............:::::: .:.,.............:::::
::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::i:::::::::i.:::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::.#40,i::::::::::::::::::::,
60, ..................
..::: .........
................ ...... . ......
3.
. . ........... ...... . .......
i�
'
iii rr SP' i SF SP"
..iii'-
. t 2
.................. . . ..................
. .. ......... ..... ... .... ........
................•--�,�.....::11: 11:•:::.
at i. iii;:igr :-.:: ::aiiiiiiii;i;i.iiiiiiii:iigiM:;:;:::;:*..0::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ga:i;i:::: :iiif,
:a
hi .
SF Piet
m 3
LEI
0 1.-..---r SF In Q SF SF
i
i; . --M. A Z VI- 1:11 i
SF SF SF SF m
PiJ t itrft
1111 r
111111 I rn
- t. STREET
II i e
-1 I S -
It lim ,
iiir/IIIIII m 1 mil 0
1 E ROB , J
m _ :_i
z "
rI m D D xi
xi-I m
m
IA/on do - Bach
)'�` PCZ-84-F
�(iiiii----�p, „ REQUEST ZONE CHANGE FROM
R-/ TO R-3-P-I4
O n ) [LOCAroR
S.W. COR OF TELEGRAPH CNY RD
AND MELROSE
QQ
218 w E �'
........._L
Q
Q 2 v‘s�A Rp'
,
,o„,••••••-""g-gg---7.----:.--
RD
TELEGRAPH m•�
. CANYON `'� -
V:>;:> :T:-: ::;: : : ::: : : : :::::: :::::: :::>; ::::;;:::: :::::: ::: ; : : ;;: : ; :,; : : :
:1
W
:::#;: