Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1981/07/21 Item 5COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 7/21/81 ITEM TITLE: Public hearing - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 81-8, Lansdown Villas, 365 Roosevelt and 370 Vance Resolution /eS.~ri Approving tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 81-8, Lansdown Villas SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Lansdown Villas, Chula Vista Tract 81-8, for the purpose of subdividing four parcels containing a total of 0.73 acres into a one lot condominium project consisting of 20 two-bedroom units. The four properties are located back to back at 367-371 Roosevelt Street and 368-374 Vance Street, in the R-3 zone. Once combined, they will create a through lot between the two streets. 2. On dune 24, 1981 the Planning Commission adopted the Negative Declaration on IS-81-32, which is forwarded for Council adoption. B. RECOMMENDATION: Concur with Planning Commission recommendation. C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On June 24, 1981 the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Lansdown Villas, Chula Vista Tract 81-8, in accordance with Resolution PCS-81-8. D. DISCUSSION 1. Existing site characteristics. The project site consists of four parcels containing a total of 0.73 acres. The southerly two lots, measuring 50' X 180' each, are located on the north side of Roosevelt Street and each contains one single family dwelling and an accessory structure. The two northerly lots have a total of 130 feet of frontage along the south side of Vance Street and lot depths of 90 feet. Each lot is also developed with a single family detached dwelling and an accessory structure. Both Vance and Roosevelt are fully improved streets, however, the travelways (curb to curb) are only 30 feet wide, creating certain conflicts with through traffic and onstreet parking (see attached letter from City Engineer to homeowners on Roosevelt discussing various alternative long term solutions). Although Vance Street is only 30 feet wide (curb to curb) there is no through traffic since the street ends in a cul-de- sac approximately 500 feet east of Fourth Avenue. Testimony was presented at the Planning Commission meeting by residents on Vance that parking and maneuvering on Vance is difficult at present and that adding a new condominium complex without widening the street would severely impact the neighborhood. The present right-of-way of 50 feet would allow the street to be widened to a standard 36' (curb to curb) width. However, widening might best be accommodated when more of the area along Vance is being redeveloped with multiple family units. The subject property and surrounding lots are zoned R-3 and the area is undergoing a transformation from single family dwelling homes to apartments or condominiums. Parking counts taken by the Engineering Department on Vance Street did not reveal a parking problem. Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) Page 2, Item 5 Meeting date 7/21/81 2. Proposed development. The developer intends to remove all of the existing structures and construct 20 two-bedroom townhouse units in four three-story structures, with two-car garages located under each of the units. The proposed development received approval from the Design Review Committee on May 7, 1981, subject to several conditions and revisions which have now been incorporated into the project. Pedestrian entry to the units near Roosevelt is provided via raised landings on the opposite side of the building from the garage entries. Pad elevations will be raised in entry court areas, necessitating 2 foot high retaining walls on the east and west property lines and within the confines of the project. Combined with a 6' high "good neighbor" wood fence, the retaining walls and fence will total 8 feet in height above the adjacent properties. The units are set back 10 feet from each side property line. 3. Parking and access. In addition to the 40 spaces provided by the 20 two-car garages, three open compact parking spaces will be provided on site fora total of 43 spaces. The code requires 40 spaces, 35 of which must be on site. The two structures located nearest Roosevelt Street will receive access via a two way driveway located between the buildings. The other two structures and the three guest spaces will receive their access by way of a two way driveway from Vance Street located at the east side of the property. The two driveways are not connected and will be treated with decorative paving. 4. Storage and open space. The proposed project meets the requirements for storage and open space. All of the required storage will be provided within the two car garage of each unit. The private open space will be provided by a 60 sq. ft. (6' x 10') balcony located at the second floor level, overhanging two feet over the driveway; 3500 square feet of common open space is provided in the center of the project, together with 2,000 sq. ft. adjacent to Roosevelt and 2,600 sq. ft. adjacent to Vance. ~-~~ s~-~ C~iulu Visiu, C~iiarnia Dated ~.~ ~~ • ~ri ~.. ~> ~~._!~ City o~ Cd1uQa ~UisEa CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING July 6, 1931 File No . Dear Property Owner: The Chula Vista Planning Commission recently reviewed a proposal for a condominium development on 365 Roosevelt Street. As a result of the testimony presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff to consider alternatives to alleviate the traffic ar.d parking problem on Roosevelt Street. They asked that this information be given to the City Council when the development is presented to them on July list at 7:00 p.m. The problem on Roosevelt Street is that it presently has a curb-- to--curb width of 30 feet. NJhen there is parking on both sides of the street, there is r.ot adequate room for two cars to pass. As Roosevelt Street transitions from a single family neighborhood to a multiple family neighborhood, the occurrence of parking on the street will increase, thereby further exacerbating the problem of traveling on the street. The staff has looked at several alternatives to alleviate the problem including: 1. Establishing a two---hour parking zone on Roosevelt Street; 2, Widening the street to 36 feet (move the curbs back three feet on each side of the street); 3. Widening one side of the street only to provide for 36 feet curb to curb; 4. Making Roosevelt Street a one--way street; 5. Prohibiting parking on one side of the street. DISCUSSION OF AL.T~RNATIVES. Alternative i -- Two Hour Parking. This alternative was suggested because employees of the Bay General medical center and hospital park on Roosevelt Street instead of using the lot easterly of the ~- / D SSA 1 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 (714) 575-5021 ~' Wells Fargo Bank on "H" Street. A two-hour limit would discourage -em ployees from parking on Roosevelt Street. The' residents could park on the street because the City has provisions that with a special permit, residents may exceed the two--hour limit. This alternative would reduce the amount of parking on the street duc~ing certain hours and could be instituted in addition to other alternati~/es. Alternative 2 -- Widen the street symmetrically along the center ine to 36 feet curb to curb. If this area were developing now in the City of Chula Vista as a new development, the standard street requirement would be 36 feet curb to curb. Sidewalks would be adjacent to the curb on either side and street trees would be in the front yards of the properties adjoining the street. This alternative would im pact both sides of the street equally and would be the most expensive alternative. The most likely procedure used to install the street would be through an assessment district whereby the fronting properties would pick up the cost of the improvements in relation to the benefit that they receive. Typical costs for a 50 foot lot might range from $2,000 to $2,500. With this alternative, the utility poles would need to be relocated and many of the trees would have to be removed. Alternative 3 -- This alternative would be to widen the street on one side only. The major advantages of this alternative over number 2 are: 1. Cost Saving s 2. The utility poles and trees on the south side of the street would not have to be relocated or removed. I estimate that the cost for a typical 50 foot lot would be betcaeen $1,200 and $1,500. Alternative 4 -- One 69ay Traffic. This alternative would have a low cost because we would only need to install signing/delineation to enforce the one way street. The curbs and trees could remain as they are and this alternative would give everyone involved an opportunity to test the solution without a large expenditure of funds. Should, after a trial period, this alternative not work out, then other alternatives could be considered. The major disadvantages that I see with a one way street are: I. Enforcemenr_ may be difficult; 2. Confusion can result from visitors entering the neighborhood; 3. It would force same trips to be longer. Alternative 5 -- :.cave the street the way it is allowing two way trattic but prohibit parking on one side of the street. This alternative would im prove traffic flow on the street and would be -/oss~ 2 low cost. However, the amount of parking provided on the street. would be halved. Therefore, as the area transitions to multiple family available parking in the neighborhood would become very scarce . Alternatives 4 and S (the one way street and prohibiting parking on one side) could be instituted at a very low cost on a trial basis. Alternative I (two hour parking limit) could be instituted in conjunction with all of the other alternatives. In order to receive the opinions on the different alternatives from the property owners along Roosevelt, we have enclosed a self-addressed aostcard with alternatives 2 through 5 lis*_ed. Please prioritize the alternatives in the order of your preference from i to 4. Your most favored preference would be number I and the least favored would be number 4. We did not include Alternate #1 (2--hour limit) on the postcard because that alternative can be im plemented in additior, to all the other alternatives. Feel free to make any additional comments that you can on the card or give me a call at 575---502 i. Please drop the postcards in the mail by July i2th so that we may review them and tabulate them prior to the report to the Council for the meeting of July list. Thank you for your cooperation and interest in this project. l ~~ it / _ / ~ i, ~`~/ Y ~JOH~ P. :,IPPITT City Engineer JP~:nr Enclosure ~ /D~S~r ~- 3