Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1977/03/22 Item 02, aCITY OF CHULA VISTA ITEM N0. 2 ~ 2a COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~ 3_22_77 FOR MEETING OF: Public hearing - Consideration of Precise Plan for construction of 77 unit ITEM TIT LE~ apartment complex on west side of Edgemere Avenue south of Route 54 Resolution 854 3 Approving Precise Plan for development of Brentwood Arms on west side of Edgemere Avenue, south of Route 54 SUBMITTED BY~ Director of Planning.-~-~ ~ L'" _ !/i ~.5 ~~. ITEM EXPLANATION A. BACKGROUND 1. On January 11, 1977 the City Council amended the zoning map on this 3-1/2 acre site on the west side of Edgemere Avenue, approximately across from the entrance to the KOA campground, from R-3 to R-3-P-20. 2. At the May 18, 1976 meeting of the Planning Commission the subject property received approval of a conditional use permit (PCC-76-7) for construction of an apart- ment complex of 106 units. This approval was required since a portion of the subject property lies within the Sweetwater River Flood Plain zone. 3. On September 27, 1976 the Planning Commission adopted Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-5 relating to the development of 106 apartment units on the site. The Environmental Review Committee on October 7, 1976 determined that the currently pro- posed 77 unit project represents a lesser residential density and is, therefore, exempt from further environmental review. Under the R-3-P-20 nin established by Council on January 11, 1977, the property can accommodate only ~~ un~ts. B. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent land use. North - I-L-F - Single family residence South - A-3(1) (County) - Single family residences EXHIBITS ATTACHED (Cont'd. on Supplemental Pages; Agreement Resolution X Ordinance Plat X Other PCM-77-5 Landscape Design Environmental Document: Attached Submitted on 10/2/76 (EIR-76-5) Statement Letter STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Concur with Planning Commission recommendation . BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On February 23, 1977, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 recommending that the City Council approve the precise plan for the con- struction of a 77 unit apartment on the west side of Edgemere Avenue south of Route 54 subject to the conditions and based upon the findings contained in Resolution No. PCM-77-5. COUNCIL ACTION Form A-113 (Rev. 5-75) AGENDA ITEM N0. 2, 2a Supplemental Page 2 Adjacent land use (continued) II East - R-3 - Psychiatric hospital West - I-L & I-L-F - Industrial park, partia~ly developed 2. Site characteristics. The site slopes generally to the northwest with a por ion at elevations below the contour of the 100 year project flood. Along the souther y and easterly property line (along the new alignment of Edgemere Avenue) the slopes a e quite steep, constituting barriers separating the property from adjacent land. The ite contains no trees and natural vegetation is mostly native grasses. 3. Precise plan proposal. The applicant proposes construction of 77 apartments sq. ft., and 48 two-bedroom units of 828 sq. ft.), a two- laundry facilities and a pool area with saunas, showers ai apartments will be in six two-story buildings with 8 to 1~ ger's office, apartment, laundry and recreational facilit story structure facing the north parking area with a swims the center of a larger open court area created by a group 28 one-bedroom units of 638 edroom manager's apartment, d toilet facilities. The apartments each. The mana- es are contained in a one- ing pool and deck area in ng of the two-story buildings. The buildings are arranged near the center of the sit with parking set back 15 feet from the west and north property lines and major slo a banks to the east (Edgemere Avenue) and south. The precise plan shows these slope ba ks at a 1-1/2:1 slope, which is the maximum permitted by City ordinance. The slope al ng Edgemere includes a large bank to which the City has slope rights to construe Edgemere Avenue on its proposed realignment. The development will cover approximately 18% of the t tal site. A substantial amount of the remaining area is devoted to slope banks an parking. However, the amount of usable open space provided is in excess of ordi ance requirements. 4. Development guidelines. In previous discretionary approvals in connection wit the development of this site, development guidelines were employed to address the major problem areas associ- ated with the site's location with respect to the industr al zoned area and Edgemere Avenue, topography, access, isolation from schools and sh pping, and the location within the flood plain zone. On November 22, 1976 the P1 nning Commission, acting upon a referral from the City Council, included in their ecommendation development guidelines based on the Planning Department detailed stu y of the site's particular character and constraints. Upon adoption of the ordinanc by the Council on January 11, 1977 to rezone the property to R-3-P-20, the developm nt guidelines were not in- cluded. In working with the developer in the redesign of the ~roposed project, the original guidelines have been followed and are incorporated into t e present design. Approval of this precise plan application would obviate the need fmr the incorporated guidelines. The applicant, however, has indicated that the actual construction of this development may be undertaken by other parties in the event the property is sold. The new owner, in order to proceed, would be required to follow the apprdved precise plan. If he chose to utilize different building plans, or otherwise modify the plan, he would need a new precise plan. Without a clear statement of the development guidelines, the pre- vious efforts to give development direction could well be lost. For this reason, the AGENDA ITEM N0. 2, 2a Supplemental Page 3 staff has included the original development guidelines as a condition of approval under Section B of this report and urges Commission approval for Council adoption 5. Architecture. The applicant proposes an architectural style which utilizes gable roofs with #70 composition shake shingles, exterior cement plaster (stucco) walls with projections around openings, extensive wood siding for design accents and second floor balconies with open railings. Particularly important on the longer buildings, the variations in the exterior wall, balconies and varied roof overhand add to a more residential scale. This effort is further enhanced by varying the floor elevations in all but one of the larger buildings. The applicant has submitted colors which call for two shades of light tan plaster, dark wood-tone stains for siding and trim, and roof color as "cedar brown" or equivalent. The plan incorporates usable, semi-private outdoor space on the balconies on the second floor but does not afford any protection of patio areas at the first floor apartments. 6. Parking. All parking is concentrated in a nearly continuous strip along the north and west boundaries of the property. All spaces are open, although the applicant is contem- plating the possible construction of some carports. Required guest parking (24 spaces) has been provided onsite. The physical separation by steep slopes and the City's proposal to prohibit parking on Edgemere Avenue have been recognized in the applicant's parking plan. 7. Landscaping. The attached "Site Landscape Design Statement" describes, in very general terms, the proposed landscaping for the site. The applicant will be required to submit full landscape working drawings, and irrigation data for approval by the City Landscape Architect prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Noise Control. Portions of the site and six of the proposed apartments lie within a zone in which noise generated from traffic on Edgemere Avenue creates conditions defined as "normally unacceptable." This condition will require mitigating measures to meet building code requirements for residential sound insulations, including structural insulation and appropriate glazing methods. The "Site Landscape Design Statement" specifically ad- dresses the planting of trees to reduce airborne noise from Edgemere Avenue. 9. Zoning wall. The applicant has proposed to install a 6' high zoning wall at the top of the slope along the westerly property line. The applicant may construct carports over a portion of the parking spaces which would be integrated with the wall. Although industrial zoning also exists to the north, no wall is planed there since the indus- trial property was given a waiver of the zoning wall requirement nearly two years ago. That waiver was based on the sloping topography and the proposed mini-warehouse use proposed for the industrial area. The Planning Commission did not think it would be appropriate to require the developer of the apartments to install a block wall under the circumstances and therefore left it as an option whereby he may construct either a wall or fence if he wishes. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2, 2a Supplemental 'Page 4 10. Analysis. This proposed development represents a considerable improvement in design and site development over earlier proposals. Many of the concerns reflected in the develop- ment guidelines proposed by staff and the Commission have been addressed in the pre- sent plan. It is the staff's opinion that the proposal has, to a considerable extent, mitigated many of the possible negative impacts of the adjacency to industrially-zoned areas, steep slopes, Edgemere Avenue, and the flood plain zone through good design, orientation of buildings, landscaping and amenity within the project itself. The recommendation for approval of the precise plan is based on these factors as well as Council's action on the zoning. 1 \ ' ~ I ~ ~..) dim ± - ~- ~ -....... ~ Q~ • a 461 A `~ b 230 ~~~~ ~ . ~~~ , NORTH C 213 ® o' Sao' 200' d 194 e OUNDARY e 123 ~ ® ~- . f 478 ... T,I :~ -~R~~ ~` ~- LOCATOR PRECISE PLAN FOR A 77 UNIT APARTMENT COM1IFLEX WEST OF EDGEMERE AVE. ~'i `~ Y 0' 100' 200' NORTH ~ 1Y / / - ~ - ~ RESOLUTION N0. PCM-77-5 ~ , ' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE PRECISE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BRENTWOOD ARMS ON THE WEST SIDE OF EDGEMERE AVENUE IN THE R-3-P-20 ZONE WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1721 adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on January 11, 1977 established the zoning for approximately 3~ acres located on the west side of Edgemere Avenue as R-3-P-20, and WHEREAS, on January 31, 1977 a Precise Plan was filed by Schwerin, Xinos and Associates on behalf of the owner, V & V Development, for the development of Brentwood Arms, a 77 unit apartment complex, and WHEREAS, on September 27, 1976 the Planning Commission adopted Environmental Impact Report EIR-76-5 relating to the development of 106 apartment units on the site, and WHEREAS, on October 7, 1976 the Environmental Review Committee determined that the proposed 77 unit apartment project represents a lesser residential density and is, therefore, exempt from further environmental review, and • WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 23, 1977 to consider the precise plan for development as submitted. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION finds as follows: a• That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to the property or improv~nents in the vicinity. The proposal is for a density permitted by the zoning of the property and at a much lower coverage than allowed under the ordinance. This high ratio of open space and large separations from adjacent uses will insure no intrusion onto adjacent uses. The project has been designed under guidelines developed to insure that detrimental effects on the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity have been minimized and that the development will not be injurious. to other properties or improvements. b. That such plan satisfies the principle for application of the "P" Modifying District as set forth in Section 19.56.041. The subject property meets two of the principles stated for application of the "P" Modifying District. First, the topography of the site requires special techniques for dealing with severe changes in elevation, raising the area above the flood plain zone and providing access at a safe location. Secondly, the site's location with respect to adjacent areas of different land use requires extraordinary measures to provide for screening and separation to insure compatibility. The site plan deals satisfactorily with these issues. c. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning require- ments shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the "P" Precise Plan Modifying District. The proposed project will meet or exceed the requirements of the under- lying zone, if developed in accordance with the recommended conditions of approval. d. That approval of this plan will conform to the General Plan and the adopted policies of the City. On November 16, 1976 the City Council voted to change the General Plan designation of the subject property from Limited Industrial to High Density Residential. The High Density Residential density range is from 13 to 26 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is in conformance with respect to both land use and density. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that thQ City Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the Precise Plan for Brentwood Arms as submitted by Schwerin, Xinos and Associates, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following Development Guidelines shall apply to construction of any project upon this site: a. Buildings within 75 feet of the industrial zone shall not face the industrial zone but shall be oriented inward. b. The minimum building setback from Edgemere Avenue shall be 25 feet. c. Buildings shall be designed so that part of the change in elevation on the site shall be taken up in the building design. d. Three bedroom apartments shall be discouraged. e. The landscape plan shall conform to the Landscape Manual and shall incorporate the use of 15 gal. trees adjacent to Edgemere Avenue and the industrial areas to the north and west. Spacing of such trees shall depend upon the variety selected but the objective shall be to provide a substantial landscape buffer-screen. Trees and shrubs over 3 feet in height adjacent to the parking area at the Edgemere entrance shall be set back 15 feet from the front property line to provide safe sight distance. -2- f. buildings within 100 feet of the south property line and Edgemere AVenue shall not exceed two stories in height. g. Access shall be limited to one point at the north end of the site with an acequate turn around provided within the site to accommodate fire fighting equipment. h. Conformance with conditions specified in Resolution PCC-76-7 relating to construction in the flood plain. 2. The developer shall install a decorative masonry zoning wall (minimum of 6 ft. high) at the top of the slope bank facing the westerly property line. The developer may, but is not required to, install either a fence or wall along the northerly edge of the property upon approval of the design ` and location by the Director of Planning. Note: The developer may incorporate carport designs into the wall subject to staff approval. 3. The turnaround circle at the south end of the parking area shall consist of decorative paving and shall be permanently posted for no parking and be kept clear of parked vehicles at all times. 4. The applicant shall construct dwelling units to conform with the architec- tural plans, exterior elevations and color samples submitted. Variations from the referred submittals shall be made only upon written approval by the Director of Planning. 5. Grading for this project shall be coordinated with grading of Edgemere Avenue. 6. A slope stability analysis by a qualified soils engineer shall be provided by the proponent of the Brentwood Arms project to assure that slope construc- tion below the roadway fill will not create instability of the roadway fill. 7. Cut slopes along Edgemere Avenue shall be no steeper than 2:1. However, the slope bank adjacent to the parking stalls at the entrance road shall be flatter to provide a smoother transition with the flat graded area. 8. Portland cement concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be provided by the applicant along the entire project frontage on Edgemere Avenue. Should scheduling allow, these improvements may be included in the City's construction contract at the full expense of the applicant. 9. Surface water run-off shall be collected in appropriate drainage structures and conveyed underground to connect with existing underground drainage facilities offsite. Appropriate property rights shall be obtainea from adjacent property owners for construction of required storm drains -3- - and required offsite sanitary sewer and waterlines. ]0. A 7,000 lumen street light shall be provided by the applicant. Said light shall be located in the approximate area of the entrance to the parking area adjacent to Edgemere Avenue. 11. The driveway entrance shall be constructed at right angles to Edgemere Avenue. 12. All overhead utilities shall be undergrounded. 13. Approval of any proposed sign for size, design and location shall be required. 14. A wood split rail fence with masonry pilasters shall be constructed at the top of the slope bank along Edgemere Avenue. 15. Private patios at first floor units shall be fenced with 6 ft. high ~ wood fences using the same materials as used on the buildings and creating patios no smaller than 100 sq. ft., unless otherwise approved by the Director of Planning. 16. The developer shall use "BIRD" architect 70, or equal, random asphalt shake shingles, Oakwood color range. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 23rd day of February, 1977 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Commissioners Starr, R. Johnson, Chandler, G. Johnson, Renneisen, Pressutti and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Chairman` ATTEST: Secretary -4- • } ' ~._. • 3 SITE LAND5(~APE DESIGN STATEMENT i - ', Outside spaces are designed for direct use as ped- ~' estrian circulation, play, outdoor activity places and aesthetic appreciation. Planting appropriate to the South Bay climate will provide shade, envi- ronmental screening and lawns. Buffer areas adjacent to industrial zones and Edgemere Avenue will be suit- ably landscaped to screen the complex visually and acoustically. All plantings, trees, lawn & ground cover provided will. be of varieties having compatability with ex- isting and new top soil. Sizes of plants selected will be adequate to give some immediate effect and to insure their survival. A complete irrigation system will be provided for all planted areas. The system will be designed to provide complete coverage with a minimum amount of maintenance. ~r p tI 1 3422 Chula March Mr. Frank Scott Mayor, Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 Dear Mayor Scott: Edgemere Ave. Vista, Ca. ii, 1977 ~~~~'~ ~ Mq~l~ 1 ~'~YO~"Sl7.r~ In regard to the City Council Public Hearing scheduled March 22, 197 for the purpose of considering a precise plan for the construction of a 77 unit apartment complex on Edgemere Avenue by V and V Development, and in addition a request that the Council consider reducing the height and~or extent of the required zoning wall, the following information is provided for your information and consideration. It has been erroneaosly determined by the Planning Department, and more specifically Mr. D.J. Peterson, that a zoning wall along the north property line was not necessary, although one is required along the west property line. Mr. Peterson was made aware of the error and yet misinformed the Planning Commission during the meeting of February 9, 1977, indicating that a zoning wall was not required along the north property line based on the following circumstances: It was indicated that the property owner to the north had requested and was awarded a waiver for said common zoning wall. Furthermore,~it was indicated that due to the nature of the pro- posed construction on the property to the north, a "mini-warehouse complex which is basically a mom and pop operation" and also due to the topo- graphical difference in elevation between the two properties, the Planning Department recommended that the required zoning wall was not necessary. It was brought to the attention of Mr. Peterson, that although the property owner to the north had applied for a waiver of the zoning wall in 1974, the' request was to waive only the required six-foot concrete block zoning wall and to provide, in lieu of, a six-foot chain link fence with screening slats. On October 9, 1974. the Planning Commission approved the request to substitute the chain link fence, but disapproved the use of slats since they may be removed or broken, thus not providing permanent screening along said property line. Mr. Peterson presently insists that it was the request of the property owner and decision of the Planning Commission to waive all zoning separations and to merely place 15 gallon trees at 23 foot intervals along the property line. Certainly, a person proposing the construction of warehouses that provide 24 hour security would not request the authorization to not construct any fences. Disregarding any misinterpretation on the part of the Planning Department, the actual request for waiver and decision of the Planning Commission can best be checked by consulting the recorded tapes of the October 9, 1974 meeting. v, ~. 92010 ~' -2- It should also 'be pointed out that a building permit for warehouses on the property to the north was never issued, and. consequently a proposal of more than two years ago is not grounds on which to base a recommendation that a required zoning wall between industrial and residential properties be eliminated, and, at the same time, recommend that a zoning wall is required separating the industrial property to the west. There is no difference between the two properties except that the property to the north is owned by :mom and pap" and the property to the west is owned by an influential and illustrious construction tycoon. Both properties are zoned I-L. Neither property has any approved building permit to construct any project, yet the requirement for a zoning wall to the west is based on the nature of the project to be constructed. The property to the north is presently on the market for sale because the owner refuses to be confronted with any further bureaucratic hassle in the development. Therefore, the nature of the project, depending on the plans of the buyer, may requure a zoning wall even more so than the property to the west. Mr. Peterson's recommendation was also based on the property elevation differences of the R-3 and the two I-L properties which in itself would cause a topographical separation. He failed to point out that the property to the west is at an elevation of only 17.5 feet, causing a considerable differential in elevations when the R-3 property is filled to its final grade. However, the building site elevation of the property to the north is filled in accordance with Grading Plan #74-204D to an elevation of 29 feet, causing little or no elevation differential with the proposed ele- vation of the R-3 property. Therefore, an elevation differential is not a means of providing a zoning separation and is invalid for recommending the discontinuance of a zoning wall to the north. The length of the common property lines at issue between the R-3 property and ajoining I-L properties are as follows: The common property line to the north is 477 feet while the length along the west line is only 460 feet with only 340 feet actually adjoining the Dunphy property. Therefore, the zoning wall length to the north os gteater and more emphasis should be de- voted in this area in observing the original concept of a zoning wall re- quirement as established to provide security separation and screening. Due to the number of apartment units proposed, it can be estimated that as many as 100 children could be living within the complex with no play area other than their 10 by 10 patio slabs. If a security zoning separation is not provided, the owner of the property to the north refuses to accept any responsibility of impending injuries and through legal action will revert any liability to the developer and the City of Chula Vista for neglegance in conforming to the ordinance requiring security separations. For the sake of screening and noise abatement to the north, it must also be emphasized that the future I-54 freeway lies less than 200 feet to the north of the property and will be at an elevation level with the proposed apartment complex. In closing, all that is requested is that whatever zoning wall that is app- roved along the west property line also be required along the north, and to also include similar concrete drainage "V"'s as required along the west. -3- Should it be determined that no zoning wall or fence of any nature be required to separate the industrial property to the north, it is requested that it be so stated in writingby the director of planning and the Planning Commission in order to preclude any future obligation of a zoning wall in conjunction with any industrial project commensurate with I-L zoning specifications. ~~~~~ T.A. Richie Copies to: Councilmen Jim Hoble Will Hyde Gregory Cox Lauren Egdahl Mr. George Chandler