The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21-Planning . . CI19 OF SAN BERNARDI~ - REQUEOr FOR COUNCIL AC~N Frank A. Schuma From: Planning Director Subject: Appeal of Condition of Approval for Review of Plans No. 85-23 Dept: Planning Mayor anu Council Meeting of June l7, 1985, 9:00 a.m. Date: June 5. 1985 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Previous Planning Commission action: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on May 2l, 1985. the following action was taken: The appeal of condition nos. l,a, and l.b. of previously approved Review of Plans No. 85-23, was denied, Vote: 7-l. 1 absent. RecommentJed motion: That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected. Q ---,l-G- y<- o Signature Frank A. Schuma Contact person: Frank A. Schuma Phone: 383-5057 2 Supporting data attached: Yes, Staff Report Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: Finance: Council Notes: Am>ntb It<>", Nn 2/ . . 00' 0 PARKLAND ENGINEERING, INC. . 577 North "D" Street, Suite 106 San Bernardino, California 92401 (714) 888-3707 MAY 31 st. 1985 To; THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO,CA. 92418 ~ :3 ~ v.> - RE REVIEW OF PLANS.' No. 8S':23.,\ .." J:> W - GENTLEMEN, AT THE HEETING OF APRIL 11, 1985, THE IJEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVED THE ABOVE PROJECT OF i16 APARTHENT UNITS, WITH CERTAIN SPECIAL COND I TI ONS. WE REVIE\~ED THESE WITH OUR CLIENT, AND WE AGREED TO ALL OF THEM EXCEPT THE ONE ON PAGE two OF THE CONDITIONS, ITEMS NUMBER la,and lb., BOTH OF WHICH RELATE TO THE SQURE FOOTAGE OF THE DWELLING UNITS. \olE APPEALED THE CONDITION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR HEETING OF HAY 21st. 1985. AT WHICH TIME THE COMMISSION ELECTED 8Y A MAJORITY, TO SUPPORT THE STAFF CONDITION. WE RECENTLY RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM TH[ CITY FOR THIRTY FOUR UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TH I S SUMMER, OF ALHOST I m:NT I CAL UN I T g I ZES. AND S I NeE THE CITY HAS NO ORDINANCE GIVING GUIDELINES TO APARTMENT SIZES, WE FELT SECURE IN PROCEEDING WITH OUR CURRENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO TRIED TO INCORPORATE THE BEST ACCESSORIES AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, AND CREATING AN ATTRACTIVE AND DESIRABLE PLACE TO liVE. HUCH THOUGHT WENT INTO THE LAYOUT OF THE FLOORPLANS, AND WE CANNOT f\GREE THAT THE ARB lTRARY SEL- ECTION OF A UNIT SIZE CAN CREATE A BETTER DWELLING ENVIRONMENT. WE ARE AWARE THAT LARGER UNITS ARE BEING PLANNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN THE NORTH END OF THE CITY, AND IN THE COLLEGE AREA. WE ARE AI.SO AWARE OF THE HIGHER RENTS BEING ASKED FOR THESE UNITS. PLESE FIND ENCLOSED REDUCED COPIES OF TilE PLANS AND SITE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH OUR ORIGINAL PLAN REVIEW PACKAGE. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE ABOVE MATERIAL, AND SUPPORT US IN OUR 'ATTEMPT TO CREATE AN ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT IN AN OTHER- WISE RATHER 8LEAK AREA. SHOULD YOU REQUIRE ANY FUTHER MATERIAL OR INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL HEETING, PLEASE CONTACT EITHER THE DEVELOPER/BUILDER, OR MYSELF. YOURS VERY TRULY, PAm:]GI"''''', ~ U. ~... Michael J.Balley. r" , , '~. rt r,' 1Ir-., 10Y ,...J\):"; ~. ........:. .. i ~ (") f'T1 .2. 'n "' \ :.' .~ -< ' " " rn ~ . . .' . 0 0 0 0 ~zz ~ -.. ~ '- , ,( , ~ I \, I I I I I I 1- , j I I: :' t . : ; I << ~ j!:' ; ~:t! c ~ I . II 0 r ~ H ~ I g I , . .' . .~ ,c ! . !li, ~ I . ON ~ .~ - .... .c . , - , .. z ~. ;, 0 :C; ~, ~ . . >> I . 'I'" . <D "', !. ; "I D I. i >- ,. ~ m Id . i' ' ..... ... " f 8 ~ 0 ... & r ~ I a: .... ~ . .. . ~. . :t ~~ ... l? i I ~ a: ~ 1 . ., Go " '. : n' ;.:~~:;.. ~..'~ . .: i: .. " (/) liH I ' . "~'l z ..~' -< ..,.. ..J Go lUE !'~ L~ '@ 1 1.1\ . I ~ , :* : ' Q c:::= il t) or; II ~, -- ~ .~ o 0' o ',IA, """"/4 .~ i!, '''.' .1 f tItl .. \! ~~'ii . l <I. II \ . .....,....-aN .f1fI'.~__ ..-.q_. 1Tn :::-~:.::...n-===-~-::::'l ..->-<- "-~-, ~-' .,r I' . ~ . :. . .' . o ., ; 1 \' , I I f '< j I , ~ I -'- --' - "":>-<" --' . -""'>-<:'". ":>-<"' . ->< . ~ ~ilI.U."N . .'....." " ~ - Lj Irj ~, . .. l i'f~ji " "'i . '. !; : ';.~lJ !!4 '~ll "d~ ......-. ~ o . ~ Y I \. . .~. .." ( o o ( o . )"... ,.. . ....~/r. .~. \',... J. ",,-,",. ~ '\. i '-, . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNI/, 92418 ....' ,; . ",./ ..:....~, .','1 .,,;,...',(.. ;.;,0'" H ~: W.R. "BOB" HOLCOMB Moyor Members of the Common Council Robert A. Castaneda . . . . . . . . . First Ward JKkRellly............. . Second Ward Rlllph Hernandez . . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward 5t.veMarks........ ... .. FourthW.rd GordonQulel.............. FlfthW.rd Dan FrilZler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sixth Ward Jack Strickler . . . . . . . . . . . .seventh Ward May 30, 1985 Parkland Engineering, 577 North wGB Street, Suite 106 San Bernardino, CA 92401 Dear Sir or Madame: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on May 21, 1985, the following action was taken: The appeal of condition nos. l.a. and l.b. of previously approved Review of Plans No. 85-23, which permitted the construction of a 216 unit apartment complex on approximately 10.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 780 feet on the north side of Baseline Street and being located approximately 1,000 feet west of the centerline of Victoria Avenue, was denied. If no appeal is made, within ten days, pursuant to the prov1s1ons within the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action of the Commission shall be final. ~~ FRANK A. SCHUMA Planning Director cc: Building and Safety Dept. Engineering Division mkf Sandlewood Park P.O. Box 7892 Newport Beach, CA 92660 , .. . CCITY OF SAN BE~ARDINO 0_ MEMORANDUIWl To Planning Commission From Planning Department Subject APPEAL OF REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 85 - 23 D~e May 21, 1985 Approved ITEM NO, 14, WARD NO. 2 Date OWNER: Sandlewood Park P.O. Box 7892 Newport Beach, CA 92660 APPLICANT: Parkland Engineering 577 North "G" Street Sui te 106 San Bernardino, CA 92401 The Development Review Committee approved Review of Plans No. 85-23 at their meeting of April 11,1985. Review of Plans No. 85-23 amended #1 proposes to construct a 216-unit apartment complex. The subject pro- perty encompasses 10.49 areas net and is located on the north side of Baseline and easterly of Sterling Avenue, westerly of Victoria Avenue. The Development Review Committee felt that in order to insure a high quality project and achieve compatibility with apartment complexes approved in the City in the preceedi ng year, the unit si zes of the apartments proposed through this project should be brought into consistency with the unit sizes recently approved and recommended by the Planning Department. The proposed unit si zes for th e subject apartment complex are as follows: bed room - 550 square feet 2 bedroom, 1 bath - 748 square feet 2 bedroom, 2 bath - 752 square feet To bring the unit sizes in compatibility, the Development Review Committee attached a condition of approval for approval of Review of Plans No. 85-23 requiring an enlargement of the unit sizes from 550 square feet to a minimum of 650 square feet for the one-bedroom units and from 748 square feet and 752 square feet to a minimum of 800 square feet for the two-bedroom units. The unit size requirement was established through condition of approval 1 a. & b., which the appli- cant has elected to appeal. The Planning Department's recommendation to increase the proposed unit size is predicated upon the project's compatibility with apart- ment projects recently approved located in the same area as the pro- posed project and within the City in general. .. .2 elr" Oil rH.=-~ . o o o o Appeal of Review of Plans No. 85-23 May 21, 1985 Page 2 The issue of compatibility through the Review of Plans process is reflected within the required findings of fact as specified in the City of San Bernardi no Reso 1 uti on 83-48 whi ch reads as follows: A. That the development plans comply with all provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the Uniform Code incorporated into the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and the Standard Requirements established by the City. B. That the buildings, structures and development, and use thereof, shall be compatible with and not detrimental to each other, and shall 1 i kewi se be compati b 1 e with and not detrimental to the zone within which such project shall be established, so that property values may be preserved and orderly development of land in the surrounding areas may be assured. C. That nei ghbori ng uses and structures wi 11 be protected against noise, vibration and other offensive, objectionable conditions by generally accepted methods. D. That lighting is arranged so that light is reflected away from adjoining properties. E. That all proposed signs are in conformance with Chapter 19.60 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. F. That the overall development is designed in such a way as to assure pedestrian safety and provide for efficient and safe traffic flow. Finding B as listed above addresses the issue of compatibility of the proposed 216-unit apartment complex to that of other recently approved apartment complexes wi thin the neighborhood and the State College Area, where the bulk of the City's new apartments are located, a sur- vey of unit si zes, both exi sti ng and proposed, was conducted wi th the following results. .. .3 . . . 0 0 0 0 Appeal of Review of Plans No. 85-23 May 21, 1985 Page 3 Case Uni t Si ze (Sq. F t. ) Reference Location No. of Unit s l-BR 2BR RP 84-46 West side of Rockford, 178 850 960 north of Highland RP 83-30 East of Arden, south 192 638 916 of Hi gh 1 and Vi ctori a East side of Victoria, 144 624 775- Vi 11i age south of Highland 850 (County) CUP 83-17 North of Citrus, 72 1413 east of Vi ctori a RP 83-84 South side of Pumalo, 328 580 775- west of Arden 824 CUP 84-14 Southeast corner of 96 572 840- Central and Highland 912 CUP 84-53 Northeat corner of 516 652 85g. University Parkway & 862 I -215 Freeway CU P 84-63 Northwest corner of 276 638 777- Kenda 11 Dri ve & 864 Pine Avenue CUP 84-66 Northeast corner of 312 680 830- University Parkway & 982 Co 11 ege Avenue CUP 84-78 South side of Kendall, 580 679 846- east of Little Mountain 878 RP 84-29 Northeast corner of 20 800 Sheridan Road & Devils Canyon Road RP 83-31 Northwest corner of 44 819 Kenda 11 ...4 . . . o o o o Apeeal of Review of Plans No. 85-23 May 21, 1985 Page 4 A review of the above survey indicates that those apartment projects recently approved range in size from 572 to 850 square feet in area for a one-bedrrom unit with an overall average of 657 square feet. The two-bedroom units range in size from 755 to 1413 square feet with a low average of 770 square feet and a high average of 882 square feet. The above referenced averages when compared to the applicant's propo- sal of 550 square feet for a one-bedroom unit and 748-752 square feet for a two-bedroom unit, indicates a negative variation of 107 square feet for the one-bedroom unit and 22 to 130 square feet for the two- bedroom unit. Based upon the survey results, the unit sizes proposed through Review of PI ans No. 85-23 amended *1 are i ncompati b 1 e with the unit si zes approved for comparable apartment projects recently approved within the neighborhood of the project and in the City in general. RECOMMENDA Tl ON Based upon incompatibility of the proposed unit sizes with other com- parable apartment projects, Staff recommends denial of the Appeal of Review of Plans No. 85-23 Amended *1, Condition *1, a. & b. Respectfully submitted, FRANK A. SCHUMA Planning Director . !~Jh -rn1J)- ,SARAH KNECHT Associate Planner . . o 'W . ,...Gi"'4 o o - _ - f1ITI --:- ~-'::- -OIl .....,....." ' . o -"--..I -. , .n.n~ I f7 TIIIIITClri-=-<1< -:-:-, ~ 88' /11/ /I lllll n 1111 (Q)ll--'~ . . __ '. J ' ,,1111111 'f', I ... - ' , . Ii ' \ V . . 1\ .,-'. / ~"Er .j _ . f _, ." I, ' 1- . l::) I ~fllTfllflJTI1~!1ffiTITI ~ . ------ }11U Illl1\HU\UN \H\1l.ll _ -:::-c- ---' . '"><::" . - .. -'><". .51,"._16 ....... _><. . to: o I I I ' i; r' I I j . 1 I : "I~~ :". ,~U _.... .. >> 0, o ~Zl "-. -..'^ ~ '<, co I '- o . , I , t I , " I' t I " ,\ ~' a ' ( ! I I i 1 .' . h I I - ~~ - ,-, I - , -- ~ . ~, . . . . !- . . .' l' . . >, .:;" f::' ,,! 'I : ~ ~ ' . .' J I !I , I ~ i l~ !. 1 ;";':~.:'..~), . ;t: "~,, 1..,.1 ,,:w i :. .. o s', ~ '"I ~ : '" III ~ II ~~H ~ ~JII L IUI -,. > 0 0 0 0 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANN~G DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM # LOCATION CASE Appeal of R.P. #85-23 14 HEARING DATE ~/~I/!l~ ~. ' ". .....J~R',2000 '~ R-I ,I II Jl ---~~~I I w:-= '7 ';--l i:,:g::L" ~i /1 ~\ l.j z ./ ., . WOo, I' 'I ~ ;;" ... r ,--," ---- ,>" 101 R-"':'2~'~~="'::liR" ittB~ t )mI1~11 ::i '''ola)' --- ~J:1'~\-1-_ ,?'- 't f, .. . ~:l WF.'S'ftRN 'YE. :~II, --,~., I I r '1 1 I 'l'I-'l?tlO R I lL'::-':'-::::'=- I .1 '1'1 I R'I '" I I I. '" R I 'I ! 12('i) I 1 I "J' 'I &i? :' ;",1 Ji\ . 'I --1 r, I 'c;,~ 1 [ - , -'\ \)' i . I' 1 ~ r _~ h..,;.L"iL _. ,;::'~.,____. l_." "-~CJ__!__,_,__,..I L,__ l_, o " U 0 , ~ . ",< : . ~ I ' ) I p ~-' I - 720C .,;1, 1:-:'," ',,:, ',,~ I 'j Q: I! ) '_-:-"""rL,:': rl: ;,,,J'\ ", ',1.,__1 II ' ~'-'---"-~\'~ '-ll~<:":'--" I' r ./. t~ i~::2-, ~__. j L__..__-,._ ,>__ , ':..".' , .' 'I I r--!"r ---lr""''',['r l"-- ~ :,:",':',': ""'\j I 1~' :,) ~ .t?'j I I "1 "I "0" --.-..- \... :i/\" - lnr=.,J I 11' fi "1 Ir-1~: => ii II ,:b li::\) ';.;"1-- "f-': '~ .;,,":.} ~.. L"'"~,,'i-"""""') ::.:'--:"'--.. =,=J ~&. .....,_....- ., --'..._. '" .j~TE If-'' :-::11' jl )- I , ... I ~ ; -,I o !II ~ I ~I i L_jl 9T ---, I ' i ...-~ .,,(1 , \.1" GO s6 .. L ~cS ....~. SCHOOL _J Ii . , Ltt..^.~~ 8TH