Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - PA-11-22 Villa Venetia - 11/1/2011CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: j PH -2 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-22: DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES AND BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW COMMUNITY BUILDING AT 2775 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2011 FROM: PLANNING DIVISIONIDEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: WENDY SHIH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: WENDY SHIH (714) 75475136 WEN DY.S HIH@COSTAM ESACA.GOV RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution to uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planning Application PA -11-22, a design review and variance for a new community building for the residents of Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village apartments. The application includes the following: 1. Variance from maximum number of stories and building height requirements (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/44 feet proposed). 2. Deviation from the Residential Design Guidelines for second -to -first floor ratio (80 percent maximum recommended; 86 percent proposed). BACKGROUND: Project Site Villa Venetia is a 468 -unit apartment complex bounded by Adams Avenue, Mesa Verde Drive East, and Golf Course Drive. It was originally developed as part of a larger residential community, which includes the 496 -unit Pine Brook Village apartments located across Golf Course Drive to the southeast. Both apartment complexes are under common ownership. The property is zoned R3 (Multiple -Family Residential District) and has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential. The Villa Venetia apartment community features a central open space containing a lake, tennis courts, pools/spa, barbeque grilling area, and a leasing office with a community/fitness center. Meeting History On August 22, 2011, by a vote of 4 to 0 (Commissioner Fitzpatrick absent), Planning Commission denied without prejudice Planning Application PA -11-15 for a 61 -foot high community building. Planning Commission denied the application due to the extent of the variance request for the building height of the proposed community building, which would have exceeded the height of the existing leasing office on the same property by 17 feet: • 61 -foot building height originally proposed • 41 -foot building height of existing leasing building ® 27 -foot building height permitted by Code On October 10, 2011, by a vote of 5 to 0, Planning Commission approved a revised plan for the community building, under Planning Application PA -11-22, for a reduced building height from 61 feet to 44 feet (inclusive of architectural tower and decorative chimney). The architectural tower element was reduced from 61 feet to 41 feet, which is consistent with the existing 41 -foot high leasing office building. The Planning Commission staff report from October 10, 2011 is included as Attachment 3. The video of the public hearing can be viewed on the City's Web page: http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca. us/CM Calendar. htm The applicant's updated letter of justification for the proposed project is attached (Attachment 2). Call for Review by City Councilmember On October 17, 2011, Councilmember Wendy Leece filed a request for City Council review of the project on behalf of the residents from the surrounding neighborhood. The attached review application included the following concern: "After reviewing the decision by the Planning Commission, it is [her] opinion that the Costa Mesa Zoning Code is not being followed in approving the variance". (Review Application, Attachment 3). ANALYSIS: . Variance Findings The variance approval is based on three legal findings; two of which are questioned in the review application: Variance Finding la: Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. [Section 13-29 (g) (1) a.] 19 Variance Finding 1b: The deviation granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. [Section 13-29 (g) (1) b.) De Novo Hearing The purpose of this report is to highlight or clarify the evidence in the administrative record that was presented to the Planning Commission prior to its action to approve the proposed project. This report neither adds any new evidence that was not considered by the Planning Commission nor provides any further justification for the approval of the variance request. As a de novo hearing, City Council may act to uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision. Evidence for Required Findings State Law requires that the variance request be considered in an equivalent manner and subject to similar expectations, requirements, and limitations as would be required for other properties in the identical zone and in the vicinity. With regard to the two variance findings in question, following is a summary of the Planning Commission's consideration of evidence in the administrative record prior to rendering a decision on the project. The unique size shape and location of the 20 -acre property represent special circumstances to iustify approval of the variance request. fPage 5 of 10/10/11 PC Report.l Special circumstances applicable to the property exist to justify approval of the variance from number of stories and building height requirements. Specifically, the variance could be justified due to the unique size, shape, and location of the parcel, which is 20 acres, more than twice the size of other multiple -family residential properties in the immediate area. The property is also uniquely shaped and bounded by Adams Avenue, Mesa Verde Drive East, and Golf Course Drive. The community building would only be visible off-site from Golf Course Drive and the apartment buildings immediately surrounding the new facility. ® The proposed project shall be "subiect to conditions" to ensure that residential development standards are equivalent to or exceed those required for similar structures located in the R3 zone. Fage 2 of 10/10/11 PC Reportl. W The approval of a variance request does not constitute a waiver from compliance to the other required development standards in the R3 zone. Evidence was given regarding the other residential development standards were either met or exceeded. 1. The proposed building exceeds street setback requirement (minimum 10 feet required; 25 — 32 feet proposed). 2. The proposed project provides additional parking in excess of the existing parking supply (net increase of 89 new parking spaces). The applicant proposes to reconstruct carports and replace an upper deck tennis court with parking for a net gain of 89 parking spaces on the property, including 20 parking spaces in the subterranean parking structure. 3, The outdoor "amenity courtyard" containing the swimming pool satisfies the open space requirement for the project in the same manner as the manmade lake. Technical note: The Zoning Code is silent as to making distinctions between a pool area and an artificial lake, as both would qualify as open space areas. • The applicant indicated that the variance is necessary to realize a substantial property right enjoyed by other R3 zoned properties, but which the property owner cannot enjoy due to such special circumstances and practical difficulties. (Applicant Letter - Attachment 2). In this case, the substantial property right involved the right to provide common recreational facilities desired by the residents in an apartment complex in an R3 zone. The applicant expressed the practical difficulty of the ongoing maintenance of the two -acre . lake, which apparently had become an environmental and maintenance burden on the property owner. The owner wished to exercise his right to replace this passive recreational amenity with an actively -used community building, sundeck, and pool area for the 1.,700 residents Buildings in the R3 zone are required to exhibit design excellence and be compatible in scale and architecture to other on-site structures. [Page 7 of 10/10/2011 PC report]. In addition to replacing the lake with a more active recreational amenity area, evidence was given regarding the proposed community building, which would be similar in scale and architecture to other on-site buildings inclusive of the existing 41 foot high leasing building. The site contains two and three-story structures with heights ranging from 26 feet to 41 feet and the second floor exceeding 80 percent of the first floor. • The intent of the Code related to scale and character of existing residential neighborhood would be still met with the approval of the variance. /Page 6 of 10/10/2011 PC report. There are no other R3 -zoned properties with building height variances in the immediate vicinity. The architectural context of surrounding properties was analyzed. For example, the new building would be located 25 feet to 32 feet from the Golf Course Drive property line (10 feet required) and more than 100 feet away from any Pine Brook Village apartments across Golf Course Drive and more than 300+ feet away from the single family homes at Mesa Verde Collection. The scale and architecture of the proposed building would be similar to the design of the proposed Mesa Verde Senior Residential Community at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Mesa Verde Drive. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: City Council may consider the following alternatives: Uphold Planninq Commission's decision to approve PA -11-22. This would allow the construction of the. project as proposed, subject to conditions and Code requirements. The draft Council resolution has been updated to reflect the discussion contained in this report. 2. Reverse Planning Commission's decision and deny PA -11-22. If Council denies the application, the project may not be constructed as proposed and a similar request involving discretionary approval may not be submitted for six months. However, a proposed building that complies with the height limitations of the R3 zone could be submitted for plancheck at any time. FISCAL REVIEW: Fiscal review is not required. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's office has confirmed the legality.of the Planning Commission's action and approved the draft Council resolutions as to form. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures. If the project is approved, it would be exempt .from CEQA under Section 15303 for New :5 Construction. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. CONCLUSION: De novo literally translates to "anew" "afresh" or "a second time." A de novo hearing is essentially a new proceeding where the proposal is presented to the City Council for final consideration. In its decisionmaking, Council is not restricted to the evidence that was previously presented to the Planning Commission. In this case, the variance request is a discretionary decision that can be approved or denied by the City Council. WENDY S Associate DISTRIBUTION ATTACHMENTS: n K Ir Chief Executive Officer City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Manager City Engineer City Clerk Staff (4) File (2) Gary Polodna Peak West Development LLC. 5347 South Valentia Way, Ste. 240 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 UDR Villa Venetia Apartments LP 1745 Shea Center Dr., Ste. 200 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 1. Draft Resolutions 2. Applicant Letter dated October 20, 2011 3. Review Application 4. Planning Commission Staff Report 5. Location/Aerial Map 6. Plans 0 ATT,4 C H M E N T 1 RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AND APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-22 FOR A DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR A NEW COMMUNITY BUILDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Peak West Development, LLC, representing the property owner UDR Villa Venetia Apartments LP, with respect to the real property located at 2775 Mesa Verde Drive East, requesting approval of a Design Review for a new 23,109 square -foot community building with below -grade parking for use by tenants of both Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village apartments in the R3 zone. The Design Review includes the following: 1. Variance from maximum number of stories and building height requirements (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/44 feet proposed). 2. Deviation from the Residential Design Guidelines for second -to -first floor ratio (80 percent maximum recommended; 86 percent proposed). WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2011, with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project, and PA -11-22 was approved by the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, a review of PA -11°-22 was filed by Council Member Wendy Leece on behalf of residents from the neighborhood; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's action and APPROVES Planning Application PA -11-22 for a design review and variance for a new community building. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1St day of November 2011. GARY MONAHAN Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, JULIE FOLCIK, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 10_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of 12011 City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa H161 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. The proposed. development and use is compatible and harmonious with uses both on site as well as those on surrounding properties. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the building and other site features, including functional aspects of the site development, have been considered. c. The variance for building height and story limit and design review do not have bearings on changing the use, density, or intensity, of the existing property. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not permit a project which is inconsistent with the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation for the property. d. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. e. The cumulative effect of all the planning applications has been considered. B. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (g)(1) because: a. Special circumstances applicable to the property exist to justify approval of the variance from number of stories and building height requirements. Specifically, the variance could be justified due to the unique size, shape, and location of the parcel, which is 20 acres, more than twice the size of other multiple -family residential properties in the immediate area. The property is also uniquely shaped and bounded by Adams Avenue, Mesa Verde Drive East, and Golf Course Drive. The community building would only be visible off-site from Golf Course Drive and the apartment buildings immediately surrounding the new facility. b. The deviation granted is subject to conditions as, will assure that the deviation authorized will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other structures in the same zone and on the same property. (1) The intent of the Code related to scale and character of existing residential neighborhood is still met with the approval of the variance. Buildings in the R3 zone are required to exhibit design excellence and be compatible in scale and architecture to other on-site structures. The proposed structure is similar in scale with the existing development on the property, which contains buildings that also exceed two stories and 27 feet in height. The new building will also be located 25 feet to 32 feet from the Golf Course Drive property line (10 feet required) and more than 100 feet away from any Pine Brook Village apartments across Golf Course Drive and more y C than 300+ feet away from the single family homes at Mesa Verde Collection. The scale and architecture of the proposed building is similar to the design of the proposed Mesa Verde Senior Residential Community at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Mesa Verde Drive. (2) The approval of a variance request does not constitute a waiver from compliance to the other required development standards in the R3 zone. The following residential development standards were either met or exceeded: (a) The proposed building exceeds street setback requirement (minimum 10 feet required; 25 — 32 feet proposed). (b) The proposed project provides additional parking in excess of the existing parking supply (net increase of 89 new parking spaces). The applicant proposes to reconstruct carports and replace an upper deck tennis court with parking for a net gain of 89 parking spaces on the property, including 20 parking spaces in the subterranean parking structure. (c) The outdoor "amenity courtyard" containing the swimming pool satisfies the open space requirement for the project in the same manner as the manmade lake. The Zoning Code is silent as to making distinctions between a pool area and an artificial lake, as both would qualify as open space areas. (3) Additionally, the applicant demonstrated that the variance is necessary to realize a substantial property right enjoyed by other R3 zoned properties, but which the property owner cannot enjoy due to such special circumstances and practical difficulties. In this case, the substantial property right involves the right to provide common recreational facilities desired by the residents in an apartment complex in an R3 zone. The applicant also expressed the practical difficulty of the ongoing maintenance of the two -acre lake, which had become an environmental and maintenance burden on the property owner. The proposed project would allow the owner to exercise his right to replace this passive recreational amenity with an actively -used community building, sundeck, and pool area for the 1,700 residents. c. The building height deviation and design review do not have bearings on changing the use, density, or intensity of the existing property. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not permit a project which is inconsistent with the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation for the property. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g) (14) in that: a. The project meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. This design review includes site 10 planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks. A condition is included to require the provision of a water feature along Golf Course Drive This would also be consistent with the intent of the original approval of the development which included significant water features. b. The proposed development plan meets the broader goals of the General Plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. The proposed building complements and further enhances the existing Italianate architecture on the property with the tower element, covered loggia, arched windows and columns, and cast stone accents/details. All windows on the southwest elevation, facing existing apartments on the same property, will have translucent glass so as to minimize privacy impacts. A condition requiring screen landscaping to include trees, vines, and/or other planting materials, under the direction of the Planning Division, is included to further minimize privacy impacts and to soften the back side of the community building. D. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmentah.. Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 for New Construction. E. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. F. An aesthetic analysis of the compatibility between the site and adjacent residential uses related to shade/shadow impacts, neighborhood character, and privacy, demonstrated limited impacts to onsite residents. The proposed project is considered compatible with surrounding residential uses, including Pine Brook Village, the Mesa Verde Collection, and the proposed Mesa Verde Senior Residential Community. EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA -11-22 Ping 1. Provide landscape screening, including trees, vines, and/or other planting materials, along the west side of the new community building to further minimize privacy impacts and to soften the appearance of the back (west) side of the building. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 2. Any change in the proposed operation of the community building as a residential amenity space may be subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission` approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(0)]. 3. The use of the community building shall be limited to the onsite residents of Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village. Leasing of the building to third parties is expressly prohibited. 4. The building shall not be used as an extension of the leasing office (i.e. provision of additional administrative offices) unless approved by the Development Services Director. 5. Windows on the southwest elevation of the second floor shall not contain clear glass / vision glass unless expressly approved by the Development Services Director after making appropriate findings with regard to privacy impacts. 6. The tower shall not contain any functional bells, clocks, or devices which have noise generating features. 7. The variance from the maximum allowable building height and number of stories shall only be applied to the community building as currently proposed. The variance shall not apply to buildings elsewhere on the property nor any other future changes to the community building unless the appropriate approvals for such a request are obtained. 8. The approved address/unit of the building shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings as part of the plan check submittal package. 9. Detailed exterior elevation plans with corresponding sample color/materials board shall be submitted to the Planning Division as part of the plan check submittal package. 10. Demolition permits for existing structures shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Applicant is notified that written notice to the Air Quality Management District may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. 11. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, ensuring the cleanup of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, PA -11-22 open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission sources. Particulate matter deposits on public roadways are also prohibited. 12. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction —generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day. 13. Grading operations shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 mph. 14. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 30" above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable onsite storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. 15. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the driveway shall be developed without a center concrete swale. Design shall be approved by the Planning Division. 16. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened under the direction of the Planning staff. 17. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. 18. The applicant shall contact the current cable company prior to issuance of building permits to arrange for pre -wiring for future cable communication service. 19. Show method of screening for all ground -mounted equipment (backflow prevention devices, Fire Department connections, electrical transformers, etc.). Ground -mounted equipment shall not be located in any landscaped setback visible from the street, except when required by applicable uniform codes, and shall be screened from view, under the direction of Planning staff. 20. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, additional second story windows, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process such as a design review or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 0 PA -11-22 21. The conditions of approval, Code requirements, and special district requirements of Planning Application PA -11-22 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 22. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange for an inspection of the site prior to the release of utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and Code requirements have been satisfied. 23. If construction activity occurs from March 15 to August 15, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to survey the project site for the presence of any occupied nests of birds and waterfowl within the immediate vicinity of the proposed community building site, no more than three days prior to any construction activity (i.e. draining the lake, recontouring the lake, grading, earthmoving, etc.). If active nests of migratory birds are located, the biologist shall determine reasonable measures to ensure protection of nesting migratory birds. These measures shall depend on factors such as the bird species and the construction schedule. The applicant shall implement the recommendations of the biologist to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director with regard to protection of migratory birds and waterfowl prior to commencement of construction activity (i.e. draining the lake, recontouring the lake, grading, earthmoving, etc.). 24. If construction activity occurs from November 15 to March 15 (wintering season), the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform preconstruction surveys on a weekly basis during the first month prior to construction. The applicant shall implement the recommendations of the biologist to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director with regard to protection of migratory birds and waterfowl prior to commencement of construction activity (i.e. draining the lake, recontouring the lake, grading, earthmoving, etc.). Trans 25. The City will review the need for a pedestrian crosswalk on Golf Course Drive, adjacent to the proposed community building, within one year following the completion of the project. If the need for crosswalk is determined, the applicant shall be_responsible for full cost of providing a flashing crosswalk with decorative treatments and required access improvements. The applicant shall post a bond or similar financial commitment -for an amount of $60;000 towards these improvements. The commitment expires if the need for crosswalk is not determined in the one year following the completion of the project. PC 26. The applicant shall provide a water feature and enhanced landscaping in the landscape setback area along . Golf Course Drive adjacent to the proposed pool area. Schematic drawings for the water feature shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit for the community building to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. it RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO REVERSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL AND DENY PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-22 FOR A DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR A NEW COMMUNITY BUILDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Peak West Development, LLC, representing the property owner UDR Villa Venetia Apartments LP, with respect to the real property located at 2775 Mesa Verde Drive East, requesting approval of a Design Review for a new 23,109 square -foot community building with below -grade parking for use by tenants of both Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village apartments in the R3 zone. The Design Review includes the following: 1. Variance from maximum number of stories and building height requirements (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/44 feet proposed). 2. Deviation from the Residential Design Guidelines for second -to -first floor ratio (80 percent maximum recommended; 86 percent proposed). WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2011, with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project, and PA -11-22 was approved by the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, a review of PA -11-22 was filed by Council Member Wendy Leece on behalf of residents from the neighborhood; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby REVERSES the Planning Commission's approval and DENIES Planning Application PA -11-22 for a design review and variance for a new community building. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1St day of November 2011. GARY MONAHAN Mayor, City of Costa Mesa 85 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, JULIE FOLCIK, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 10_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2011, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2011 City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa 16 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS PA -11-22 A. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. The proposed development and use is not compatible and harmonious with uses both on site and those on surrounding properties. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the building and other site features, including functional aspects of the site development, have been considered. c. The project is not consistent with the General Plan. d. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. e. The cumulative effect of all the planning applications has been considered. B.. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (g)(1) because: a. Special circumstances applicable to the property do not exist to justify approval of the variance from building height and number of stories requirements. b. Approval of the deviation would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. c. Granting of the deviation will allow a development which is not in accordance with the General Plan. C. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(14) because: a. The project does not meet the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. The proposed development is not compatible and harmonious with existing and/or anticipated development on surrounding properties. This includes site planning, landscaping, appearances, scale of structures, location of windows, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. b. The proposed development plan does not meet the broader goals of the General Plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. D. The City Council has denied PA -11-22. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply 17 PA -11-22 to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. 0 Peak West Development, LLC October 20, 2011 Ms. Wendy Shih Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Villa Venetia Apartments Variance Request Planning Application #PA -11-H 22 Dear Ms, Shih: ATTAC H M E N T 2 5347 South Valentia Way Suite 240 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone 303.706.0410 Fax 303.706.0482 As you know, Peak West Development requested a building height variance for a new Community Building with below grade parking to be constructed on the existing Villa Venetia Apartments property. That variance was approved with conditions by the Costa Mesa Planning Commission on October 121h, and has subsequently has been called up for appeal before the City Council. The proposed Community Building will serve the needs of over 1,700 residents of Villa Venetia and the adjacent Pine Brook Village. Both properties are owned by our client, UDR, Inc. The building will house resident amenities including a Fitness Center, Business Center, Media Room, and a Great Room with a demonstration kitchen for hosting resident social activities, and restrooms and an equipment room for the adjacent swimming pool. The building will also house a below -grade parking structure containing 20 parking spaces. Adjacent to the proposed Community Building will be an amenities courtyard containing a resort -style swimming pool, spas, cabanas, barbeque grills, and outdoor dining areas. The Costa Mesa Municipal Code currently allows buildings of two stories with a maximum height of 27 feet on land zoned for residential use. We are proposing a building of two stories over below - grade parking (technically considered three stories) at a height of 41 feet (44 feet including the chimney cap). We believe that the proposed Community Building as designed is appropriate for the site for the following reasons: I ® If the approximately 15,000 square feet of floor area required to house the desired resident amenities were contained in a single floor, the resulting building footprint would reduce the open space on the site to below 40% as required by the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and reduce the land available for outdoor amenities for residents. N Letter to Ms. Wendy 5hih — Page 2 • The current numbers of parking spaces at the property meet the requirements of the original approvals for its development, but are less than what would be provided under current standards. The inclusion of the below -grade parking in the proposed building would help alleviate that shortfall. • The ridge line of the main roof of the building would be 40 feet above grade, and the top of the entrance/elevator tower would reach the height of 41 feet, the same height as the roof of the Leasing Center building which currently exists on the site. We believe that the proposed building is of appropriate scale in relationship to the adjacent buildings. • The building will have sloped tile roofs, stucco walls painted in various shades of ocher, sienna, or umber, awnings, cast stone accents, and wrought iron detailing. The design of the building will reflect and enhance the existing "Italianate" design of the Villa Venetia property, and we believe that its aesthetics will be a positive contribution not only to the property but to the community around it. • Although the proposed building will be seen by motorists and pedestrians on Golf Course Drive, it should not be noticeably visible from adjacent properties other than Pine Brook Village. Again, the proposed building will serve the residents of Pine Brook Village as well, which is under common ownership with Villa Venetia, Our• program requirements for the new Community Building could be accommodated in a two-story structure with a flat roof and without parking. Such a building would be as -of -right under current zoning and therefore not require the variance granted by the Planning Commission. However, we believe that such a building would not be compatible with the ltalianate design of the existing buildings on the site, would not provide additional parking, and would be inferior to the design we have proposed when viewed from Golf Course Drive. Several residents from the surrounding neighborhood commented during the Planning Commission meeting about the loss of the view of the existing manmade "lake" from Golf Course Drive. Our decision to remove the lake was based on two considerations; • While the view of the existing lake may be attractive, the amenities courtyard that is planned to take its place will provide active recreation opportunities that will be more highly valued by the residents of Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village. • Preliminary engineering rep.orts indicate that the existing lake and associated water features are consuming over 20,000 gallons of water per day through seepage and evaporation. The property currently has about two acres of water surface area; our plan is to reduce the size of the water surface by half and install a new pond liner in the remaining water feature areas. This will result in a fraction of the water consumption that currently occurs today, consistent with UDR's "green" approach to both new development and renovation of existing properties. To the best of our knowledge there are no conditions in the original approvals for the project that require the retention of the water features. In summary, we are proposing a plan to update a 1970s era property to meet current market conditions and the needs of our over 1,700 residents. Although this plan could be implemented as - of -right under current zoning, we requested and received a zoning variance in order to improve the I' Letter to Ms. Wendy Shlh — Page 3 quality and Functionality of the design, which we believe benefits not only the property but the larger community as well. We hope that the City Council members will agree. If there is any additional information you require for this planning application, please contact me at 303-706-0410 or gary_polodna0cspres.com . Thank you. Sincerely, Gary Polodna 'lal ATTAC H IM E N T 3 Cosa a iR.E"I011' . I V: City of Cost �" F" .(V -L- � � Costa Mesa !�A' (n�(r' 11 ��,{{ ))�� Appeal of Planning c58Yh130 D6c�slon�R9hd�nn1,220.00 ❑ Appeal of Zoning Administrator/staff Decision -$690.00 Rli INY i WO� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL, REHEARING, 0_-` VIE * Council Member Wend Leece ' Applicant Narr)e ' Y . Address Phone Representing REQUEST FOR: ❑ . REHEARING ❑ APPEAL 7 REVIEW** Decision of which appeal, rehearing, or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.) �LQ►�»ln ilC�c�Zoy��/� �l1 — 22 Vd:11a -Venetia/Apa:�tments, 2775 Mesa Verde -Drive East. Review of the determination by the Planning Commission regarding the Design review and "Variance" from maximum number of stories and building:'-.heightt requirements for a newcommunity- building. Decision by: Planning Commission Reasons for requesting appeal, rehearing, or review: Several residents from the neighborhood of the proposed project have called me to voice their concerns about the proposed project and I am appealing the Planning Commission's decision on behalf of these residents. Also, after reviewing the decision by the Planning Commission, it is my opinion that the Costa Mesa Zoning Code is not being followed in approving the variance. The Zoning Code requires that in order to grant a variance there must be a finding that some special circumstance prevents the property owner from enjoying privileges enjoyed by other property owners with IDENTICAL zoning in the vicinity. This is also required under State law. See Costa Mesa Zoning Code letter (g) findings.(1) (a) and (b) The Planning.. Commission failed to identify any circumstance which prevents enjoyment of privileges'enjoyed by others in the vicinity with identical zoning and failed to identify any other property in the vicinity with identical zoninq. Date: / O—/ 7— / / S ignature: *If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. **Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only — do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: If appeal, rehearing, or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal, rehearing, or review: 0-9, `�yTp MESHES -PLANNING COMMISSION `�. _ crrroenreaars OAGENDA REPORT -17-r^C�HMEHN-17MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2011 SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-22: DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES AND BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW COMMUNITY BUILDING AT 2775 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: WENDY SHIH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER (714) 754-5136 WENDY.SHIH@COSTAMESACA.GOV PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a revised proposal for a new community building at Villa Venetia Apartments. The project was previously submitted under Planning Application PA -11-15, which was denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission on August 22, 2011. This action allowed the applicant to resubmit a revised proposal without the requisite six month delay. The applicant reduced the proposed overall building height from 61 feet to 44 feet (inclusive of architectural tower and decorative chimney). The architectural tower element was reduced from 61 feet to 41 feet, which is consistent with the existing 41 -foot high leasing office building. All other aspects of the proposal remain the same. The applicant requests approval of a proposed 23,109 square -foot community building with below -grade parking for use by tenants of both Villa Venetia (subject property) and Pine Brook Village (across Golf Course Drive to the east) apartments. As an accessory structure providing recreational amenities, the new community building is not subject to additional parking requirements. Other planned improvements which are not subject to discretionary review include parking lot restriping and carport redesigns. The overall net gain in new parking spaces is 89 spaces. The Design Review includes: 1. Variance from maximum number of stories and building height requirements (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/44 feet proposed). 2. Deviation from the Residential Design Guidelines for second -to -first floor ratio (80 percent maximum recommended; 86 percent proposed). APPLICANT The applicant is Peak West Development LLC, representing the property owner, UDR Villa Venetia Apartments LP. RECOMMENDATION Approve by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions. X) APPL. PA -11-22 PLANNING ZONING REVIEW SUMMARY Location: 2775 Mesa Verde Drive East Planning Application: PA -11-22 Request: Design Review: Variance from maximum number of stories and building height requirements and deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for a new community building serving both Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village apartments. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R3 North: R1 (SFR) and C1 (commercial) General Plan: High Density Residential South: PI (Tanager Park); R1 (SFR); R3 (multi -family) Lot Dimensions: Irregular East: PDR -MD (multi -family) Lot Area: 20 acres West: R1 (SFR) Existing Development: 468 -unit apartment complex. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON Development Standard City Requirement Proposed/Provided Lot Size: 12,000 SF 20 acres 844,733 SF Lot Width: 100 FT Approx. 620 FT Density: 1 unit/2,178 SF 1 unit/1,805 SF Open Space includes landscaped areas, walkways, pool, tennis court, and lake : .Open Space 1 40% min. required . 1.. 40% 340,269 SF proposed 43% 366,128 SF ex!stin Building Height: 2 stories/ 27 FTttores/�44FT; Building Setback Golf Course Drive): 10 FT min. 25 FT — 32 FT 2" to 1 s' floor ratio 80% max. 0 /� Building Separation: 10 FT min. 31 FT min. Parking: Covered 471 653 Open 255 162 TOTAL 726 815 CEQA Status Exempt- Class 3 Final Action Planning Commission 1 Existing density and parking approved under Zone Exception Permit ZE-114-69 for a residential project containing both Villa Venetia (subject property) and Pine Brook Village apartments (across Golf Course Drive to the east). The new community building does not trigger additional parking requirements. 2 Variance requested to deviate from maximum building height requirements. 44 ft. building height includes a 2 ft. decorative chimney cap (maximum roof height is 41 ft. for the tower element). 3 Residential Design Guidelines (second floor area calculation includes "open volume" area). 0.4 APPL. PA -11-22 BACKGROUND Project Site Villa Venetia is a 468 -unit apartment complex bounded by Adams Avenue, Mesa Verde Drive East, and Golf Course Drive. It was originally developed as part of a larger residential community, which includes the 496 -unit Pine Brook Village apartments located across Golf Course Drive to the southeast. Both apartment complexes are under common ownership. The property is zoned R3 (Multiple -Family Residential District) and has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential. The Villa Venetia apartment community features a central open space containing a lake, tennis courts, pools/spa, barbeque grilling area, and a leasing office with a community/fitness center. Previous Planning Application PA -11-15 (61 -Foot High Community Building) During the Planning Commission meeting on August 22, 2011, five residents in the surrounding neighborhood spoke in opposition to the proposed community building. The residents concerns included: ® The loss of the existing scenic/lake view from Golf Course Drive which is enjoyed by many passerby's; • Aesthetic impacts of the overall building height; ® Additional approvals of building height variances for the Villa Venetia/Pine Brook development; • Increased traffic on Golf Course Drive. Planning Commission denied Planning Application PA -11-15 due to the height of the proposed community building, which exceeded the height of the existing leasing office by 17 feet. Project Description for Planning. Application PA -11-22 (44 -Foot High Community Building) The applicant reduced the proposed building height from 61 feet to 44 feet -for this application. All other aspects of the proposal remain the same. As described in the previous staff report, the applicant proposes a number of upgrades to the property, including the following: Construct a new Italianate-themed, 23,109 square -foot community building, for both Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village apartments, which will house resident amenities including a fitness center, yoga/exercise room, business center, great room, media room, poker room, and large outdoor patio areas. It will also have below -grade parking. The existing community/fitness center, which is in the same building as the leasing office, will be converted into additional management office space. Reconstruct carports and replace upper deck tennis court with parking for a net gain of 89 parking spaces on the property (includes parking beneath the new community building). 99 APPL. PA -11-22 Reconfigure the manmade lake, canals, and add an "amenity courtyard" with pool, spa, splash pad fountain, cabanas, fire pit and barbeque grills. This application is for the proposed community building, ,which requires approval of a design review, including a variance and deviation from the residential design guidelines. The community building is strictly for the use of residents of Pine Brook Village and Villa Venetia, and it is not proposed to be leased to third parties. Additionally, the building does not include additional administrative office space for leasing purposes. Therefore, as an accessory use, no additional parking is required for the new building. The other site upgrades will comply with applicable Code standards and are included for informational purposes with this application. According to the applicant, the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 30 to 40 short-term construction jobs. The new community building will also create one or two additional positions in property operations. Variance for Building Height & Story Limit The applicant requests approval of a variance to deviate from the maximum number of stories and building height requirement for the new community building (maximum two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/44 feet proposed). The following describes the varying building heights of the proposed community building and a comparison with the previous proposal under Planning Application PA -11-15: Description Proposed Height Proposed Height Above Grade Level Above Grade Level ., ., Partially Subterranean 6 feet AGL 6 feet AGL Parking Structure with 20 Parking Spaces Level 1: 19 feet AGL 19 feet AGL Fitness/Business Center Level 2: 40 feet AGL 40 feet AGL Terrace Kitchen/Great Room/Media Room Roof Tower with Open Volume 58 feet AGL 41 feet AGL Overall Building Height 61 feet 44 feet (58 feet AGL + 36" spire) (includes 2 ft. chimney plus 2 ft. decorative cap above the great room) Net Change in Proposed Building Height 17 feet reduction in overall building height Planning Application PA -11-15 was denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission on August 22, 2011. W APPL. PA -11-22 Code defines building height as the "distance from the grade to the highest point on the roof, including roof -top mechanical equipment and screening." In this case, while the hip roof ridge of the majority of the building is at 40 feet and the tower at its highest point is at 41 feet, the chimney cap is included for an overall building height of 44 feet. For zoning purposes, Code also indicates that any basement level four feet above grade shall be considered a story. Because the partially subterranean basement is six feet above grade at the driveway, it is considered a story for an overall number of three stories for the community building (parking structure + level 1 + level 2 = 3 stories). Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines The design review includes a deviation from the design guideline for second -to -first floor ratio (80 percent maximum recommended; 86 percent proposed). The proposed floor plan and overall design of the building did not change from the applicant's previous submittal. The first floor area is 6,635 square feet, which includes all enclosed building space. The second floor area is 5,693 square feet, which includes the massing calculation of the tower element and open volume space above the yoga/exercise room. ANALYSIS Justification for Approval of PA -11-22 Staff recommends approval of the application because staff believes the following can satisfy legal findings for approval of the project. While the proposal may meet the legal standard to justify variance approval in staffs opinion, it should be noted that the revised proposal has not addressed the community's concerns with regard to the loss of the lake amenity. • The unique size and shape of the 20 -acre lot allows an opportunity to seek relief from the maximum number of stories and building height requirement. Specifically, the parcel on which the new 23,109 square -foot community building is proposed is 20 acres, more than twice the size of other multiple -family residential properties in the immediate area. The community building will provide a centralized location (along Golf Course .Drive) for additional amenities serving both Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village apartments, which were developed together as a 40 -acre, apartment community. Condition no. 2 through 4 limits the use of the community building to onsite residents of Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village, and prohibits any change in the operation of the building as a residential amenity space unless approved by the Development Services Director. The property is also uniquely shaped and bounded by Adams Avenue, Mesa Verde Drive East, and Golf Course Drive. Villa Venetia and Pine Brooke Village apartments straddle Golf Course Drive, which spans between Mesa Verde Drive East and the Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club site. The community building would only be visible off-site from Golf Course Drive and the apartment buildings immediately surrounding the new facility. OL -7 APPL. PA -11-22 Staff believes that it would be appropriate to consider these special circumstances applicable to the property to justify approval of the variance request. Additionally, it would be consistent with the existing apartment community that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1969, under Zone Exception Permit ZE-114-69. The approval includes deviations from maximum number of stories and building height. The project was approved based on its unique qualities as a small planned community, where a comprehensive approach was considered in designing the orientation of structures, landscaping, recreation areas, living unit size and vehicular access separation from pedestrian access. Condition no. 7 states that the variance from the maximum building height and number of stories shall only be applied to the community building as currently proposed. • The proposed building height is considered compatible with neighboring development (Pine Brook Village and Mesa Verde Collection) and proposed development (Mesa Verde Senior Residential Community.) Staff believes that the proposed design and location of the community building will not negatively impact views from on- or off-site. The proposed structure is similar in scale to the existing leasing office building. The new building will also be located 25 feet to 32 feet from the Golf Course Drive property line (10 feet required) and more than 100 feet away from any Pine Brook Village apartments across Golf Course Drive and more than 300+ feet away from the single family homes at Mesa Verde Collection. The scale and architecture of the proposed building is similar to the design of the proposed two to four stories, 52 -foot high Mesa Verde Senior Residential Community at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Mesa Verde Drive. Additionally, existing mature trees line the street in front of the proposed building. The applicant will plant additional trees and plantings within the street setback as shown on the conceptual Golf Course Drive elevation plan and per the City's Landscaping Standards. An elevation plan comparing existing and proposed building heights along. Golf Course Drive is also provided in Attachment no. 4. Some of the two-story apartment buildings on- and off-site were also built over garages (three stories total). The existing two-story, leasing office/community. building has varying roofs ranging from 27 feet to 41 feet above grade. The main roof ridge of proposed community building is 40 feet above grade, which includes four feet of parking structure that projects above majority of the grade (except the lower grade at thedriveway): • Consistent with existing residential properties in the R3 zone. Privacy concerns related to building height and window locations are also addressed through architectural design. The applicant has reduced the proposed architectural tower element from 61 feet to 41 feet, which is consistent with the existing 41 -foot high leasing office building. A decorative cap for the chimney above the great room, which is centrally located on the building and not highly visible from off-site, will bring the overall building height to 44 feet. Therefore, staff believes that approval of the variance for number of stories and building height will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other structures in the same zone and on the same property, which contains buildings that exceed two stories and 27 feet high. APPL. PA -11-22 The tower element of the proposed building is for architectural purposes, enclosing and projecting above the elevator/staircase. The tower does not contain a platform or attic space; therefore, no privacy impacts are associated with views into apartments from the tower. Condition no. 6 does not allow the tower to contain functional bells, clocks, or devices which have noise generating features. The southwest elevation of the proposed building is parallel to Building Y of the apartment complex. Privacy impacts are eliminated because there are no clear glass windows located along this entire elevation. There are four recesses with metal faux windows which are designed to resemble real windows. The single large window featured in the proposed "poker room" is translucent glass and not vision glass. All other building elevations are not adjacent to apartment units. • Shade/shadow effects of the proposed structures will be limited to the onsite residents. The location of the Villa Venetia across from Pine Brook Village limits aesthetic impacts to these properties under a single ownership. The residents of these communities. would be primarily affected by the proposed structure. The architect indicated that the shade/shadow impact to the apartment units is not significant, especially considering that the shadows would not affect any active outdoor recreation use. Additionally, the new community building will be located at an angle to the sun's east -west direction and approximately 30 feet away from apartment Building Y, which is similar or greater than other buildings within the same complex that are parallel to one another. Therefore, the proposed building height is considered compatible with the existing residential structures. The proiect meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines. The design guidelines are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. The site contains two and three-story structures with heights ranging from 26 feet to 41 feet and the second floor exceeding 80 percent of the first floor. Staff believes that the proposed building complements and further enhances the existing Italianate architecture on the property with the tower element, covered loggia, arched windows and columns, and cast stone accents/details. The windows on the west elevation of the proposed community building face existing windows and decks on apartment Building Y. However, all windows on this elevation will have translucent glass so as to minimize privacy impacts and direct views into existing windows on the same property. In order to further minimize privacy impacts and to soften the back side of the community building, staff has included condition no. 1, requiring landscape screening #o include trees, vines, and/or other planting materials under the direction of the Planning Division. Iq APPL. PA -11-22 • Approval of the application will facilitate additional parking, common amenities, and overall upgrade of the property. With exception of the building story/height variance, the project complies with all applicable Residential Development Standards. The project will increase on-site parking by 89 spaces of which 20 spaces are provided in the proposed partially subterranean parking structure. The proposal will create a central community building with additional resort -style amenities for two apartment complexes. The applicant has also indicated that the entire property will be upgraded, and while specific paint colors have not been selected at this time, it will include Italianate color scheme for all new and existing structures. Demolition of the Lake During the August 22, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, residents in the surrounding neighborhood spoke in opposition to the proposed community building. In addition to concerns with aesthetic impacts of the overall building height, the residents were concerned with the loss of the existing scenic/lake view from Golf Course Drive which is enjoyed by many passerbys. From a technical standpoint with regard to zoning compliance, the proposed swimming pool/sundeck would satisfy the open space requirement for the project in the same manner as the manmade lake. Code is silent as to making distinctions between a pool area and an artificial lake, as both would qualify as open space areas. Staff reviewed the original approval of the development in 1969 which did not contain any conditions for the retention of the artificial lake along Golf Course Drive. If Planning Commission wishes to consider a condition that may help beautify Golf Course Drive despite the demolition of the lake, Commission may include the following suggested condition: The applicant shall provide a water feature and enhanced landscaping in the landscape setback area along Golf Course Drive adjacent to the proposed pool area. Schematic drawings for the water feature shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit for the community building to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. This condition may or may not satisfy the community's concerns regarding the loss of the lake amenity but it appears that the. applicant is willing to incorporate a water element into the design. Schematic drawings of a water feature may be available before or at the Planning Commission meeting. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY The building height deviation and design review do not have bearings on changing the use, density, or intensity of the existing property. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not permit a project which is inconsistent with the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation for the property. NN APPL. PA -11-22 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission may consider the following alternatives: Approve the application. This would allow the applicant to construct the community building as proposed, subject to conditions and Code requirements. 2. Deny the application. If Commission denies the application, the proposed community building would not be permitted and a similar request may not be submitted for six months unless the application is denied without prejudice. A community building that complies with City standards (two stories/27 feet high) and Residential Design Guidelines could be permitted at staff level. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures. If the project is approved, it would be exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 for New Construction. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved, CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the application because legal findings could be made to justify approval of the variance to deviate from the maximum number of stories and building height requirement. oe W ND HIH CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP Associate Plan r Acting Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolutions 2. Location Map 3. Plans Distribution: Interim Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Transportation Svs. Mgr. Fire Protection Analyst Staff (4) File (2) `N APPL. PA -11-22 Gary Polodna Peak West Development LLC. 5347 South Valentia Way, Ste. 240 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 , UDR Villa Venetia Apartments LP 1745 Shea Center Dr., Ste. 200 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 File: 101011 PA1122 I Date: 092911 1 Time: 1:30 .m. ,01'�a RESOLUTION NO. PC -11- 50 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-22 FOR A DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR A NEW COMMUNITY BUILDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Peak West Development, LLC, representing the property owner UDR Villa Venetia Apartments LP, with respect to the real property located at 2775 Mesa Verde Drive East, requesting approval of a Design Review for a new 23,109 square -foot community building with below -grade parking for use by tenants of both Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village apartments in the R3 zone. The Design Review includes the following; 1. Variance from maximum number of stories and building height requirements (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/44 feet proposed). 2. Deviation from the Residential Design Guidelines for second -to -first floor ratio (80 percent maximum recommended; 86 percent proposed). WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2011, with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "B", the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES Planning Application PA -11-22 for a design review and variance for a new community building, with respect to the property described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application PA -11-22 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained' in Exhibit "B", as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, State, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of October 2011. C LIN MCCARTHY Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commission cm STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on October 10, 2011, by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS MCCARTHY, CLARK, SALCEDO, FITZPATRICK, DICKSON NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS NONE CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP Secretary, Costa Mesa Planning Commission *34 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS Appl. PA -11-22 A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. .The proposed development and use is compatible and harmonious with uses both on site as well as those on surrounding properties. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the building and other site features, including functional aspects of the site development, have been considered. c. The variance for building height and story limit and design review do not have bearings on changing the use, density, or intensity of the existing property. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not permit a project which is inconsistent with the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation for the property. d. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. e. The cumulative effect of all the planning applications has been considered. B. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (g)(1) because: a. Special circumstances applicable to the property exist to justify approval of the variance from number of stories and building height requirements. Specifically, the variance could be justified due to the unique size, shape, and location of the parcel, which is 20 acres, more than twice the size of other multiple -family residential properties in the immediate area. The property is also uniquely shaped and bounded by Adams Avenue, Mesa Verde Drive East, and Golf Course Drive. The community building would only be visible off-site from Golf Course Drive and the apartment buildings immediately surrounding the new facility. b. The deviation granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other structures in the same zone and on the same property. The intent of the Code related to scale and character of existing residential neighborhood is still met with the approval of the variance. The proposed structure is similar in scale with the existing development on the property, which contains buildings that also exceed two stories and 27 feet in height. The new building will also -be located 25 feet to 32 feet from the Golf Course Drive property line (10 feet required) and more than 100 feet away from any Pine Brook Village apartments across Golf Course Drive and more than 300+ feet away from the single family homes at Mesa Verde Collection. The scale and architecture of the proposed building is similar to the design of the proposed Mesa Verde Senior Residential Community at the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Mesa Verde Drive. 35 Appl. PA -11-22 c. The building height deviation and design review do not have bearings on changing the use, density, or intensity of the existing property. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not permit a project which is inconsistent with the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation for the property. C. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa, Municipal Code Section 13-29(g) (14) in that: a. The project meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential. community. This design review includes site planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks. A condition is included to require at least 50 percent of the lake area visible from Golf Course Drive to be preserved to address the community's concerns regarding the loss of the lake amenity. This would also be consistent with the intent of the original approval of the development which included significant water features. b. The proposed development plan meets the broader goals of the General Plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. The proposed building complements and further enhances the existing Italianate architecture on the property with the tower element, covered loggia, arched windows and columns, and cast stone accents/details. All windows on the southwest elevation, facing existing apartments on the same property, will have translucent glass so as to minimize privacy impacts. A condition requiring screen landscaping to include trees, vines, and/or other planting materials, under the direction of the Planning Division, is included to -further- minimize privacy impacts and to soften the back side of the community building. D,._ .. The. project has-been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 for New Construction. E. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. F. An aesthetic analysis of the compatibility between the site and adjacent residential uses related to shade/shadow impacts, neighborhood character, and privacy, demonstrated limited impacts to onsite residents. The proposed project is considered compatible with surrounding residential uses, including Pine Brook Village, the Mesa Verde Collection, and the proposed Mesa Verde Senior Residential Community. W EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPI. PA -11-22 Ping 1. Provide landscape screening, including trees, vines, and/or other planting materials, along the west side of the new community building to further minimize privacy impacts and to soften the appearance of the back (west) side of the building. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 2. Any change in the proposed operation of the community building as a residential amenity space may be subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(0)]. 3. The use of the community building shall be limited to the onsite residents of Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village. Leasing of the building.to third .parties is expressly prohibited. 4. The building shall not be used as an extension of the leasing office (i.e. provision of additional administrative offices) unless approved by the Development Services Director. 5. Windows on the southwest elevation of the second floor shall not contain clear glass / vision glass unless expressly approved by the Development Services Director after making appropriate findings with regard to privacy impacts. 6. The tower shall not contain any functional bells, clocks, or devices which have noise generating features. 7. The variance from the maximum allowable building height and number of stories shall only be applied to the community building as currently proposed. The variance shall not apply to buildings elsewhere on the property nor any other future changes to the community building unless the appropriate approvals for such a request are obtained. 8. The approved address/unit of the building shall be bluepririted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings as part of the plan check submittal package. 9. Detailed exterior elevation plans with corresponding sample color/materials board shall be submitted to the Planning Division as part of the plan check submittal package. 10. Demolition permits for existing structures shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Applicant is notified that written notice to the Air Quality Management District may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. 11. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, ensuring the cleanup of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, J% APPI. PA -11-22 open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission sources. Particulate matter deposits on public roadways are also prohibited. 12. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction —generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day. 13. Grading operations shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 mph. 14. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 30" above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable onsite storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may , include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. 15. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the driveway shall be developed without a center concrete swale. Design shall be approved by the Planning Division. 16. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened under the direction of the Planning staff. 17. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. 18. The applicant shall contact the current cable company prior to issuance of building permits to arrange for pre -wiring for future cable communication service. 19. Show method of screening for all ground -mounted equipment (backflow prevention devices, Fire Department connections, electrical transformers, etc.). Ground -mounted equipment shall not be located in any landscaped setback visible from the street, except when required by applicable uniform codes, and shall be screened from view, under the direction of Planning staff. 20. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, additional second story windows, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process such as a design review or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 21. The conditions of approval, Code requirements, and special district MM APPI. PA -11-22 --( requirements of Planning Application PA -11-22 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 22. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange for an inspection of the site prior to the release of utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and Code requirements have been satisfied. 23. If construction activity occurs from March 15 to August 15, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to survey the project site for the presence of any occupied nests of birds and waterfowl within the immediate vicinity of the proposed community building site,- no more than three days prior to any construction activity (i.e. draining the lake, recontouring the lake, grading, earthmoving, etc.). If active nests of migratory birds are located, the biologist shall determine reasonable measures to ensure protection of nesting migratory birds. These measures shall depend on factors such as the bird species and the construction schedule. The applicant shall implement the recommendations of the biologist to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director with regard to protection of migratory birds and waterfowl prior to commencement of construction activity (i.e. draining the lake, recontouring the lake, grading, earthmoving, etc.). 24. If construction activity occurs from November 15 to March 15 (wintering season), the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform preconstruction surveys on a weekly basis during the first month prior to construction. The applicant shall implement the recommendations of the biologist to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director with regard to protection of migratory birds and waterfowl prior to commencement of construction activity (i.e. draining the lake, recontouring the lake, grading, earthmoving, etc.). Trans 25. The City will review the need for a pedestrian crosswalk on Golf Course Drive, adjacent to the proposed community building, within one year following the completion of the project. If the need for crosswalk is determined, the applicant shall be responsible for full cost of providing a flashing crosswalk with decorative treatments and required access improvements. The applicant shall post a bond or similar financial commitment for an amount of $60,000 towards these improvements. The commitment. expires if the need for crosswalk is not determined in the one year following the completion of the project. PC 26. The applicant shall provide a water feature and enhanced landscaping in the landscape setback area along Golf Course Drive adjacent to the proposed pool area. Schematic drawings for the water feature shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit for the community building to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. --( i�f 1 ^`Yt°td{f��ffAl C j�l :� "•��� �� t!(a���! t"�� k�.»F� �aa �'t7"ic'iinL V. ' ;'�".� 1* �i,�''�c.r �... � F� �,' ,d +.:art._ �i A � '•ltt—X '°' __ ! ��_ �i �) A F �'r' �t � i'. } i � t t� rj`� �• gar- ��. �: ,� �' f= �, := C , 1 t f Tit, Z21 MIN BONN? 17 y yi1 `r I. P � t �� � 1 • l l yr#' A y nSi�t �, � �. —� .'� _",. ear• •fie � r, --LAM m L ��C 'AXI'R• na �f, .S )All �p Fr Y T lit 4, �� .-, .I ,•fir - ATTA H M E N T £� Sa l �.�, +§.^ ��,. L,e st„}�t•PI.r F-Ke1�,a. H:! i' ' , a Y T venetl"a Apartments Y' ., CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PACKAGE September 7th, 2011 Sheet Index: 01 ( Site Context Plan & Existing Conditions 02 ( Overall Site Concept Plan 03 ( Proposed Amenity Courtyard Area 04 ( Community Building ( Floor Plans 05 ( Community Building ( Elevations 06 ( Parking Study Analysis 07 ( Open Space Analysis 08 ( Golf Course Drive Elevation 091 Conceptual Grading 10 ( Conununity Building Photo Simulations ,I a j ly r 5 :il c_A s L� � e a � ,,•P 16 � .. r • � ;', 4Ni1� � a^ .tet '`+ •kk ^ rl+ - •` � 7 I 1 i L G`P'�� 41 L r ... lT r ..�"AR~y .r1' • i a ay. •/ ! . �r Ir Z'. +..�^� •al�, -1 r't !.r � y S 11lr,ar Z', ,si h Nv, �:.a i ,L tt n , 40 r � s. ,. , '� 'r, ..% '•' '. 4. '`,; ::-= "`, ""'.. � Nt, �...� .N.• _ ^.'t.r 'r±r::':, �}r;-., 1�a!µ+Ln CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PACKAGE September 7th, 2011 Sheet Index: 01 ( Site Context Plan & Existing Conditions 02 ( Overall Site Concept Plan 03 ( Proposed Amenity Courtyard Area 04 ( Community Building ( Floor Plans 05 ( Community Building ( Elevations 06 ( Parking Study Analysis 07 ( Open Space Analysis 08 ( Golf Course Drive Elevation 091 Conceptual Grading 10 ( Conununity Building Photo Simulations PeakWest Development, LLC NEWMANGARR150 LRBNITECTURE+PLRIINING � .o. Bon siREn SNRF •to D IIFwRORi BwtN. CR „eeo �r P.9:87SaRIB '--1 Z Ln Ln +1 LandStudio360 Client UDR Highlalids Ranch, Colorado Project Management PeakWest Development, LLC Greenwood Village, Colorado Architect NewmanGarrison + Partners Newport Beach, Califoi72ia Landscape Architect LandStudio360 Orange, Califot7Tia � e a � ,,•P 16 r • � � i s 4Ni1� st Y n. �t 40Asn PeakWest Development, LLC NEWMANGARR150 LRBNITECTURE+PLRIINING � .o. Bon siREn SNRF •to D IIFwRORi BwtN. CR „eeo �r P.9:87SaRIB '--1 Z Ln Ln +1 LandStudio360 Client UDR Highlalids Ranch, Colorado Project Management PeakWest Development, LLC Greenwood Village, Colorado Architect NewmanGarrison + Partners Newport Beach, Califoi72ia Landscape Architect LandStudio360 Orange, Califot7Tia Villa Venetia Apartme Overall Site Conce t Plan UDR I Peak West I Costa Mesa, California I July 22nd, 2011 0 40 80 160 Scale: 1" = 40'-0' • 0 Secondary Pool Courtyard • .0 Cantilevered Parking • 0 Community Amenity Area with Fireplace, Charcoal BBQ, • and Seating Area • • 0 Lakeside Firepit and Seating Area • 0 Lake Overlook • : 0 Community Seating Area with Re -Configured Fountain • ' 0 Two -Level Parking Deck with Removal of • • Existing Tennis Courts • mCommunal Seating Area with Charcoal BBQ • • 0 CommunityAmentiy Area with Charcoal BBQs, Fountain and Dining Area • • 0 Lake Overlook with Firepit • • • ® Multi -Purpose Passive Turf Area • ® Re -Defined Lake Edge with Geyser • ® Apartment Community Walkway • • 0 Communal Seating Area with Re -Configured Water Feature ' ® Vehicular Entry Gate • • • 0 Future Resident Parking • • •0 Leasing Office • 0 Proposed Amenity Courtyard with Pool, Spa, Splashpad • Fountain, Cabanas and BBQspeeseeecwil veneiroo3) • ' Q Resident Parking Access Drive from Golf Course Drive • • New Community Building • • • Secondary Spa Amenity Courtyard :CONCEPT SCHEMATIC :PACKAGE : Concept Plan : Overall Site Concept Plan : • • July 22nd, 2011 ndStudio3,, Lan d scapeArc h itectu re r Villa Venetia Apartments Proposed Amenity Courtyard Area UDR I Peak West I Costa Mesa, California I July 22nd, 2011 0 20 40 80 Scale: 1" = 20'-0' D LEGEND ' '. . ... a ...... • 0 Water feature with water troughs/decorativespitters : and signage on wall • • 0 object d'art or sculpture • Parterre garden • • Raised seat wall with specimen tree as focal point • • • Entry portico • : Fire pit with soft seating area • • Spa pool with water spitter • • 0 Swimming pool (4,1505.F..) with beach entry • : 0 Pop -jet Fountain (20'x 20') with seat walls on 3 sides • • 0 Cabana (10'x 10')-7 total; with daybed and/or sectional sofa, !Pod hook-ups, & ceiling fan in each cabana • • ® Entry court to Community Building and pool area entry • • • ® Wall Fountain • ® Fireplace with soft seating furniture lounge area • Restrooms (4005.F.) • • Shower alcove • : I0 Pool equipment room (4005.F..) • ® Tubular steel pool fence (5'high) • • 6' high CMU wall with plasterfinish to match architecture • • Arched colonnadetomatch architecture ofCommuniityBuilding • • Outdoor kitchen area with BBQ grills (7 total), covered • ice bucket, and bar counter w/ 6 barstools • • ® Chaise lounge (112 total) • : Table with 4 chairs with umbrella (10 total) • ® Table with 2 chairs (3 total) • • • Lounge Daybed (6 total) with umbrella (5 total) ® Sand Chair (8 total) • • 0 Colored concrete with retardant finish • ® Colored concrete pavers set on concrete sub base • : Stone paving set on concrete sub base e • • p -F1 I r C 11 �� where [ Q :CONCEPT SCHEMATIC :PACKAGE : Concept Plan Proposed Amenity Courtyard Area • • July 22nd, 2011 ®SUBTERRANEAN PARKING LEVEL 9eutO/R•i'P Villa Venetia Apartments o�`6�� ndStudiProplosed Communis BuildingFloor Plan LandscapeArchitecture I y ? UDR I Peak West I Costa Mesa, California I September 7th, 2011 OPF1J VOLULL FROM BELOW LOW ROOF '\ MECH. SHAFT X / tt q L. n L t 4 / •REATRDOM 14 BMW ly !� dL i .I,.:lt. to •L,.tiv�" •�4 L+Jii I' i L L. . DEMONSTRATION RNCHEN ROOM rm. (NO GLASS) LEVEL 2 - FLOOR PLAN I--3$ ELEV:O UP ON n>J LOBBY ENTRY ELEV:O :�. rd469C rd SL dd�A: EW a3y ELEV: •B' iO Nk COVERED PAID %y LWLWi LOBBY --- 1':k �y Yf Tlf W�����LU�LLli� �� Y; , `1� FlTNEss CENTER I 0 0 0 M2 Vit �'I I I I WSJ I,le, VAMEH I I �+vry I. ••: VENDING 31• :.. MEN YOGAIEfTEI RVC1ISEROOM ON ELEVa 2IWSS i-, �7' m1V .o I`'I n••.r `II BUSONI ESS 0 0 y MA -ems r✓ECH. d tragi• ■1iT SHAFT ������ POO�EOUIP. 'X � E" ON ®LEVEL 1 - FLOOR PLAN 9GIP. a/Ji'• ISR 100 45 NEWMANGARRISO ARCHITECTURE i PLANNING MOI DOYESTHU SUIiEi10 D NEnPOaT BET. CA 93990 P.9;9.755.08I8 Z rn to LEGEND Lrs .I..!!!1!!Aax. • • Villa Venetia Community Building • Area Tabulations • • • Conditioned Unconditioned Other Total •IB de Area Bldg Area Area Are. • Parking Level • Building Entry 524 524 SF • Parking Area 7,638 7,638 SF • Mechanical 285 285 SF • Subtotal Parking Level • 524 7,923 0 8,447 SF • • Level • Resident Amenities 5,785 5,7855F • Pool Restrooms 450 450 SF • Pool Equipment 400 400 5F • Covered Patio 1,420 1,420 SF • Loggia 675 675 SF • • Subtotal Level 1 5,785 850 2,095 8,730 SF • Level • Resident Amenities 4,732 4,732 SF • Terrace 1,200 1,200 SF • Subtotal Level • 4,732 0 1,200 5,932 SF • Totals 11,041 8,773 3,295 23,109 SF • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • orals.'=at((=����jjjjj,�n�m�r rtss 11�, �, /�q • Pg®S • where • • :CONCEPT SCHEMATIC :PACKAGE Community Building Floor Plans • • September 71h, 2011 NORTH ELEVATION ovuma f.o o� SOUTH ELEVATION (NOT VISION GLASS) WEST ELEVATION m� 'LASS ASS) EAST ELEVATE 'oIa v.. ���� .fir: 1 ;� `, : Villa Venetia Apartments dStpeArcudi � : Pro oscd Community Building Elcvations tndscapeArchitec�ture i 1 UDR I Peak West I Costa Mesa, Califomia I September 7th, 2011 4Y NEWMANGARRISO ARCHITECTURE. PLANNING .D N DDvf 5u_ SURE.10 i;a N 949.756 6EAOX. CA 9i0ED P:&9756.0618 z 0 • •LEGENDI••�)-t • MATERIAL SELECTIONS • • • Q STUCCO WALLS • • Q STUCCO DETAILS (FOAM) • • Q COLORED ALUMINUM WINDOWS AND DOORS • • 4O CAST STONE WINDOW SURROUNDS OS CONCRETE'S'TILE ROOF • • © WROUGHT IRON RAILINGS • 7O DECORATIVE METAL LIGHT FIXTURES • • © DECORATIVE METAL CHIMNEY CAPS • • O9 CANVAS AWNINGS W/ IRON HARDWARE • • SO CAST STONE WALL CAPS • • 11 CAST STONE ACCENTS/DETAILS • • 11 DECORATIVE METAL ACCENTS/DETAILS • 13 CAST STONE COLUMNS • • ©4 CASTSTONE FIREPLACE SURROUND • • 15 RECESSED GABLE DETAILS W/ IRON • • 16 COMPOSITE WOOD RAFTER TAILS - PAINTED • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • w • where :CONCEPT SCHEMATIC :PACKAGE : Community Building • • Elevations • • September 7th, 2011 ADAMSAVE Bldg. i �c Bldg. M C Bldg. M Bldg. P Bldg. M !.-w— Bldg. P 'd2 P Bldg. N F arm Bldg P Bldg. H 1 4 Bldg. H Bldg. H Bldg. R L . - • val ® now gam Bldg.G • SIdg.E Bldg. F *See Above For Ground Level Parking 7--- LEGEND Lwh at ...... 7w -Lt EXISTING PARKING STALL QUANTITIES L aam Nam nam saw + Villa Venetia Apartments ndStudicpfi�0,� I D I Parking Study Analysis LandscapeArchitebture I UDR I Peak West I Costa Mesa, California I July 22nd, 2011 V4 u 1z' ADAMSAV5 37 47 Total Proposed Stalls 915 Total Stalls Net Gained Stalls 99 Stalls • • • • • • • LEASING OFFICE • • POOL • • BIT.a :nly 5611diN me e!nt 10 king • LEGEND Lwh at ...... EXISTING PARKING STALL QUANTITIES + a Existing Parking in Garages • 185 Stalls Existing Parking Under Carports • 238 Stalls Existing Parking Under Tennis Court 48 Stalls • ExsIting'Parking in Standard Stalls 244 Stalls M • Existing Accessible Parking Stalls 5 Stalls Existing Future Resident Stalls 6 Stalls M Total Existing Stalls 726 Total Stalls PROPOSED PARKING STALL QUANTITIES Parking in Garages 185 Stalls Parking under Carports 400 Stalls Parking in Parking Garage 48 Stalls • Parking atop Parking Garage 40 Stalls —t. • Parking in Community Building 20 Stalls !,-.I Q-- FF. F. I I F 1 I • Parking in Standard Stalls 86 Stalls Parking in Compact 5 Stalls Accessible Parking Stalls 9 Stalls •Future Resident Stalls • 22 Stalls Total Proposed Stalls 915 Total Stalls Net Gained Stalls 99 Stalls • • • • • • • LEASING OFFICE • • POOL • • BIT.a :nly 5611diN me e!nt 10 king • "See Above For Ground Level Parking P o 0 0 o rj fi:i:l:l:l:l s Villa Venetia A artmen Open Space Stud An, sis � � y y UDR I Peak West I Costa Mesa, California I July 22nd, 2011 0 40 00 160 Scale: 1" = 40'-0' • LEGEND L . • TOTAL SITE AREA • • • Total Site • 19.4 Acres • • EXISTING OPEN SPACE • Existing Overall Open Space • 8.4 Acres • • Percentage Overall Open Space 43.2% • • Existing Lake/Un-Usable Open Space • 2.3 Acres • Total Usable Open Space • 6.1 Acres • Percentage Usable Open Space • • 31% • • PROPOSED OPEN SPACE • • Proposed Overall Open Space • 7.8 Acres Proposed Percentage Overall Open Space Proposed Lake/ 40.2% • • Un -Usable Open Space 0.9 Acres • • Proposed Total Usable Open Space • 6.9 Acres • Proposed Percentage Usable Open Space • • 35.6% • • • REQUIRED OPEN SPACE • • City of Costa Mesa Minimum Open Space 40% • where :CONCEPT SCHEMATIC :PACKAGE Concept Plan Open Space Study ` : • • July 21st, 2011 • Pq • � gr • fISY • � r wherel :CONCEPT SCHEMATIC PACKAGE Conceptual Elevation Golf Course Drive- l • September 71h, 2011 .fCk BLDG T (61.71 FF) — mC. , ti ADW CM;Vel j CAAWe 1 e car. cmc L (sa.w FFl H _. fr:64.64l1=6463 .F7-64 CG Facade of Building Y (64,03 FF) ••36x(/9 Back of Right of Way I Property Line Villa Venetia Apartments ndStudio3'� Concc tual Gradin Plan .5D LandscapeArchitecture I g �/ UDR I Peak West I Costa Mesa, California I July 22nd, 2011 1 N S:1 • � 1 • • ASPR t ti • 1 • 1 (6991 FLI 1 \ `}� • 1� . 41L `\ \ \ \ \\ • • • \\ �\aS9H. \ • ORM ( FL) \ \ • • \� \ \ \ • • 4s1cavD - \ •` a e�L7 \ C� \ • (/IN � ,\. 6059 TC • V, B;'.koafR. IOtofWay1 Sou` ; ettytne • /7 \ • : mp • � • a��r� LJ( , • • where • • :CONCEPT SCHEMATIC :PACKAGE Concept Plan 0 20 ab 60 ; Conceptual Grading Scale: 1" = 20'-0' • • July 22nd. 2011 �andStudic Villa Venetia A artrr�ents Community Bu Idin P�10t0 511�1UIat10j1S Landsca.pekcNtecture , b �. UDR I Peak West I Costa Mesa, California I September 7th, 2011 51 � a :CONCEPT SCHEMATIC PACKAGE Photo Simulations Community BuildiN . • September 7th, 2011