Loading...
Resolution 1995-08 . . RESOLUTION NO. 95-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING APPLICATION AjS 94-25, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN APPROVAL, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A 112 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 69.8 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LONGMEADOW DRIVE, BETWEEN CALLE DEL REY AND RANCHO HILLS DRIVE, APNS 783-21-014, -029, -035, -036 AND 783-41-060. WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad has made application PUD: AjS 94-25, for planned unit development approval of a 112-1ot single family residential subdivision on approximately 69.8 acres located south of Longmeadow Drive, between Calle Del Rey and Rancho Hills Drive, APNS 783-21-014, -029, -035, -036 AND 783-41-060, such property as is outlined on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and, WHEREAS, the design approval sought under this planned unit development application is in furtherance of the fourth phase of a larger development project, known as "Hillcrest"; WHEREAS, the tentative map creating the 112 lots affected by PUD: AjS 94-25 was TM 94-04; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared and circulated in connection with TM 94-04 an expanded initial study in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and, WHEREAS, following its independent review of the initial study, the city prepared and circulated in accordance with CEQA a Negative Declaration for TM 94-04 with 30 mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program; and, WHEREAS, this City Council, following a duly noticed public hearing on TM 94-04 on November 21, 1994, approved the negative declaration as having been completed in compliance with CEQA and resolved that TM 94-04 should be approved with conditions, thereby enabling the creation of the subject 112 single family lots; and, RESOLUTION NO. 95-8 -1- . . . WHEREAS, the Gilroy City Planning Commission, at their duly noticed public meeting of January 5, 1995, voted to recommend approval of PUD: A/S 94-25, subject to the 17 conditions as set forth in that certain revised staff report dated December l4, 1994, which staff report is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference; and, WHEREAS, this city Council on January 17, 1995, considered the project along with the proposed conditions and mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program established in connection with approval of TM-94-04 and, based upon substantial evidence produced and before the council, resolved that the project should be conditionally approved; and, WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this resolution is based is the Office of the city Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: A. The Council finds as follows: 1. The project is consistent with the Gilroy General Plan because it conforms to the land use designation for the property on the General Plan Map, and it is consistent with the intent of the text, goals, and policies of the General Plan documents. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the findings (a) through (i) as required in section 50.55 of the Gilroy zoning Ordinance. 3. There is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated may have a significant effect on the environment. 4. The Negative Declaration prepared for TM 94-04, which this Council has previously found has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the city, applies to this project. B. PUD: A/S 94-25 should be and hereby is approved, subject to the mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program set RESOLUTION NO. 95-8 -2- . . forth in the Negative Declaration for TM 94-04 and subject to the 17 conditions contained in Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED this Stl: day of February, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY, KLOECKER, MORALES ROGERS, ROWLINSON, VALDEZ, GAGE NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Donald F. Gage, r ATTEST: '-M~t, . Susanne E. Steinmetz, city Cl RESOLUTION NO. 95-8 -3- . 1 I I E '- PROJECT SITE .. r~ I ,.,. .IT! .' ", PomDl ,~~ - :ri ~-!l.h., , <='~T ~ ~~r.,() r...-~,,- , ~'/' S ' " ~Tr ' \: '~ ~'i i I :.... ------- D 3P; Tree Or. '~ ~. ,..-,---: - "~,'O '/..-',' ',' '. "..ac::' r-=-- --- " I'; ,1.' -ijfi';" 'k:' -..;!~~C1l'" . . " .; -:u.---J ~ I', I ,bin~ ' I ~, :.c., ~' ;~'--; 10 --j 1'CiTi i~C~_, ~:ii f\':ill~ ~~\ -~ ": ' 01 'I 2-. i, =j m! ~R~~' , ' - I I, '9/ Dr. Salis , Mantelli LOCATION MAP FOR TM 94-04 & A/S 94-25 EXHIBIT "An . Planning Department STAFF REPORT . . December 14, 1994 File Number: NS 94-25 Revised Staff Report Applicant: Kaufman and Broad - Monterey Bay Location: South ofLongmeadow Drive, between Calle Del Rey and Rancho Hills Drive Staff Planner: Melissa Durkin REOUESTED ACTION: Planned Unit Development review of a 112 lot single family subdivision. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Parcel Number: Parcel Size: Flood Zone 783-21-014,029,035,036 and 783-41-060 69.8 acres (total for the site) "B", Panel # 060340000IC Panel Date: 10/06/81 STATUS OF PROPERTY: Existing Land Use Vacant Land General Plan Designation Low Density Residential Zoning RI-PUD STATUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Existing Land Use N: Single Family Homes S: Single Family Homes E: Single Family Homes W: S.F. Homes, Vacant General Plan Designation Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential LDR, Residential Hillside Zoning RI-PUD, R1 RI-PUD, R1 RI-PUD, R1 RI,RH CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLAN: The proposed project confonns to the land use designation for the property on the General Plan map, and is consistent with the intent of the text of the general Plan Document. This project confonns with the policies of Gilroy's General Plan. The following example demonstrates this compliance: EXHIB IT "B" . Staff Report A/S 94-25 - Revised . Page 2 12/14/94 Urban Development and Community Design (Section II): Policy 3: .Urban Development will only occur within the incorporated portion of the Planning Area. Land will therefore be annexed to the City before final development approval is given." The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because this land has been within City limits for many years_ Policy 4: "The City will phase development in an orderly, contiguous manner in order to maintain a compact development pattern to avoid premature investment for the extension of-public faciliti<:s and services. New urban development will occur in areas where municipal services arc available and capacity exists prior to the approval of development in areas which would require major new facility expansion. The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because this property is surrounded by developed residential property, and municipal services are currently available at this site. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: NEGATIVE DECLARATION An expanded initial study has been prepared for this project. The study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, however, the applicant has agreed to individual mitigation measures which will avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impacts will occur. A Negative Declaration, with 30 mitigation measures, has been adopted for this project, RELATED APPLICATIONS: TM 94-04: Tentative Map approval for the subdivision of a 69.8 acre site into 112 residential lots and four remainder lots. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS APPROVALS: This PUD application is the fourth phase of the Hillcrest development, and consists of 112 single family lots. The previous phases consisted of Hillcrest phase I, which was the approval of65 lots north ofLongmeadow Drive and west of Santa Teresa Boulevard; Hillcrest Phase n, which was south of Longmeadow Drive and west of Calle del Rey, and consisted of 47 lots; and Hillcrest Phase III, north ofLongmeadow Drive, and adjacent to Hogan Way and Hillcrest Phase I. Fourteen lots were constructed in Phase III. The total number of houses constructed from these three developments is 126; all of these houses were constructed from only three different models. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: . Staff Report NS 94-25 - Revised . Page 3 12114/94 This project was presented before the Planning Commission's November 3, 1994 meeting. The original proposal included four different model homes, three of which had been constructed in previous phases of this subdivision. At that meeting, the Commission voted to continue discussion of this application to their January 5, 1995 meeting, in order to provide Kaufinan and Broad with an opportunity to increase the number of models which they were proposing for this tract. The Planning Commission stated that they expected a minimum offive or six models to be submitted for their review at the January meeting. ANALYSIS OF REOUEST: The applicant is requesting design review for the proposed construction of 112 detached single family homes on land which totals approximately 69.8 acres. The~e lots resulted from Tentative Map application TM 94-04, and range in size from approximately 5,250 square feet to 9,894 square feet, with an overall density of just under 7.25 dwelling units per net acre. Four remainder parcels were also created from this Tentative Map, and are planned to be split into 140 single family lots in the future. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning overlay is necessary for this project to go forward for two reasons. The first is that several of the lots in this subdivision will be under the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size required for Rllots. The PUD designation allows lots which are less than 6,000 square feet, as long as the total density of the PUD does not exceed 7.25 dwelling units per net acre. The second reason a PUD is necessary for this project is because the homes which the applicant is requesting to construct on these lots are too large to be built within the six foot side yard setbacks required in the Rl zoning district; instead, the applicant plans to construct the proposed homes with a five foot side yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance requires that extra amenities be provided in exchange for the flexibility that the Planned Unit Development allows. The developer is proposing to landscape the front yards of each of the lots in this development in order to fulfill this requirement. No portion of the proposed homes will be pennitted to be set back less than five feet from the side yard property lines. Ten foot side yard setbacks will still be required to be maintained on side yards which are adjacent to a street, in order to maintain visibility for cars travelling on the street. Home Desil!n Hillcrest phases I, II, III and the proposed phase IV, are constructed contiguously, in an area which spans approximately 1/2 mile. In this area, 126 units have been constructed from only three home models. The applicant was originally proposing to construct 112 more units from these same three models, and a new fourth model. However, this application has been revised to include seven models. An eighth model (plan Six) has also been provided as an alternative to Plan Two. Plans One, Two and Three are the same three models which have been Constructed in the previous phases of the Hillcrest development. The remaining models have not been constructed in this area previously. All of these plans come with a two car garage, and have a three car garage option. Each plan also has three alternate elevations. Description of these models are as follows: Plan One: . Staff Report AlS 94-25 - Revised . Page 4 12114/94 Plan One homes will be 1,500 square feet in area, with single-sto!)' ranch style construction. Architectural elements of these homes include front porches with vertical columns, roofs with gable or hip and gable construction, and detailed window framing. Plan Two: Plan Two homes will be 1,667 square feet in area, with two-sto!)' ranch style construction. This model features Queen Anne Cottage style elevated porches, which are detailed with stone or cross-hatched wooden ventilation screens at the fooodation, and columns adjacent to the steps. Plan Two has bay windows, roofs with hip and gable construction, and detailed window framing. Plan Two will be interchangeable with Plan Six. Plan Six and Plan Two are almost identical in design, except that Plan Six is smaller imd less ornate than Plan Two. The applicant is considering retiring Plan Two, and replacing it with Plan Six, but is still proposing both models, until it can be detennined which one is more marketable, Staff believes that the difference between the elevations of the two houses is minor, and therefore the applicant should be allowed to use either model interchangeably. Plan Three: Plan Three homes are 1,755 square feet in area. These homes have two-sto!)' ranch style architecture, and feature irregular roof lines, and varied projections of the external wall. The entrances of these dwellings are emph,,~;ved by fonnai entry ways, decorated with columns. Additional architectural features of this model include bay windows, and roofs with hip and gable construction. Plan Four Plan Four shows a 2,040 square foot floor plan, with single-sto!)' ranch style architecture. This model has a steeply pitched gable or hip and gable root: and features a varied roof line and unique window treatments. A front porch with vertical columns emphasizes the ent!)' way. Plan Five Plan Five is 1,800 square feet in area, with single-sto!)' ranch style architecture. This model looks ve!)' similar to Plan One, except that the front porch area is set closer to the street in Plan Five than in Plan One, so that the massing of the structure is different. In addition, the roof of Plan Five has a much steeper pitch than Plan One, and Plan Five includes a portico, to emphasize the front door. Plan Six S~Report NS 94-25 -tVised Page 5 . 12/14/94 Plan six is 1,619 square feet in area, and is almost identical to Plan Two, except the massing of the two plans differs, Plan Six contains less detail than Plan Two, and places the chimneys in a different location. Plan Six is being proposed as an alternative to Plan Two, and is not considered to be a separate model. Stafffeels that it would be appropriate to allow the applicant to use Plan Two and Plan Six interchangeably. Plan Seven Plan Seven is 1,691 square feet in area, and has two story ranch style architecture. This plan features formal entry ways, distinguished by columns, and has gable or hip and gable rooflines. This model is similar to Plan Three, but is distinguished by a shed roof over the first story, and a less dynamic massing of the roof lines on the second story. Plan Eight Plan Eight is a 2,100 square foot two story structure, which uses ranch style architecture. This model is separated from the other models by its use of varied and interesting roof lines, which include hip, gable and shed roof structures. The second story of this home features bay windows, and the first floor is articulated with porch or portico structures, featuring columns. The applicant is asking for design review approval of all seven of the proposed models, with Plan Two and Plan Six being used interchangeably. However, the applicant is requesting that they be required to construct only five different models in this tract. By approving all seven plans, but only requiring five to be constructed, the applicant will be given the opportunity to determine which models are most marketable, without having to go through design review to add or delete a model. After review of the proposed plans, and with the understanding that Plan Two and Plan Six can be used interchangeably, stafffeels that the seven models which have been submitted are sufficient to meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff would prefer that six models be provided in this tract, although five would be adequate. As mentioned in the original Planned Unit Development staff report for this project, staff is concerned with the construction of two story homes adjacent to the patio lots on Brentwood Lane and Ian Drive. There are 29 of these patio lots, and they are approximately 3,500 square feet in size. The patio homes abut lots five through eight of Hillcrest IV, and the undeveloped southerly portion of remainder lot 114 (see TM 94-04). Placing any ofKaufinan and Broad's proposed two story models on these lots will overpower the patio lots, and will significantly reduce the privacy now enjoyed by the residents of those homes, In the approval of the Tentative Map for this project, The City Council upheld staff's determination that single-story homes should be placed on lots five, six, seven .and eight of this tract, which are adjacent to each other. Therefore, staff recommends that at least two single story models be available at all times. If only two single story models are chosen, staff would prefer that these be either Plan One and Plan Four, or Plan Four and Plan Five, since Plan One and Plan Five are so similar. If the remainder of this parcel is subdivided in the future, the applicant shall be subject to further Architectural and Site Review, and may be required to provide additional St~Report NS 94-25 ~;iSed Page 6 . . 12114/94 models, including single-story models. The applicant shall also be required to provide a relatively even mixture of the models which are selected. Primary access to this development will be provided by Calle del Rey and Rancho Hills Drive, which are both General Plan collector streets. With the completion of the first phase of this development, the applicant will construct Calle del Rey through to Mantelli Drive, which will complete the build-out of that street, The proposed tract map configuration has been designed to provide the most efficient traffic circulation, and is consistent with minimum City development standards. The applicant has worked with City staff and the School District in order to provide a design which would be acceptable to all parties. FINDINGS: In order to grant Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, the Planning Commission and City council must find that the proposed Planned Unit Development will: A. Conform to the Gilroy General Plan in terms of general location and standards of development; B. Provide the type of development which will fill a specific need of the surrounding area; c. Not require urban services beyond those which are currently available; D, Provide a hannonious, integrated plan which justifies exceptions, if such are required, to the normal requirements of this ordinance; E. Reflect an economical and efficient pattern of land uses; F. Include greater provisions for landscaping and open space than would generally be required. G, Utilize aesthetic design principles to create attractive buildings and open space areas which blend with the character of surrounding areas; H Not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effects on surrounding areas; and I. Provide adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve this request for the following reasons: A. The proposed project conforms to the land use designation for the property on the General Plan map. and is consistent with the intent of the text of the General Plan document; St~Report AlS 94-25 'viSed Page 7 . 12114/94 B. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve the proposed project are in close proximity along First Street and Wren avenue. C, There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this project due to the required mitigation measures to be applied at the development stage; and D. As submitted, the proposed development is consistent with the necessary PUD findings A through I, as stated under Zoning Ordinance section 50.55. E. There is adequate variation among the proposed home plans to provide variety within this future neighborhood. If this project is approved, staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the approval of the project: !. Exterior Lighting: No unobstructed beam of exterior lighting shall be directed outward from the site toward any residential use or public right-of-way. 2. Mechanical Appurtenances: Mechanical equipment to be located on the roof of a building shall be screened by an architectural feature of the building, such that it cannot be seen from ground level at the far side of the adjacent public right-of-way, whenever possible. 3. Building colors shall be earth tones subject to Planning Department review and approval. 4. All utilities constructed to, through and on the site shall be constructed underground. 5. All sets of building plans shall contain the following wording: "If archeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is detennined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be fonnulated and implemented." 6. The overall project shall comply with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 5.50, "Site Design Requirements", pertaining to proposed individual dwelling unit designs, 7. Street names are subject to approval of the City Public Works Department. 8, Street addresses shall be assigned by the City Public Works Department. 9. All proposed fencing must meet the requirements of the City Planning Department. I 0, All dwelling units shall maintain ten foot side yard setbacks when adjacent to a street on a comer lot. No wall of any dwelling unit shall have less than a five foot setback to the side yard property line. Sta~Report A1S 94-25 ~vised Page 8 . 12/14/94 II. The applicant shall landscape the front yard of all lots. Landscaping plans including specifications for an irrigation system shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director in accordance with the City's Consolidated Landscaping Policy, prior to the issuance of a building permit, The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in an orderly, live, healthy and relatively weed-free condition, in accordance with the adopted landscaping policy. 12. Single story homes shall be required on lots five through eight of this subdivision. 13. Future development of the remainder parcels in this tract shall be subject to Tentative Map and Architectural and Site Review approval. Additional or alternative models may be required to be provided on these future lots. 14. Plan Two and Plan Six shall be considered to be one model, for the purposes of selecting which models will be constructed. IS. All models selected shall be constructed in relatively equal numbers, subject to approval of the Planning Director. 16. At least five different models (two of which are to be single story) shall be available to buyers at all times. 17. Mitigation Measures I through 30, contained within the Negative Declaration for this project, shall be applied to the approval of the project in order to reduce and/or eliminate all potential significant impacts to a level of insignificance, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Respectfully, ~f)~ Michael Dorn Director of Planning 1-5-95 At their meeting of January 5,1995, the Planning Commission, by a voice vote of 6-0-1 (Commissioner Puente absent), recommended approval of AIS 94-25,.subject to 17.conditions as set-forth in the staff report. . . I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 95-8 is an original resolution, duly adapted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held an the 21st day of at which meeting a quorum was present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Februarv , 19--2L, Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 27th day of 4~cf:;i~ Februarv ,1995. (Seal)