Resolution 1995-78
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-78
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING A/S 95-26, AN APPLICATION
FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL OF
MONTERRA VILLAGE, A 34 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX,
ON PARCEL NOS. 790-04-046 AND -066, ZONED
R1/R3-PUD (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
WHEREAS, South County Housing submitted A/S 95-26, an
application for Architectural and site approval for a Planned Unit
Development involving the construction of Monterra village, a 34
unit apartment complex on approximately 2.38 acres of property
zoned R1/R3-PUD (Medium Density Residential, Planned Unit
Development), said property located on the south side of Mantelli
Drive, west of Kern Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, an expanded Initial Study was prepared for this
project, which Initial Study identified potentially significant
effects on the environment that shall be mitigated to the point of
non-significance by mitigation measures which the applicant agreed
to include in the project; and,
WHEREAS, there being no substantial evidence in light of
the whole record before the public agency that the proposed project
may have a significant effect on the environment, a Negative
Declaration with 30 mitigation measures, was prepared under GPA 93-
02, and approved by the City Council in accordance with California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed A/S 95-26 at
its duly noticed meeting on October 5, 1995, and recommended that
the City Council approve the project, subject to 17 conditions set
forth in the Staff Report dated October 6, 1995, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed application A/S 95-
26 and all documents relating thereto and took oral and written
testimony at its duly noticed meeting on October 30, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
SECTION I.
The City Council hereby finds that as set forth more
\353\203721 .1
53-110104706002
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 95-78
.
.
fully in the staff report incorporated herein, A/S 95-26 complies
with subsections (a) through (i) of section 50.55 of the Gilroy
Zoning ordinance as required to grant planned unit development
(PUD) architectural and site approval.
SECTION II.
The City Council hereby finds that:
1. This project is consistent with the Gilroy General
Plan.
2. The city previously adopted a Negative Declaration
which included this property with thirty mitigation measures and
a mitigation monitoring plan.
3. There are no off-site or on-site environmental
effects of this project which are not addressed in the Negative
Declaration.
4. There is no new information showing environmental
effects to be more significant than described in the Negative
Declaration.
SECTION III.
A/S 95-26 should be and hereby is approved, subject to
the 17 conditions set forth in the Staff Report attached hereto
and incorporated herein, and subject to the mitigation measures and
mitigation monitoring program approved in conjunction with GPA 93-
02.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November, 1995 by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY, MORALES, ROGERS, ROWLISON,
VALDEZ, GAGE.
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KLOECKER
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Donald F. Gage,
~&~~.
Susanne E. steinmetz, City C
\353\203721 . 1
53-110104706002
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 95-78
. .
Community Development Dep~rtment
Planning Division
Staff Report
EXHIBIT "A"
October 6. 1995
File Number: NS 95-26 (A Planned Unit Development) -i Revised Staff Report
Applicant: South County Housing
Location: West ofKem Avenue, on the south side ofMantelli Drive
Staff Planner: Melissa Durkin
REQUESTED ACTION:
Planned Unit Development review ofMonterra Village, a 34 unit apartment complex.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
Parcel Number:
Parcel Size:
Flood Zone:
790-04-046 and 066
2.38 acres (total for both parcels)
"B", Panel # 0603400001 C
Panel Date: 10/06/81, Revised to Reflect LOMR 8/31/95
STATUS OF PROPERTY
Existing Land Use
Undeveloped Land
General Plan Designation
Medium Density Residential
ZoninQ
RI/R1-PLD
STATUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY:
Existing Land Use
N: Undeveloped
S: S. F. Home/Rod Kellev Schools
E: Single Family Home
W: Undeveloped/ Park
General Plan Designation
Medium Density Residential
LDR and PIPF
Low Density Residential
LDR and MDR
Zonin!!
Rl/R3-PUD
Rl
Rl
R I /R1-PUD
CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLA!\:
The proposed project conforms to the land use designation for the propertv on the General Plan mar
. .
and is consistent with the intent of the text of the general Plan Document
. .
..
.
AfS 95-26 (PUD)
2
This project conforms with the policies of Gilroy's General PlaIl
demonstrates this compliance:
1 Jrban Development and Community Design (Section II):
Policy 3: "Urban Development will only occur within the incorporated ~
Land will therefore be annexed to the City before final development al
The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because this Ian
for many years.
Policy 4: "The City will phase development in an orderly, contiguous n
compact development pattern to avoid premature investment for the exU
services. New urban development will occur in areas where municip
capacity exists prior to the approval of development in areas which wou
expansIon.
The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because tl
developed school site, and is in close proximity to developed residential ~
are currently available at this site.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An expanded initial study has been prepared for this project. The
significant effects on the environment, however, the applicant has agJ
measures which will avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no si.
A Negative Declaration, with 30 mitigation measures, was adopted for thi
RDO BACKGROUND:
This project is proposed to be developed by South County Housing, v
devel- 'r of affordable homes. The project is planned to be affordable
famih.-, and is therefore eligible to be exempt from the provisions oft
Ordinance (RDO) under section 50.62 (b) (3). The City Council appr
September 18,1995 meeting.
ANALYSIS OF REOUEST:
The applicant is requesting PUD design review for the proposed COnstl
which consists of34 apartment units on land which totals approximatel
., AlS 95-26 (pUD~
.
.
3
comprised of8 separate apartment buildings containing 14 two-bedro
units, and 4 four-bedroom units. In addition, the project will contail
barbecue area and a centrally located laundry room, two play areas fOJ
Monterra Village is proposed to be constructed on two separate lots. T
04-046) is owned by South County Housing, and was created from Te
95-01. The easterly lot (AP.N. 790-04-066) is currently owned by the C
Housing is purchasing this lot, and as part of the purchase contract, is
the City parcel to low income or very low income families for a minim
the units on the property owned by South County Housing will be rente
income familie.s for a minimum of30 years, as stipulated by the lendin:
Density Issues
This property is zoned RIIR3-PUD (planned Unit Development)
development for this PUD. Earlier this year, the northerly and westerly
approval to construct 20 homes on lots which averaged 5,200 squan
which averaged 3,470 square feet. These lots do not meet typical minin
because this project is a Planned Unit Development, the R 1 density (7 .2~
and the R3 density (16 dwelling units per net acre) are allowed to be
spread throughout the entire PUD. The total density of the PUD m
allowed combined densities of the underlying zoning districts. In this Pl
which allows 95.3 units to be constructed, and 2.3 acres are zoned RI, \
constructed. The total number of units allowed in this PUD is there-
received approval to construct 46 units, and is proposing to construct 3
of 100 units. Therefore, this project is in compliance with the maximum <
for this area, and meets the intent of the Planned Unit Development z(
Project Design
The site design for the proposed project shows eight buildings, com
apartment units each, spread throughout this 2.38 acre site. A single st(
includes a laundry facility and a barbecue area, has been placed in the c
as to provide equal access to all of the residents of this development
community center to be used as a tool to create a tightly knit commUl
Two play yards have been located on this site, one approximately in th
and one on the eastern portion of the site. These play areas have bet
areas and the street, in order to provide the safest possible environme
area.
Three separate parking lots are shown on the site, and have been c<
Mantelli Drive, in order to minimize the visual impact of the lots.
separated so that all residents will have relatively equal access from the pa
units. Thirty-four of the parking stalls will be covered by carports. 1
provide landscaped berms in front of the parking areas to further masl
AlS 95-26 (PUD)
.
.
Revise<' .10/6/95
4
With the exception of the eight apartment units contained on the westerly side of this site, all of the
units are connected by foot paths and landscaped areas. This design is intended to promote a
community atmosphere in the development, in that residents will be connected by the paths and open
space, rather than isolated by parking lots or other structural barriers.
Monterra Village is adjacent to a proposed city park to the west and south, Rod Kelley School and
a single family home to the south, and a single family home to the east. The site has been designed
so that uses which will generate loud noise, such as the trash enclosures and play ground areas, have
been located as far from the neighboring single family homes as possible, while still providing an
adequate site layout.
The prop:>sedapartment design is ~o stories, with horizontal hardwood siding and gabled roofs.
The front doors of the units are enhanced with vertical projections which support a second story
overhang. Small gables are included over some of the second story windows. All of the units are two
story, with the exception of the two bedroom units, which are single story. Enclosed patios are
provided for all of the ground floor units, with decks provided for the second floor units.
The community center is single story, and is planned to be a similar design as the residential units.
The portion of the building facing Mantelli Drive features a detailed bay window, crowned by a gable
roof The front entrance of the structure has detailed double glass doors, with a double gable roof
The side of the building leading out to the barbecue area shows sliding glass doors with a trellis
structure. The interior of the community center includes a laundry room, a restroom, a storage area
and a kitchenette.
Zoning Ordinance Exceptions
The applicant is asking for the following exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance for this project, through
the Planned Unit Development approval process:
Parking
The Zoning Ordinance requires the following number of parking stalls for multi-family housing: 1.5
stalls for one and two bedroom units, and 2 stalls for units with three or more bedrooms, plus] stall
for every four units for guests. One stall for each unit must be a covered garage or carport. Based
on these requirements, the Monterra Village complex is required to provide 61 stalls for residents,
with at least 34 covered, and 9 stalls for guest parking, for a total of 70 stalls. The applicant is
proposing to provide 65 stalls, 34 of which would be covered.
The reason the applicant is requesting this exception is so that the number of units on the site can be
maximized, and the amount of paved area can be minimized. The applicant feels that this exception
would not result in a detrimental effect on the neighborhood for the following reasons:
1. The decrease in five stalls represents only a 7% decrease in the number of required stalls
2. All of the units on this site will be restricted to low and very low income families, and are at this
time planned to be rented to fal1TI worker families. Based on South County Housing's experience
with other fal1TI worker housing projects, they have determined that there is typically only one car
NS 95-26 (PUD)
.
.
5
owned per fiuniJy, and therefore the need for parking staI1s in this ty}l(
the need in market rate developments.
3. South County Housing has prepared a survey of the parking need:
renta1 housing projects in Gilroy. The following comparison shows th
plus the Monterra Village project:
Aspen Grove
~
The Treel
Number of
Spaces/unit: 2.08
1.9
1.9
Number of
Vacant Stalk 8
5
3
1be number of vacant stalls decreases with the ratio of spaces to units
the parking appears to be adequate.
In addition, portions offour parking stalls do not meet the City's standar
feet. Staff has reviewed each of these stalls, and has determined that th
safety hazard. Any visual impacts caused by these parking stalls will be
berms at the front of the property.
Setbacks
Several elements of this proposal do not meet standard City setback
follows:
A. The community center has a triangular section which protrudes into t~
area. At the maximum point, this protrusion is 7 feet. At the minir
less is less than one foot. Staff does not believe that this exception,
harm the surrounding property owners.
B. Building B, Building F, and Building H all have decorative porti,
protrude into the front yard setback area. The maximum protru
protrusion is a few inches. This portion of the building is not used r.
staff does not believe that any impact will result from allowing this
C. The rear yard setbacks of two of the apartment units in Buildings A.
feet, rather than the 15 foot minimum requirement. Staff does J
significant enough to create an impact on neighboring properties.
D. The storage unit attached to the rear of several units in this develo
foot minimum setback area. The minimum setback ofthese storag<
these setbacks do not meet minimum City standards, staff does ne
significant impact from allowing this deviation, because the storage
will not be used on a regular basis. In addition, only Buildings
residential lot, and these two buildings have a large setback from the
privacy rights of that property owner should be protected.
A1S 95-26 (PUD)
.
6
.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that extra amenities be provided in e
the Planned Unit Development allows. Staffbelieves that the affordabll
is proposing to provide is adequate to meet this requirement.
Primary access to this development will be provided by Kern Avenue,
Mantelli Drive (a General Plan arterial). Access will also be gained I
once Mantelli is connected to that street. The proposed plan has been
efficient traffic circulation, and is consistent with minimum City ,
applicant has worked with City staff in order to provide a design whic1
panies.
FINDINGS:
In order to grant Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, the F
council must find that the proposed Planned Unit Development will:
A. Confonn to the Gilroy General Plan in tenns of general location I
B. Provide the type of development which will fill a specific need 01
C. Not require urban services beyond those which are currently avai
D. Provide a harmonious, integrated plan which justifies exception
nonnal requirements of this ordinance;
E Reflect an economical and efficient pattern ofland uses;
F. Include greater provisions for landscaping and open space than v
G Utilize aesthetic design principles to create attractive buildings and
with the character of surrounding areas;
H )Jot create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effect
L Provide adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and sl
STAFF RECOMMENDA nON:
Stdrecommends that the Planning Commission forward a recomme
APPROVE this request for the following reasons:
A The proposed project conforms to the land use designation for thl
NS 95-26 (PUD)
.
7
.
map, and is consistent with the intent of the text of the General Pia
B. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to se
in close proximity along Kern Avenue, and will be installed along MIl
is complete.
C. There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of thi
mitigation measures to be applied at the development stage; and
D. As submitted, the proposed development is conSistent with the necess
I, as stated under Zoning Ordinance section 50.55.
If this project is approved, staff recommends that the following conditioru
of the project:
1. Landscaping: Landscaping plans including specifications for a
approved by the Planning Division in accordance with the adopte
Policy, prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscaping shal
in an orderly, live, healthy, and relatively weed-free condition, in,
Consolidated Landscaping Policy and the approved specific lands
2. Street trees shall be required per the Consolidated Landscaping Po
the developer. A Street Tree Permit shall be obtained forr
Department.
3. Trash Enclosures: All trash enclosures shall consist of visually solid
in height, in accordance with the adopted City of Gilroy standard
or a similar design approved by the Planning Division. All trash (
accordance with the approved site plan and Uniform Fire Code.
must be provided within the trash enclosures, in accordance with
A Areas for recycling shall be adequate in capacity, number, <
development project
B. Dimensions of the recycling area shall accommodate recept
recycling needs of the development project
C. An adequate number of bins or containers to allow for th
recyclable materials generated by the development project s
recycling area
4. Exterior Lighting: No unobstructed beam of eA1erior lighting shall t
site toward any residential use or public right-of-way.
5. A lighting plan must be submitted by the applicant, subject to tht
Police Department, prior to building permit issuance.
"
NS 95-2(i (PUD) .
8
.
6. Mechanical Appurtenances: Mechanical equipment to be locate.
be screened by an architectural feature of the building, such that
level at the far side of the adjacent public right-of-way, when~
7. Building colors shall be earth tones subject to Planning Divisio
8. The number of stalls, design, location, and required signage for
shall be subject to the review and approval by the Building Div
9. All sets of building plans shall contain the following wording:
"If archeol0gical resources or human remains are d;~covered dur
halted within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evalu
archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, approl
be formulated and imDlemented."
10. A maintenance plan for the fence abutting the City park must 1
and approval by the Parks Division, prior to building permit issu
this plan should be the time period for painting out the graffiti,
party for graffiti removal. Please consult with the Parks Divisi,
11. All proposed fencing must meet the requirements of the Plannil
12. The fence between this project and the future City park shoul
material.
13. Curb cuts must be a minimum oDO feet in width.
14. All utilities constructed to, through and on the site shall be con
15. Street addresses shall be assigned by the Engineering Division.
] 6. Directories must be erected at the entrances to the three driveway
and approval by the Engineering Division, and the Fire Departr
] 7. Off-site street improvements shall be subject to the approval of
~
. .
.
.
, ,
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the C
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 95-78
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of G
meeting of said Council held on the ~ day of Nove
at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my h,
Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this ~ day of~
4~4:~:t*
(Seal)