Resolution 1996-03
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING A/S 95-33, AN APPLICATION
FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO REMODEL
PROPERTY ZONED C2-HN LOCATED AT 7561 MONTEREY
STREET, APN 799-06-044
WHEREAS, Gurdeep & Surjeet Sohal ("applicants") have
submitted A/S 95-33 requesting Architectural and site Review
approval for plans to remodel a vacant 2440 square-foot building
on a 2,840 square foot lot in the Central District Commerical -
Historic Neighborhood combining district into a packaging and
postage service business; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is located in downtown
Gilroy at 7561 Monterey Street, between Fourth and Fifth Streets;
and
WHEREAS, the project is not a designated historical site
within the City, County or National registries, but is located
within an Historic Neighborhood (HN) cOmbining district; and
WHEREAS, the current condition of the building is vacant
and dilapidated with exposed interior framing; and
WHEREAS, interior or exterior alterations and the
restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged
structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current
standards of public health and safety are Class I categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which
exemption applies to this project; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, under the Downtown Gilroy Building Design
Sourcebook the subject building is considered to be "Medium" in
the
categories
of
Historical
Significance,
Architectural
\353\210424.1
63-013004706002
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 96-3
.
.
Significance, Image & Design Appropriateness and Facade Condition,
and "Low" in the category of Landmark Value; and
WHEREAS, the proposed plans are generally consistent with
the Gilroy Downtown Revitalization Action Plan and the Statement
of Intent for the Historic site and Neighborhood Combining
Districts as provided by section 27.10 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Heritage Committee at its duly
noticed meeting on December 20, 1995, after considering all of the
evidence before it, voted to recommend approval of the proposed
project with conditions which are set forth in the staff report
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission at its duly noticed
meeting on January 4, 1996, after considering all of the evidence
before it, voted to recommend approval of AjS 95-33 subject to the
eight conditions which are set forth in the staff report attached
hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at its duly noticed meeting on
January 16, 1996, considered the project and the conditions
proposed to be attached to its approval, along with the staff
reports, pUblic testimony, and documentation or other evidence on
the project and voted to approve the project subject to eight (8)
conditions stated in the staff report dated December 26, 1995,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
SECTION I
The city Council hereby finds that:
1. This project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
3. The proposed plans are consistent with the Gilroy Downtown
Revitalization Action Plan and the Statement of Intent for the
Historic site and Neighborhood Combining Districts as provided by
Section 27.10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
\353\210424.1
63-013004706002
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 96-3
.
.
SECTION II
AjS 95-33 should be and hereby is approved, subject to the 8
conditions set forth in the staff report attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 1996 by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY, MORALES, ROGERS, ROWLISON,
SPRINGER, VALDEZ, GAGE
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
\353\210424.1
63-013004706002
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 96-3
"Commu!ty D-evelopme.!t Departme~t
Planning Division
Staff Report
EXHIBIT "A"
Revised
December 26,,1995
FILE NUMBER:
NS 95-33
'-
APPLICANT: Gurdeep & Surjeet Sohal (% AI Kaiser)
LOCATION: 7561 Monterey Street, between Fourth and Fifth Streets
STAFF PLANNER: Bryan Stice
REOUESTED ACI10N:
Architectural & Site Review approval for plans to remodel a vacant 2440 square-foot building into a
packaging and mail service store.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
Parcel No.:
Parcel Size:
Flood Zone:
799-06-044
2,840 square feet
"B" Panel # 060340 0001C Date: 10/06/81 Revised 8/31/95
STATUS OF PROPERTY:
Existini Land Use
Vacant (former night club) ~
General Plan Desi&11ation
Central Business District
Zonini
C2-HN
STATUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY:
Existing Land Use
North: Retail Sales (Music Store)
South: Travel Agency
East: Dance Hall (former Strand Theater)
West: Public Parking Lot and Business Offices
General Plan Desilo?"'tion
Central Business District
Central Business District
Central Business District
Central Business District
Zonini
C2-HN
C2-HN
C2-HN
C2-HN
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides a categorical exemption which apRlies to
this request: Class 1, Sections 15301 (a); "Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as
interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances;" and (d); "Restoration or rehabilitation of
deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of
public health and safety..." Therefore, this type of project is exempt fro~ environmental review.
AlS 95-33
.
-2
.
Revised 12/26/95
ANALYSIS OF REOUEST:
The applicant (Gurdeep Sohal) is requesting Architectural & Site Review approval in order to remodel
an existing 2,440 square-foot building (fonner "Bachelors Club") into a packaging and postage service
busines~. The vacant building is situated on a 2,840 square-foot lot The parcel is located in
downtown Gilroy at 7561 Monterey Street, between Fourth and FIfth Streets, and adjacent to a travel
agency and a music store. The building was IljSt used as a bar and night club in February 1994, and has
been vacant ever since. - .
The project site is located within an Historic Neighborhood (HN) combining district, which requires
the applicant to submit proposed plans for Architectural & Site Review before the Historical Heritage
Committee and the Planning Commission.
The Downtown Gilroy Building Design Sourcebook, dated August 1986, provides a Building Facade
Design Evaluation with classifications of "ffiGH," "MEDIUM," and "LOW." According to the
Sourcebook, the subject building is considered "MEPIUM" in the following categories:
. Historical Significance
. Architectural Significance
. Image & Design Appropriateness
. Facade Condition
A classification of "LOW" was given to the subject building for the "Landmark Value" category.
The subject building located at 7561 Monterey Street is not a designated historical site within the City,
County, or National registries. Original architectural features of the False Front Ita1ianate style building
include Early Brick construction, recessed entry and doorway, and a projecting cornice. The front of
this building may have origina1ly included large, front picture windows, as this was typically the style
lit the time of construction, however, a solid back front is currently in place. A curved, canvas awning
which spans the 20-foot frontage, was a~hed sometime after 1983. The current condition of the
vacant building is dilapidated with exposed interior framing.
As submitted under this request, the proposed remodeling project involves the following key
improvements:
I. New front facade with stucco or brick. (note: Staff recommends brick, since brick was the
origina1 material used. Furthennore, brick is the original and current material in place on the
adjacent, south building.)
2. Three.large, rectangular windows framed in~odized.aJuminum, with matching front double
doors. (note: no windows are currently in place.)
3. Replacement of the existing canopy with a replicated new, maroon canopy.
4. Replacement of the existing angled, recessed doorway with a deeper, recessed doorway. The
depth of the proposed doorway is 4V, feet.
5. New interior walls for office space, work space, and restrooms.
NS 95-33
~.
3
.
Revised 12/26/95
The proposed project is located within the downtown parking district and, therefore, is exempt from
City off-street parking requirements.
The proposed remodeling plans are generally consistent with the direction given by the Gilroy
Dowlltown Revitalization Action Plan. Following, are some examples:
IV !?esi~ Review Criteria
#8 "Activities within conunercial buildings should be visible from the street
and pedestrian-ways encouraging visual connections between indoor
and outdoor areas. Such visual connections create interest and make
shopping more attractive as well as safer."
#14 . "The City should encourage restorative maintenance for deteriorating
buildings in the Downtown and restrict the demolition of historically
and/or architecturally significant buildings to acconunodate new
development.
Although there are no required findings that have to be made to improve a proposed structure within
a Historic Neighborhood combining district, Staff uses as a guideline the Statement ofIntent
(Section 27.10 of the Zoning Ordinance) to evaluate project proposals. The intent of the Historic Site
and Neighborhood combining districts, as stated under Section 27.10, are as follows:
( a) To preseIVe historic sites and neighborhoods that represent important elements of Gilroy's past
or contribute to the community's identity or educational resources;
(b) To enhance the visual character of Gilroy by encouraging and regulating the compatibility of
architectural styles within historic sites and neighborhoods;
( c) To identifY and designate areas which have a significant concentration or continuity of sites,
buildings or objects unified by past events or physical development; and
(d) To encourage restoration of historic buildings and neighborhoods throughout the City.
HISTORICAL HERITAGE COMMITfEE ACTION:
At their meeting of December 20, the Historical Heritage Committee voted 5-0-1 to recommend
approval of the proposed project with added condition # 7 and modified condition # 6.
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
Albert, Arellano, Reid, Rogers, Snar
None
Kelly
-
The added and modified conditiollS of approval are indicated below by bold underline typeface
AlS 95-33
.
4
.
Revised 12126/95
STAFF ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of this project, subject to the Historical Heritage Committee and the
Planning Commission finding that the proposed project is substantially consistent with Section 27.10
of the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance. In addition, Staff recommends that the following conditions be
applied With approval of the project:
i-
L
Trash Enclosures: All trash enclosures shall consist of visually solid fences and gates, six (6)
feet in height, in accordance with the adopted City of Gilroy standard trash enclosure design
plan, or a similar design approved by the Planning Division. All trash enclosures shall be
located in accordance with the approved site plan and fire regulations, subject to review and
approval by the Planning Division.
2. Exterior lighting: No unobstructed beam of exterior lighting shall be directed outward from
the site toward any residential use or public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by
the Planning Division.
3. Mechanical Appurtenances: Mechanical equipment to be located on the roof of a building shall
be screened by an architectura1 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, subject to review
and approval by the Planning Division.
4. Sign Permits shall be obtained by the applicant for all signs proposed for this project, subject
to review and approval by the Planning Division.
5. The applicant sha1l provide business identification and address at the rear of the building to be
easily read from the adjacent alley, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division.
Unpainted brick shall be used in place of stucco, as stated on plans, where old brick is
removed, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division.
Wood trim shaD be used around all window frames. subiect to the review and approval
of the P1anninr Division.
Damaged sections of sidewalk, curb, or gutter shall be replaced where needed, subject to
review and approval by the Engineering Division.
William Faus
Planner III
A/S 95-33
5
1/5/96
.
..
1-4-96 At their meeting of January 4, 1996, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of A/S 95-33, subject to the 8 conditions as set
forth in the staff report, and reaffirmed the recommendation of the
Historical'Heritage Committee regarding the addition to condition #6
and new condition #7.
AYES: ARELLANO, BLANKLEY, COLLIER, LAI, PINHEIRO, PUENTE, SUYEYASU
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
~
G
~
N
,
LOCATION IVIAP
FO R. A/S 95-33
~
.
.
HISTORIC HERITAGE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
December 20, 1995
Members Present:. Sharon Albert
Guadalupe Arellano
Connie Rogers
Maurice Reid
Members Absent: Darrell Kelly
"- Staff Present: Bryan Stice
Pat Snar
Roberta Kyle
Others Present:
AI Kaiser
Sharon Albert called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
Bryan Stice presented the staff report and stated that the correct square footage for the building is 2,440
not 2,000.
Mr. Kaiser stated that the canopy will be refurbished not new. Connie Rogers asked why Mr. Sohal
decided on a box entry instead of an angle entry. Mr. Kaiser explained that and angle entry would interfere
with the counter. Connie Rogers asked if metal frames were going to be used around the windows. Mr.
Kaiser said that it made it more convenient to change the windows if one were to be broken, but that the
owner would be open to trying to match the other building fronts.
Maurice Reid asked a' t what the support would be on the inside walls. Mr. Kaiser said it would b~
what ever the engineer lIecided on. Sharon Albert asked if the original brick could be saved and reused.
Mr. Kaiser said that was an option. Connie Rogers wanted to know if the slanted wall could be kept to
match the Miracle Miles building front and move the counter to the other walL Mr. Kaiser said that ~.
Sohal wanted to have double doors and that the slated waf! would be a deterrent. .~
There was discussion on why the brick was a different color. It was also mentioned that a high-pressure
wash would bring the original color back to the brick. Guadalupe Arellano suggested that in the staff_
report in condition #Q "unpainted" will be added to read: "Unpainted brick sha11 be used in place of stUcco,
as stated on plans, where old brick is removed, subject to review and approval by the Planning
Commission". It was also noted that a clear graffiti resistant paint could be used on the brick.
Bryan Stice stated that staff recommends approval of A/S 95-33 subject to 7 conditions. Connie Rogers
asked how everyone felt about the wood window and door trim. Sharon suggested adding another
condition (#8) stating that wood trim or wood covering over the metal be used.
There was further discussion on the trash enclosure. Mr. Kaiser was inquiring if it could have a cover and
possibly be located inside the building. Mr. Kaiser had concerns about other businesses using the trash bin.
Bryan Stice said that would be an issue to discuss with the planning division. -
Connie Rogers moved to recommend approval of A/S 95-33 for plans to remodel a vacant 2440 sq. ft.
building into a packaging and mail service store with a change to condition #Q adding the word "unpainted"
and adding an 8th condition stating that wood trim or wood covering would be used over the metal trim
Pat Snar seconded the motion, and the motion passed by a voice vote of 5-0-1.
;..
.-
.~
Historic Heritage Committee
-2-
12/20/95
Connie Rogers went on the mention a workshop regarding the "Mills Act". in Redwood City. There was
also discussion on the Gilroy Hot Springs project.
_ t.
With there being no further business to come before the Committee, the Chairman adjourned the meeting
at 9:45 a.m.
=
.
.
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 96-3 is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the ~ day of
at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 9th day of Februarv ,1996.
Februarv ,19~,
(Seal)