Resolution 1996-35
.
.
"
RESOLUTION NO. 96-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING A/S 96-03, AN APPLICATION
FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) INVOLVING 94
DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON AN
APPROXIMATE 12.12 ACRE SITE ON A PORTION OF
APN 790-01-023, ZONED R1-PUD (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
WHEREAS, Silicon Valley Diversified, submitted A/S 96-
03, an application for architectural and site approval of a planned
unit development (PUD) for a portion of Phase III of the "Park
Commons" project involving the construction of 94 detached single
family dwelling units on approximately 12.12 acres of property
zoned R1-PUD (Single Family Residential, Planned Unit Development),
said property being a portion of APN 790-01-023 and located at the
northwest corner of Mantelli Drive and Church street as shown on
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference; 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 was adopted by the city Council on September 6, 1994
with 21 mitigation measures as well as a Mitigation/Monitoring
program for this project in conjunction with approval of the
related zoning amendment Z 93-09 and in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed A/S 96-03 at
its duly noticed meeting on May 2, 1996, and recommended that the
City Council approve the project, subject to 9 conditions set forth
in the Staff Report dated April 22, 1996, attached hereto as
Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed Application A/S 96-03
and all documents relating thereto and took oral and written
testimony at its duly noticed meeting on May 20, 1996.
IRPJI30873R01
61~2204706002
-1-
RESOLUTION 96-35
.
.
,I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
SECTION I
The City Council hereby finds that A/S 96-03 complies with the
findings required to grant PUD architectural and site approval
pursuant to subsections (a) through (i) of the Gilroy Zoning
Ordinance, and that the facts as set forth more fully in the record
incorporated herein support said findings.
SECTION II
The City Council hereby finds that:
l. This project is consistent with the Gilroy General Plan.
2. The City previously adopted a Negative Declaration which
included this property with 21 mitigation measures and adopted a
Mitigation/Monitoring plan for the project.
3. There are no offsite or onsite environmental effects of
this project which are not addressed in the Negative Declaration.
4. There is no new information or substantial evidence that
the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION III
A/S 96-03 should be and hereby is approved, subject to the 9
conditions set forth in Exhibit B, and subject to the project's
mitigation measures and Mitigation/Monitoring program set forth in
the Negative Declaration adopted with application Z 93-09.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May, 1996 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY, MORALES, ROGERS, ROWLISON,
SPRINGER, VALDEZ, GAGE
NOES: COUNCI LMEMBERS : None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Donald F. Gage,
~~
Susanne
~.
E. Steinmetz,
IRPJI308738 01
61<)52204706002
-2-
RESOLUTION 96-35
-
-
-... --
.
.
EXHIBIT "A"
-~~~-- ~--_._.-
.;~
!
I
~ t . w
~A"ND
1'/""
".. . ~
"'/ Yr,..
. t ~\-
........~ ~- ~ .~
. //""
,Ii /
.......-...
.......-..
......--..
-~
. ..-
. -
. -
'"' --
_._"-
---
---
-
-.----
____n__
-;-";~~" ~~."
""
/",~'4
~/ ...."
,.,. '--~
::-. #a\.
, .
.~".
'.
1'/
""
~
---
-.....-..-.
::'"..:r=.':'"'~~~-
:.~~r::5='
--..,--....-..-
:.J'-":"::'...,,-:=:::---
I' f ~.\
", '.'
,; - ~
'" --,',
;"F~ -;/'
".
,
'-~'~
.... ........."..
"'
.'
"
'j;
Ca&I'M:!CIol.I: ~
--.......
.. ,.:<
.::"-
HANNA .. BRUNE'ITI
-._..~-
---
_._-
l__n
-..,''''
sz--:.="
.b'...~\
,{.::f.._:!!>>
.,- "Ii
~/-
-
- ':=: --=..
,...... ,,(...,'1. ~.. .". ,.,..
,.,." lilli' De".,."._",.""".."."
1
$llIoon V.I/., CtU"p."I".
C,".'."'"
..." ...
..~~~:~!~:~..
....,
A./s
96-03
(PUD)
. .
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Staff Report
.'
EXHUBIT "B"
April 22, 1996
Fll.E NUMBER: A/S 96-03, a Planned Unit Development (phase III)
APPLICANT: Silicon Valley Diversified, "Park Commons" (c/o David Lazares)
LOCATION: Property at the northwest comer ofMantelli Drive and Church Street
STAFF PLANNER: William Faus
REOUESTED ACTION:
The applicant is requesting Architectural & Site Review approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
involving the construction of 94 detached single family dwelling units on a 12.121 acre site. This PUD
request represents Phase III of the Park Commons development involving a larger 34.41 acre site"
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
Parcel No:
Parcel Size:
Flood Zone:
a portion of790-01-023
approximately 12.12 acres
"A-1 ", panel # 060-340-0001C, dated 10/06/81
STATUS OF PROPERTY:
Existing Land Use
Undeveloped
General Plan Designation
Residential Low Density
Zoning
RI-PUD
STATUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY:
North:
East:
South:
West:
ExistiDlz Land Use
SF Homes
SF Homes
Park
SF Homes
General Plan Desil!:llation
Residential Low Density
Residential Low Density
ParklPublic Facility
Residential Low Density
ZoninlZ
R1
R1-PUD
PF
R1-PUD
AlS 96-03 (PUD)
.
.
.'
4/22/96
2
CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLAN:
The proposed Architectural & Site Planned Unit Development review conforms to the land use
designation for the property on the General Plan map, and is consistent with the intent of the text of the
General Plan document. This project also conforms with the policies of Gilroy's General Plan. The
following examples demonstrate this compliance:
Urban Development and Community Desi$p1
POLICY 4: The City will phase development in an orderly, contiguous marmer in
order to maintain a compact development pattern to avoid premature
investment for the extension of public facilities and services. New urban
development will occur in areas where municipal services are available
and capacity exists prior to the approval of development in areas which
would require major new facility expansion.
Residential Environment
POLICY I: The City will contirme to work towards the goals of a balanced community
with a variety of housing types and prices, sufficient job opportunities,
and an efficient and adequate provision of City services"
Urban Growth and Development
POLICY II: Clustered development will be encouraged as a means of obtaining
variety of design and a sense of openness.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
An expanded Initial Study was prepared under a prior Zone Change request (Z 93-09) involving the
subject 12.12:t acre site" The current Architectural & Site PUD review request will allow the subject
site to be developed with 94 detached single family dwellings. The Initial Study involving the project
site was independently reviewed by City staff and reflects the independent judgement of the City of
Gilroy" The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, however, the
applicant has agreed to specific revisions in the project and/or individual mitigation measures will be
applied to the project which will avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects will
OCCUL There is no substantial evidence that the proposed project, as revised, may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared under Z 93-09, and
approved by the City Council on September 6, 1994.
RELA TED APPLICA nONS:
Z 93-09:
This Zone Change request rezoned the site from RI (Single Family Residential) to R1-PUD (Single
Family Residential, Planned Unit Development). This request was approved by the City Council on
August I, 1994.
AfS 96-03 (PUD)
.
.
3
4/22/96
AlS 94-15 (PUD):
Architectural & Site PUD (planned Unit Development) review approval for the overall project design
and lot configuration for 189 dwelling units, and specific design approval for the construction of 62
single family detached dwellings (for that portion of the project located west of Wren Avenue). This
request was approved by the City Council on September 6, 1994.
A/S 95-01 (PUD):
Architectural & Site PUD (Planned Unit Development) design review approval for the construction of
56 detached dwelling units on a 7.42::!: acre site. This PUD request represents Phase IT of the Park
Commons development involving the larger 34.4::!: acre site. This request was approved by the City
Council on April 17, 1995.
TM 93-04:
Tentative map approval that subdivided the original 34.4::!: acre site into 174 lots:
IS' 47 single family ]ots@ 7,000:!: sqJt {Kaufinan & Broad, west side of Wren}
IS' 56 "Cottage" condominium lots@ 3,300:!: sq.ft. {now under construction}
w 71 "Village" condominium lots @ 5,000:!: sq.ft. {Jots involvinJ the current PUD reouesO
W I remainder lot for the future development of:
23 "Village" condominium lots @ 5,000:!: sq.ft. {lots involvinJ the current PUD reouest}
{also see accompanying TM 96-02 request}
This tentative map request [TM 93-04] was approved by the City Council on September 6, 1994.
TM 94-06:
When Tentative Map TM 93-04 was approved a second remaining parcel was created with the removal
of 15 single family parcels along the westerly terminus of Mantelli Drive (City Council action on
9/6/94). Tentative map request TM 94-06 represents this portion of the project. These parcels were
removed from the original tentative map because the developer had not yet obtained a required drainage
easement on adjacent property to the west, and in order to secure the necessary right-of-way for the
extension ofMantelli Drive" This request was approved by the City Council on March 6, 1995"
RDO BACKGROUND:
The applicant received Residential Development Ordinance (ROO) approval for the Park Commons
project during the 1992 ROO competition (Ref: RO 92-12). The project was given full buildout
approval for 189 dwelling units over a five year schedule (1994 @47 dw, 1995 @ 36dw, 1996 @ 38dw,
1997 @34dw, and 1998 @34dw)" The applicant is staging development of the project in sequence
with the City Council approved ROO bui]dout schedule"
Subsequent to the 1992 ROO approval, the applicant requested an amendment to the original project
design. The request asked to increase the overall buildout from 189 units to 214 units, an increase of
25 dwelling units. The City Council approved the request on April 25, 1994.
NS 96-03 (PUD)
.
.
.'
4/22/96
4
The applicant applied for and received an additional 23 allocations as part of the 1994 ROO competition
(Ref RO 94-12)" They received their additional allocation of 23 units for 1996. The reduction of two
units, from the approved 25, reflects a refinement in the lot design configuration. This additional
buildout allocation of23 dwelling units is reflected under the current Tentative Map application
1M 96-02, that accompanies this request (Special note: The actual map has 22 lots, which reflects
a minor one-lot shift with adjacent tentative map 1M 93-04).
ANALYSIS OFREOUEST:
The applicant is currently requesting Architectural & Site (PUD) design review approval for the
individual home designs on 94 lots. This proposed PUD represents Phase III of the Park Commons
development involving a larger 34.4:t acre site. The overall project design, lot configuration, and
street design was approved by the City Council on September 6, 1994, under prior approved PUD
application AfS 94-15, and involved three distinct sections:
.... 62 single family lots @ 7,000:1: sq.ft. {constructed by Kaufman & Broad}
(the western third of the site, west of Wren Avenue)
.... 56 single family "Cottage" condominium lots @ 3,300:1: sq.ft" {now under construction}
(the middle third of the site, east of Wren Avenue)
.... 94 single family "Village" condominium lots @ 5,000:1: sq.ft.
(the eastern third of the site, west of Church Street)
{current pun request}
The current project (phase III) is consistent with the City's General Plan land use map which designates
the site as RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. The subject project, as part of a larger PUD development
scheme, is consistent with the allowed density. Overall, the completed Park Commons development
will have a density of 7.05:1: dwelling units per net acre.
H anproved. the current Architectural & Site PUD reouest will allow the followiDl~ actions:
#1. Permit the construction of94 single family detached homes with three individual house designs.
#2. Allow a reduced front yard setback for front room projection.
#3" Professionally installed front and street side yard landscaping throughout the project site.
Construction of 94 sinl:le family detached homes
The applicant would like to develop the 94 individual lots utilizing three models {see the attached
elevation plans}. Each model will have two distinct elevation alternatives, thereby creating 6 available
house plans within the project site. In addition, each house plan can also be reversed, providing greater
diversity to the overall development scheme.
. .
. A1S 96-03 (PUD)
5
.
4i22/96
As submitted, the three base plans are designed in a modified California Craftsman style, with a front
elevation accent falling somewhere between a Colonial & Tudor Revival type of architecture. Concrete
tiled roofs will be gabled in "elevation A" and hipped in alternative "elevation B". Architectural
details will include wood detailed windows & shutters, custom front doors, and stuccoed chimney
column. The two-story homes wiI] be detailed along the front elevation with molded window sills,
custom front entry & garage doors, french windows, and covered front vestibules. The three proposed
plans are as follows:
Plan One: (22 of the 94 homes)
A two story 3-bedroom home with 1,491 square feet and an attached two car garage. This model will
have a number of front elevation options that will help to distinguish elevation "A" from "B".
Plan Two: (36 of the 94 homes)
A two story 3-bedroom home with 1,655 square feet and an attached two car garage. A model similar
to model one, but with larger rooms. As with the other models, this house will have a number of front
elevation options that will help to distinguish elevation "A" from "B".
Plan Three: (36 of the 94 homes)
A two story 4-bedroom home with 1,850 square feet and an attached two car garage. As with the other
two models, mode] #3 will have a number of front elevation options that will help to distinguish
elevation "A" from "B".
Reduced front yard setback for front room proiection:
The houses will be constructed on wide shallow lots with reduced fifteen foot front yard setbacks. This
reduced setback applies only to the front room projection, as the garage and the rest of the structure will
have a standard twenty foot front yard setback. AI] other setbacks, side and rear, are standard setback
dimensions. The reduced front yard setback for the room projection enables the applicant to provide
a standard rear yard and standard garage setback, while providing an alternative lot design.
Professionally landscaped front yards:
The treatment of front and street side yard areas within the Planned Unit Deve]opment is a key part of
the proposed improvement plans" As part of the PUD proposal, the applicant will fully landscape the
front & street side yards of each dwelling, which will be maintained by individual home owners upon
the sale of the unit. A comprehensive landscaping plan will be developed in order to provide
consistency between perimeter improvements and the individual front yards.
As submitted, the requested Architectural & Site PUD review is consistent with the intent of the City's
General Plan text and Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision and Land Development Code,
and prior RDO buildout approval granted by the City CounciL
NS 96-03 (PUD)
.
6
.
i,iz2/96
REOUlRED 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;
R 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 harmonious, integrated plan which justifies exceptions, if such are required, to the normal
requirements of this Ordinance;
E. Reflect an economical and efficient pattern ofland 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 areas which blend with the
character of surrounding areas;
R Not create traffic congestion, noise, odor, or other adverse effects on surrounding areas; and
L 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 Architectural & Site PUD 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;
R Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve the proposed project are
in close proximity along Mantelli Drive and Church Street;
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"
.
NS 96-03 (PUD)
7
.
,
4/22/96
In addition. Staft' recommends the followinl!' conditions be placed on the ~ntinl!' of this request:
1. MITIGATION MEASURES #1 through #21, contained within the Negative Declaration dated 06/03/94
for Z 93-09 involving the subject property, shall be applied to the approval of this Planned Unit
Development 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)"
2" For each approved build-out year (1996, 1997, and 1998), the developer will be allowed to receive
building permits, for individual homes, in number corresponding directly to the amount granted to the
project by the City Council under the 1992/1994 ROO allocations (1996@26 dw, 1997 @ 34, and 1998
@ 34 dw)"
3" All dwellings positioned adjacent to Mantelli Drive and Church Street shall be designed to control
interior noise levels in habitable rooms, from exterior sources, with tested assemblies having STC of
lIC ratings of 45 db or more (UBC Appendix Section 5401(h), subject to the review and approval by
the Community Development Department.
4" An all-weather access road, not less than twenty (20) feet in width, for fire engines shall be provided
before commencing any combustible construction" Fire hydrants shall also be installed and maintained
before combustible construction begins, to meet the approval of the City Fire Department.
5. Fire hydrant locations, looping, and water main sizing shall be subject to the review and approval by
the Community Development Department, and shall be subject to the following:
A. Materials used for off-site installations shall be per City of Gilroy Standard Details. This includes
pipe, valves, hydrants, back-flow prevention devices, concrete, trench back-fill, etc.;
B. Pipes which serve on-site fire service systems are subject to the specifications of the Community
Development Department, once they depart from the City main" Anyon-site or fire service system
must have a City standard valve intervening; and
C" Inspection of on-site fire service systems will be the responsibility of the Community Development
Department.
6" All proposed lots shall drain to the street without crossing property lines, subject to the review and
approval by the Community Development Department.
7. All proposed retaining walls must be constructed of penn anent materials such as concrete or masonry,
subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department. Wood shall not be
permitted"
8. Individual house shall comply with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 5.50, entitled "Site
Design Requirements", pertaining to proposed individual dwelling unit designs.
A/S 96-03 (PUD)
.
.
-
4/22/96
8
9" Landscaping: Landscaping plans including specifications for an irrigation system shall be approved by
the Planning Division in accordance with the adopted Consolidated Landscaping Policy, prior to
issuance of a building pennit. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in an orderly, live,
healthy, and relatively weed-free condition, in accordance with the adopted Consolidated Landscaping
Policy and the approved specific landscape plan.
Respectfully,
$l
5/2/96
At their meeting of May 2, 1996, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to
forward recommendation to the City Council for review on May 20, 1996.
AYES:
ARELLANO, BLANKLEY, COLLIER, LAl, PINHEIRO,
PUENTE, SUYEY ASU
NONE
NONE
NAYES:
ABSENT:
.
.
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 96-35
is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the
2Bth
day of
Mav
19--2L,
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 14th
19 96.
day of
June
(Seal)