Resolution 1998-23
.
.
RESOLUTION NO, 98-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY APPROVING V ARIANCE V -97 -04, AND DENYING
THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION ON VARIANCE V-97-04 (APN 799-06-058)
WHEREAS, Custom One, Inc, ("Applicant") submitted a request for approval of
Variance V -97 -04 to allow a commercial/residential building to be constructed on an
undeveloped lot located at 85 Fifth Street, to be known as the Fifth Street Commons Project
(APN 799-06-058); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the
Planning Commission on April 2, 1998, in connection with related application CUP 97-08,
reviewed, considered and adopted a Negative Declaration with three (3) mitigation measures, for
which a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been adopted, finding that the Negative Declaration
reflected the independent judgment of the City and that, on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received thereon, there was no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Variance V -97 -04 at a duly noticed
public hearing on April 2, 1998, and approved Variance V-97-04 subject to three (3) conditions;
and
WHEREAS, thereafter Curt and Judy Anslinger, (hereafter "Appellant") timely appealed
the Commission's approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Variance V -97 -04 and all documents relating
thereto, including the Planning Division Staff Report dated March 18, 1998, and Staff
IMSD\41 0752,01
83-052004706002
-1-
RESOLUTION 98-23
.
.
Memorandum dated April 14, 1998, and took oral and written testimony at its duly noticed
public hearing on April 20, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which this project approval is based in the office ofthe
City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. Variance V-97-04 should be and hereby is approved, subject to:
1, The three conditions set forth on page 5 of the Staff Report, which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference,
2, The three (3) mitigation measures set forth in the Negative Declaration attached hereto
as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference,
B. The Mitigation Monitoring Program in Exhibit C is hereby adopted,
C, The appeal of Curt and Judy Anslinger is denied,
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ARELLANO, GIFFORD, MORALES,
SPRINGER, SUDOL, GILROY
NONE
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSTENTIONS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ROWLISON
~.
Rhonda Pellin, City Clerk
IMSD\410752,01
83-052004706002
-2-
RESOLUTION 98-23
Communi~evei~p~ent ~partme~t
Planning Division
Staff Report
FILE NUMBER:
APPliCANT:
LOCATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
REOUESTED ACfION:
V 97-04
Custom One. Inc. (Cia Gary Walton)
85 Fifth Street (between M~nterey and Eigleberry Streets)
Bryan Stice
March 18. 1998
The applicant requests approval of a variance in order to construct a 9,808-square-foot commercial/residential
building with the four following Zoning Ordinance deviations:
(i) A reduced front yard building setback;
~ A reduced street-side yard building setback;
~ A redueea ffeBt y8I'Ci fefteelv.-aH setbaek; ~
(i) Reduced landscape planters along street frontages.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECF:
Parcel No:
Parcel Size:
Flood Zone:
799-06-058
13.939:1: square feet (.32:%: acres)
"B", panel #: 06034-0000 2C, dated 10/06/81
STATUS OF PROPERTY:
EXistine Land Use
. Undeveloped
General Plan Desjenation
Neighborhood Co~ercial
Zonine
CI-HN
STATUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY:
Existine Land Use
Commercial Office
Restaurant.
Commercial Offices
Residential Dwelling
North:
East:
South:
West:
General Plan DestiJlation
Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Neigbbomood Commercial
Zonina
CI-HSIHN
CI-HSIHN
CI
CI-HN
CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLAN:
The proposed Variance request conforms to the land use designation for the property on the General Plan map
and is generally consistent with the intent of the text of the General Plan document
Staff Report V 97-04 .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI'S:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2
.
3/18/98
An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project by one of the City's independent environmental
consultants (EMC Planning Group) in February 1998. The study was completed in compliarice with CEQA
and reO.ects the independent judgement of the City. The study identified potentially significant effects on the
environment, however, the applicant has agreed to individual mi~gation measures whicP will avoid or mitigate
the effects.to a point where no significant impacts will occur.
The Initial Study was circUlated for a 21-<tay period ending March. 23~ 1997, with the City receivi!1g ~o
written responses. There is no substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a signijicant
. effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration with three (3) mitigation measures and a
Mitigation Monitoring Program (both attaChed) have been prepared. No written responses have been
received as a result of the Initial Study circulation period. There is no substantial evidence that the proposed
project may have a significant effect on the environment
'.
RELATED APPLICATIONS:
CUP 97-08 ,
Request for Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) application approval, as required under Zoning Ordinance Section
18.30 (Commercial Use Table), in order to construct multiple residential tmits with the proposed commercial
units, This application enables the CiW an opportunity to review the proposed project for its potential conflicts
with surrounding properties as well as for its merits.
AlS 97-69
Request for Architectural and Site Review approval to construct a 9,808-square-foot commercial/residential
building. This requests requires review by the Historic Heritage Committee and Planning Commission and
review and approval by the City Council since the project site is located within the Historic Neighborhood
combining district. .
ANALYSIS OF REOUEST:'
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance application in order to construct a 9,808-square-foot
commercial/residential building with the four following Zoning Ordinance deviations:
(i) A reduced front yard building setback;
~ A reduced ~-side yard building setback;
(3) A reduced front yard fence/wall setback; and
(4) Reduced landscape planters along street frontages.
The .32-acre project site is located within the Historic Neighborhood at the northeast comer of Fifth and
Eigleberry Streets, and is zoned C1-HN (Neighborhood Commercial-Historic Neighborhood)., Existing
commercial businesses surround the site on the north, east, and south. Historic sites of local and county
significance are located immediately to the north and east of the project site. A single-family dwelling is
located to the west, across Eiglebeny Street
Staff Report V 97-04 .
3
.
3/18/98
The existing historic building adjacent to the project site's east property. boundary is the former Gilroy Fire
Station (currently recognized as the Station SS restaurant). This two-story building is set back approximately
five feet from the front property boundaIy. The eXisting historic building north of the site is the former Graef
House, and is set back approximately 18 feet from the.front property boundary. Existing buildings south of
the project site are located approximately five feet from their front property bOUIidaries, with the comer
building on or near its street-side property boundary.
The proposed project involves the construction of six first-floor, commercial units and six second story,
residential units, A 2,SOO-square-foot rear courtyard area is also proposed and will feature a large patio with
a wood trellis, a center lawn ar~ planter areas, and enclosures for trash and mechanical equipment In
addition, new stucco' walls along the north and.east property boundarIes will enclose the courtyard.
The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval of the four following development characteristics:
(i) Reduced Front Yard Building Setback
, If approved, the proposed two-story building will be set back approximately five feet from the front
(south) property boundary along Fifth Street
Note: As required under Section 19,30 of the CitY Zoning Ordinance, buildings within the C 1 zoning
district are required to be set back a minim1'''' of 20 feet from the front property boundary. Since
this commercial building is proposed to be located within the front yard setback, a variance must
be granted in order to allow the location of the building. Staffbas observed that most all of the
bllildi~ along Fifth Street (between Matterey and Eiglebeny Streets) are set back approximately
zero to five fi:et. By maintainit,g a five-foot setb=1ck. this project achieves a consistent continuation
of the existing development pattern, and of the historical nature of the downtown neighborhood,
Most importantly, the existing building directly east of the site (adjacent to the east property
boundary) is set back approximately five feet. Developing the new building with a front yard set
back greater than that proposed would result in an unattractive "gap effect."
l2) Reduced street-side yard building setback
If approved, the proposed building will be set back approximately five feet from the street-side (west)
property boimdary along Eigleberry Street.
Note: 'As required under Section 19.30 of the City Zoning Ordinance, buildings within the Cl zoning
district are required to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the street-side property boundary.
.Since this commercial building is proposed to be located within the street-side yard setback, a
variance nwst be granted. Similar to the pattern of reduced fn;mt setbacks is the pattern of reduced
strcet-side ~cks amoog otbCr existing buiJdinv within the immediate area. The property to the
south of the site (across Fifth Street) also encroaches within its current street-side-yard setback.
Approval of this request keeps with the existing, historical development pattern.
(3) Reduced front yard fencelwall setback
The proposed six-foot-bigh stucco wall will be set back approximately five feet from the front (south)
property bOWldary, if approved by the Planning Commission. .
Note: As required under Section 34.32 (a) of the City Zoning Ordinance, fences or walls within the
canmercial zoning district "shall not be built within the required front setback." In this case, the
required front yard set back for the project site is 20 reCt. Since thC proposed stucco waIl will be
located within the froot yard setback, a variance must be granted. . However, this waIl is proposed
to be constructed along the east property boundary, adjacent to, and obscured by, the Station 55
~. Staff contends that development of the stucco wall within the front setback would be
a consistent continuation of the reduced-setback development ~
Staff Report V 97-04 . .'
4
.
3/18/98
-
<j) Reduced landscape .lanten a1001 street frootqes
Since the applicant proposes to construct the commerciaJ/residential building approximately five feet
from the front and street-side property boWldarles, the subject building will encroach within the
required street frontage landscape area
Note: As, required under Section 38.22 of the City Zoning Ordinance. a minimum of 10 feet of
landscaping"sball be provided along each street frontage in addition to the public right-of-way."
Proposed building and sidewalk locations will eliminate the provision of a solid, 100foot-wide ,
landscape plaoter area along bod1 street fimtagcs. Since the-required "street frontage" landscaping
will be less than 10 feet wide, a variance must be granted. As with the reduced building setbacks,
the neighboring properties ~ the historic downtown area lack street frontage landscaping,
. . .
Staffhas reviewed.this project for its consistency with City regulations as well as with its compatibility with
surrounding properties. As mentioned above, the surroWlding commercial properties all have existing
buildings which encroach within the required front yard setback. The property to the south of the site also
encroaches within its current street-side-yard setback. Furthermore, the site's adjacent properties do not have
the minimum 10-foot-wide planter areas currently required Wlder the Zoning Ordinance.
Given the current loeational characteristics of the SurrOWlding buildings, staff has determined that the
applicant's request for the above-mentioned variances would not jeopardize the character of the surrounding
neighboIhood or properties. Stafffurther contends that the proposed development -as illustrated- would
provide a logical and harmonious link between existing, adjacent properties.
Overall, this project is substantially consistent with the City's General Plan text, Zoning Ordinance, and the .
Downtown Gilroy Rev;ta/i~tion Action Plan.
REOUIREp FINDINGS:
By definition, variances do not conform to the policies and regulations of Gilroy's Zoning Ordinance. In order
to approve a variance all the following five findings must be made:
1, That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property involved or to the
proposed use;
2. That because of such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of specified
provisions of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or WlIlCCesSaIy hardship such as to
deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of property in the same
class or district;
3. That the allowance of the variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially
detrimental to the public welfare 'ormaterially injurious to persons or property in the vicinity;
4. That the results of allowing the variance as specified will be in harmony with the general intent of the
Zoning Ordinance; and
5, That the gniming of a variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege greater than that
provided for by the standard provisions of this Ordinance for other properties in the vicinity and in the
same zoning district
Staff Report V 97-04 .
STAFF ACTION:
5
.
..
--
3/18/98 .
Staff ~ommends approval of thi!l request for the foUon: reJUons:
1. The literal enforcement of specified provisions of this Ordinance would ,result in a practical difficulty
and unnecessary hardship given the fact that immediately surrounding buildings and structures are
currently located in similar and more-encroaching positions than the subject commerciaJ/residential
building is proposed to be. Landscape and planter areas w.ithin surro1D1dingproperties are minimal;
2. Approval of this request will not present any safety conflicts or be materially detrimental to the public
welfare; . . _ .
3, Approval of-this request will enable the project to achieve increased consistency with the Downtown
Gilroy Revitalization Action Plan;
4, Approval of this request wiJl notjeopaidize the general intent of the City Zoning Ordinance; and
5. Since surrounding properties already feature similar development characteristics as those currently
proposed for the subject project, the granting of a variance will not constitute the granting of a special
privilege greater than that provided for other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district
In addition. staff ~ommends that the foUone ~onditions be placed on the eJ'BDtin: of this request:
1,. 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 permit 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. .
2, The developer shall submit plans for specific wall designs for Planning Division review and approval.
prior to building permit issuance. The east wall shall be designed such that a see-through iron gate
encloses any gaps between the subject wall and the adjacent east building. Should the off-site gate
not be provided, the developer shall design the wall with large decorative openings to enable sufficient
visibility. . .
3, The developer shall install a sewer test manhole, subject to review and approval by the Building, Life,
and Environmental Safety Division
.~
,t/~
William Faus
Planning Division Manager
Attachments
At their meeting of April 2, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-1 {pinheiro absent} to approve the
requested variance (V 97-(4) with three conditions. .
. C:\WPWIN6O\8R.Y AN\REPORTS\V ARIANCE\97.()4~A
, . ,EXHIBIT B .
Communit1oevelopment rfpartment
Planning Division
Negative Declaration City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna S t.
Gilroy, CA 95020
( 4q8) 848-0440
City File Number: CUP 97-08
Project Description
Name of Project:
Nature of Project:
Fifth Street Commons
The proposed project consists of plans to construct a 5,400-square-foot
commercial office building with four to five second-story residential units totalling
4,100 square feet on a ,32-acre lot.
Project Location
Location:
Assessor's Parcel #:
85 Fifth Street (northeast comer at Eigleberry Street)
799-06-058
Entity or Person(s) Undertakin2 Project
Name:
Address:
Custom One, Inc, (% Gloria Paiseau)
PO Box 1265
Morgan Hill, CA 95038 408-778-9505
Initial Study
An Initial Study of this project was undertaken and prepared for the purpose of ascertaining whether this project
might have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of this study is on file at the City of Gilroy Planning
Division, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020,
Findin2s & Reasons
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment. However, this project has been
mitigated (see Mitigation Measures below which avoid or mitigate the effects) to a point where no significant
effects will occur, There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment.
The following reasons will support these fmdings:
1. The proposal is a logical component of the existing land use of this area
2, Identified adverse impacts are proposed to be mitigated through preparation of special studies, and
construction of off-site improvements,
3, The proposed project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the Gilroy General Plan,
4, The Initial Study was independently reviewed by City staff, and this Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Gilroy.
Draft Negative Declaration .
CUP 97-08
2
.
2/2797
Mitiaation Measures
1. A soils investigation shall be prepared for the project by a qualified soils engineer, The recommendations
of the soils investigation shall be incorporated into the final building plans and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of the building permit.
2. The following language shall be included on any permits issued for the project site, including, but not
limited to, building permits for the future development.
''All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 7 AM and 7
PM, to Saturdays cmd City holidays between 9 AM and 7 PM No construction is allowed on
Sundays, In addition, the developer will be required to use temporary berms or noise attenuation
barriers where feasible, "
3, Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources might be found during construction, the
following language shall be included in any permits issued for the project site, including, but not limited
to building permits for the future development, pursuant to the review and approval of the Gilroy Planning
Division: '
"If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be
halted at a minimum of 200 feet from the fmd and the area shall be staked off, The project
developer shall notify the coroner or a the Director of the Archaeological Regional Research
Center, If the fmd is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be
formulated and implemented,"
/{//.. ff
~~
Wl lam Faus I
Planning Division Manager
Date Prepared: February 27, 1998
End of Review Period: March 23, 1998
Date Approved By Planning Commission: April 2, 1998
C:\WPWIN60\BRY AN\DOCUMENTlNEG-DEC\FIFrH_ ST.NEG
.
EXHIBIT C
.
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist A
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following mitigation measures shall be
. implemented: '
1
A soils investigation shall be prepared for the
project by a qualified soils engineer. The
recommendations of the soils investigation shall be
incorporated into the final building plans and shall
be reviewed and approved by the Gilroy
Engineering Division prior to approval of the
building permit. '
2
The following language shall be included on any
permits issued for the project site, including, but
not limited to, building permits for the future
development. "All noise generating construction
activities shall be limited to weekdays between 7
AM and 7 PM, to Saturdays and City holidays
between 9 AM and 7 PM, No construction is
allowed on Sundays. In addition, the developer
will be required to use temporary berms or noise
attenuation barriers where feasible,"
3
Due to the possibility that significant buried
cultural resources might be found during
construction, the following language shall be
included in any permits issued for the project site,
including, but not limited to building permits for
the future development, pursuant to the review
and approval of the Gilroy Planning Division:
"If archaeological resources or human remains are
discovered during construction, work shall be
halted at a minimum of 20d feet from the find and
the area shall be staked off, The project developer
shall notify the coroner or a the Director of the
Archaeological Regional Research Center, If the
find is determined to be significant, appropriate
mitigation measures shall be formulated and
implemented," '
Fifth Street Commons Mitigation Monitoring Program
Developer
Gilroy
Building
Division
Developer
Gilroy
Planning
Division
Gilroy
Building
Division
Developer
Gilroy
Planning
Division
MMP-3
.
.
\ , 1_
I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached
Resolution No. 98-23 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy
at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 18th day of May, 1998, 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 3rd day of June, 1998.
~~.
City Clerk oJ the City of Gilroy
(Seal)