|
CITY OF SAN
JOSÉ, CALIFORNIA Department of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement 801 North First
Street, Room 400 San José,
California 95110-1795 |
Hearing
Date/Agenda Number C.C.
6/18/2002 |
||||
|
|
File Number PDC02-044 |
||||
|
STAFF REPORT |
Application Type Conforming
Planned Development Rezoning |
||||
|
|
Council District 1 |
||||
|
|
Planning Area West
Valley |
||||
|
|
Assessor's
Parcel Number(s) 299-27-063 |
||||
|
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION |
Completed by: Darren McBain |
||||
|
Location: West side of Winchester
Boulevard approximately 200 feet northerly of Neal Avenue |
|||||
|
Gross Acreage: 4.3 |
Net Acreage: 3.95 |
Net Density: 49
dwelling units per acre |
|||
|
Existing Zoning: A(PD) Planned Development |
Existing Use: Vacant |
||||
|
Proposed Zoning: A(PD) Planned Development |
Proposed Use: Up to 194 multi-family attached
residential units |
||||
|
GENERAL PLAN |
Completed
by: DM |
||||
|
Land
Use/Transportation Diagram Designation High
Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC) |
Project
Conformance: [ x ] Yes [
] No [ x ] See
Analysis and Recommendations |
||||
|
SURROUNDING LAND
USES AND ZONING |
Completed
by: DM |
||||
|
North: Commercial |
CG
Commercial General |
||||
|
East: Commercial |
CP
Commercial Pedestrian |
||||
|
South: Multi-family attached residences |
RM
Residence, A(PD) Planned Development |
||||
|
West:: Multi-family attached residences |
RM
Residence |
||||
|
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS |
Completed
by: DM |
||||
|
[ ] Environmental Impact Report found
complete [ ] Negative Declaration circulated [x ] Negative
Declaration adopted on February 28, 2001 |
[ ] Exempt [ ] Environmental Review Incomplete |
||||
|
FILE HISTORY |
Completed by: DM |
||||
|
Annexation
Title: Winchester No.
32 |
Date: August 1, 1980 |
||||
|
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION |
|||||
|
[ x ] Approval [ ] Approval with Conditions [ ] Denial [ ] Uphold Director's Decision |
Date: _________________________ |
Approved
by: ____________________________ [x ] Action [ ] Recommendation |
|||
|
APPLICANT/DEVELOPER/OWNER |
|||||
|
801 Associates LLC, 1451 Fruitdale Avenue #102 San Jose, CA 95128 |
|||||
|
PUBLIC
AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED |
Completed by: DM |
||||
|
Department of Public Works See attached memo |
|||||
|
Other Departments and Agencies Not attached |
|||||
|
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE |
|
||||
|
None received. |
|||||
|
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS |
|
||||
BACKGROUND
The subject site is currently vacant. The site was the subject of two previously
approved Planned Development Rezonings:
1. File No. PDC97-046,
approved in 1998, to allow up to 158 apartments. A subsequent Planned
Development Permit was approved in 2000, but the project was not built. The
site design included a driveway and surface parking spaces around the perimeter
of the site.
2.
File
No. PDC00-123 (and subsequent permit), approved in 2001, to allow up to 196
apartments. The building in this proposal had a larger footprint than what was
previously approved, and the maximum height was raised from 45 feet to 50 feet.
This proposal took advantage of a recent General Plan Text Amendment that
increased the maximum allowed density for parcels with the High-Density
Residential designation to 50 dwelling units per acre, and increased the height
policy limit to 50 feet for residential buildings in most areas of the city.
The perimeter driveway and surface parking spaces were deleted, and the
building extended closer to the property lines. The proposed architectural
concept was also modified.
The
proposed project contains no new design elements that significantly differ from
elements of the previously approved proposals. The design of the proposed
project is largely a hybrid of the 1997 site plan and the increased density and
architectural character of the rezoning that was approved in 2000 (see Project
Description and Analysis sections, below). Planning staff considered the new
combination of these elements, which were previously approved separately, to be
a significant enough change to the project that City Council review was
appropriate. However, the proposal is being processed as a conforming rezoning
because the change in the project was viewed as substantially similar to what
was previously approved by the Council, making a more streamlined review
process appropriate.
The
existing surrounding land uses consist of two-story multi-family attached
residences on the south west sides of the site, commercial retail (Toys ‘R’ Us)
on the north side of the site, and a variety of commercial uses to the east of
the site across Winchester Boulevard. The subject site is located within the
area encompassed by the Winchester Strong Neighborhoods Initiative (SNI) Plan.
The proposed project consists of 194 apartment units
in a four-story podium building over a partially below-grade parking garage.
The project design essentially combines elements of the two previously approved
projects on the site. It has the basic site layout and building footprint of
the 1997 project, but only two fewer units than the 2001 project. The
architectural concept is substantially similar to what was approved in 2001.
Please refer to the analysis section, below, for further discussion of the
project’s site design, architecture, and conformance to the Winchester SNI
Plan.
The proposed project has a net density of 49 DU/AC,
which is consistent with the site’s General Plan Land Use/Transportation
Diagram designation of High-Density Residential (25-50 DU/AC).
Environmental clearance for this project was granted through an addendum
to the Negative Declaration adopted for the previous Planned Development
Rezoning that was approved in 2001. With a slightly smaller unit count and
similar site design, the proposed and previous projects are essentially
identical for purposes of environmental review.
The proposed building includes some use of
four-story elements, similar to the 1997 project but unlike the 2001 proposal,
which was all three-story. However, the overall building height is the same as
what was approved in 2001, i.e., the 50-foot maximum allowed under the General
Plan for residential buildings in most areas of the City.
The City’s Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) do
not differentiate between three-story and four-story buildings for purposes of
compatibility with adjacent land uses. The proposed perimeter setbacks
(approximately 53 feet on the front, 58 feet on the sides, and 35 feet on the
rear) fall within the range of the two previously proposed projects’ setbacks.
Staff believes the proposed site design will provide an adequate amount of
buffering from the adjacent residential and commercial land uses.
On-site parking for residents and guests is provided
at the ratios recommended in the RDGs. Unlike the project approved in 2001,
guest parking is provided along the sides of the site, rather than between the
front of the building and Winchester Boulevard. As with both of the previous approvals,
the primary driveway entrance will align with Magliocco Drive.
Common open space and private open space (balconies
and patios) are provided in conformance with the RDGs.
The conceptual architectural of the proposed
building is similar to and compatible with the previously approved proposals,
and is appropriate for the building’s location and surroundings. However, it
may be desirable for the building to have a more defined entry feature visible
from the street, and for access to the podium/garage level to be taken from the
north side of the building instead of from the rear of the site. These aspects
of the final design, as well as the building materials and other details of the
conceptual architectural design, will undergo further review and refinement at
the Planned Development Permit stage.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning
staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the subject
site for the following reasons:
1.
The
proposed rezoning conforms to the subject site’s General Plan Land
Use/Transportation Diagram designation of High-Density Residential (25-50
DU/AC).
2.
The
proposed project substantially conforms to the Residential Design Guidelines.
3.
The
project furthers the goals and objectives of the City’s in-fill housing
strategies.
4.
The
proposed rezoning is compatible with existing and proposed uses on the adjacent
and neighboring properties.