Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/14/199334 2 3 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 7 8 9 'REGULAR ,MEETING Septeiitb.r 14,"1993 10 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11 CITY HALL PETALUND,%, CA 12 13 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 14 15 ROLL CALL: Bennett*, Parkerson, Rahman, Shea, Thompson, Torlidtt,,vo-wRaesfeld 16 17 STAFF: Pamela Tuft, - Planning Director 18 Jim McCann, Principal Planner 19 Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner 20 Jennifer Barrett, Associate Planner 22 Chairman 23 Id 25 MINUTES* OF August 24, 1993 were approved as distributed. 26 27 PUI1' 28 LIC COMMENT: None.. 29 30 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 31 32 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Joint C'ity Council, Planning Commission, SPARC 33 meeting � w as useful and productive. 34 35 CORRESPONDENCE: September 10 General Report, 2 letters regarding Rainier 36 Interchange; memo from staff. regarding -Sonoma Glen V. 38 APPEAL. STATEMENT: Was read. 39 40 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. 41 4` 43 OLD BUSINESS: 44 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 45 46 1.- CITY OF PETALUMA; RAINIER DRAFT E NVIRONMENTAL .1 MPACT REPORT 47 HEARING; FILE NO. 11.863. 48 49 Public comment on the Draft . Envir"Onmental Impact Report for. the proposed 50 Rainier Avenue Extension 'and- ` Consideration, of Draft Biological 51 Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 52 - 53 (Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 1993.) '54 35 1 (Commissioner Rahman indicated that she had reviewed tape of the previous (Rainier) 2 meeting.) 3 4 SPEAKERS: 5 6 Associate Planner Jennifer Barrett - Continuation of hearing to review Biologic Mitigation 7 Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program and any additional public commen s; purpose of 8 DEIR, Mitigation Plan and Monitoring Program. Biological Mitigation Program is 9 conceptual at this time. Comments in two types: i) Adequacy of DEIR; 2) Policy. 10 Commissioner Bennett - Wants written response to comments before discussing policy. 11 issue. (9) Doris Popky - 1549 Rainier - Jennifer Barrett very helpful. DEIR does not adequately 00 address "safety of area residents (need signs, prohibit trucks, commercial, 4-way stop at 09 Prince Albert, 4-way stop at Maria, pedestrian crossing at all crossings, speed bumps, maybe sound walls,•need to- figure out how to deal with quads); Allah Tilton said Council committed to not develop - Corona Road in the Corona/Ely plan, why then a DEIR - look at alternative that could not be considered wasteful of tax dollars. &ON? Casey Se4owitz - 405 Trinity - has not received response to first letter, gave new letter for record, wants cost-benefits between projects analyzed; look at traffic violations/citations. 20 Ed Sawicki - 425 Yosemite - This is a band-aid, need to build both interchanges; residents 21 on Rainier won't have commercial traffic; commercial traffic can use Corona Road. 22 Sherrill Worth - 1739 Rainier - too much commercial traffic for residential area; build both 23 interchafi ges; often nearly rear-ended while pulling into driveway; EIR needs current 24 counts on Rainier. 25 Michellel, Benson - 408 RedRock - Hit by car on busy street when she was in. 3rd grade; this able traffic level. , will be the same unaccep A 7 Lisa Wells - 220 Prince Albert - presented several illustrating photographs of Rainier 8 Avenue; overhe'ads, view towards Rushmore, speed sip needs replacement, trimilied 29 bushes didn't work; must pull 3' into slow lane to adequately see; truck stacks are noisy on 30 McDowell, shouldn't be allowed on Rainier; views exiting quads; bushes overgrown, bat 31 that is only sound barrier so don't cut; cars back-up on Maria; SRJC peak at same time as 32 Bernard Eldridge; top, concern: children safety, not enough site distance on Prince Albert, 33 360' between �een Prince Albert and Rainier traffic will back-up and block exit; Rushmore has 34 same problem. 35 Glen MacKenzie - 279 Skillman Lane 29 years here; large increase in traffic; Bo&ga 36 Avenue/Petaluma Blvd. cross-traffic and Cinnabar School add to it; 'objects to Corona 37 intercba,Age; would stream more traffic to Skillman Lane. 38 David Keller - 1327 1 Street (Petaluma River Co.) - Key points from letter: (inc. policy for - 39 traffic - r ' eduction); Objections: relieve east/west traffic and Washington corri dor relief 40 DEIR does prove that project does not meet Washington relief, current vs. 20.05 traffic 41 same: just do mitigations, skip project; DEIR does not look at traffic reduction: should 42 reduce traffic flow rather than add infrastructure; City should subsidize, non-auto 43 dependent uses rather, than fund infrastructure, references worldwide studies; l6ok at why 44 cars are on Washington, we should check whether park placement/resc'hedule. of parks will 45 reduce congestion; why was "Eastman Video Plaza" built? What will happen when train 46. Plaza builds? Why not require employers to bus to reduce autos; make buses run every 15 47 minutes; transit first, development pattern secondary: correct approach; view Corona 48 interchange onl y ; with no extension of Rainier; view conservation/ Corona 49 interchange only combo approach; less damaging to River; Rainier not designed for traffic `1 0 volumes;i open 'space easements to restrict growth along Corona; Use SCAPOSD to 1 make Corona area a high priority; make commitment not to extend utilities, obstruct 2 traffic on Corona, growth inducement easily resolved; Discrepancies in traffic counts 3 between different documents - Corona/Ely, Factory Outlet, SRJC (Why?); DEIR needs 54 more discussion of biotic impacts - immediate, consequent, cumulative growth; Request to 2 36 flag project, height poles and toe of fill 5 :1 oak replacement inadequate; Only place where oaks are reproducing, should be based on habitat replacement, - not trees acre for. acre; Nalue for value ".; integrity of area should not be destroyed. Jim Schaffner (Real Estate Broker) 4 Overcrossing and interchange should go alon Sunrise .Parkway: 1) land for sale in needed right-of-way in Southpoint Business Park, 21 can pave Capri. Creek /greenbelt area; 3) can connect to Old -.Adobe Road; 4) meets Caltrans "i- rnnle"separation requirement; maybe. get funding. Mer edith. Kebodeaux -'629 Maria - Don't pave Capri greenbelt; Maria traffic_ too bad now (will project relieve or worsen Maria) ; supports Corona. David Kavana - 1825 Sk lman Enjoyed comments; impressed by views; same problems ' are magnified on Skillman; speed`s now 80 MPH' on Skillman which is less wide than Rainier;, new alternatives need to be studied, Rainier is self - contained, won't encourage traffic and can mitigate with stop signs and other coritrol .measures; Skilman would attract regional traffic ; -likes open °area for hiking among oaks: Janice Thompson - 732 Carlsbad ti Prefers. Corona, because Corona...more direct route to. SRJC (why was SRJC allowed in high density area ?); Auto dealers ought to- 'have better freeway access; Ramps can avoid auction yard; sympathizes with Skilman residents, but traffic impact worse for Rainier residents; Costs less because distance 'longer between McDowell and Petaluma Blvd. at Rainier than -at Corona; project will be higher (cost ?) at Rainier than at Corona; Rainier is'deadend, Corona leads to more activity centers around edge of town; Corona better serves Factory Outlet; Rainier has too many. children and driveways. Larry Tencer 1709 Granada - Office on McDowell, traffic is bad; DEIR .does not address economic_ imp acts, economic factors need to be studied (need. assessment to finance project); this project has more vacant land to ,sh`are costs: DEIR ,need more "english" and page numbers in better sequence; DEIR: needs more background information .on build =out assurnpfions; DEIR needs more comparable times /peak, 24 hours as well as peak; This DEIR not as clear in conclusion as earlier. reports; This DEIR says .McD'owell=rs LOS' A; doesn't believe for ,southbound based on 'his observations from. office; Southbound heavier than north, but numbers added so that back -up on McDowell not as apparent. Lee. Heinz .Chamber of Commerce - Still being discussed at Chamber, Here to present position ;; Chamber; asked for input from members, citizens, shopping center owners, mission statement '`healthy and vibrant business community" is focus (not to discount other input);. Chamber supports Rainier, better for business; traffic flow a factor to shop north of Petaluma; enhances - access for shopers; supports inward' growth within Urban: Limit Line; maintains integrity of the General Pl An; recaptures tak- dollars and creates jobs; Reexamine coinclusion' that' Rainier does not alleviate Washington /McDowell congestion; Need to address .safety, noise.,and congestion more fully; Possible to proceed with . project and respond to needs of neighborhood. John Clifrow f627 Shanendoah - Hazardous'`materials release in.delivery 'tiucks' accident along ,Rainier ;, Fire Department -at Corona can deaf with spill since they're there not a's populated: Felix Wee - 1-24' Prince Albert General' Plan, page 1 says ; Rainier designed for future traffic since then,' Corona /Ely and SRJC, Outlet DEIR added traffic; Neighbors never informed of incremental growth, not cumulative growth; not able to ',determine if all impacts are combined; due to college;* Rainier may be asked to accomm odate more traffic than it was designed for; Why were quads approved? Why were other homes allowed on Rainier if traffic was to be so high? General" Plan 'is static, can be. changed ,(plus we are 1. Charter City); Rainier looked at 40 years ago, now obsolete; Air quality: short impacts OK; Long term impacts: Rainier supports construction vehicles; Page 3.12.1.4: Policy 27 of General Plan " BAAQMD to monitor..; "; 3.4. -7: BAAQMD site is in - Santa: Rosa, reveals no violation; Weyle contacted, Santa Rosa station, told that could not measure CO , (Carbon Monoxide) in area as far away as Petaluma. "; Rainier residents agree to Rainier extension, which would, alleviate traffic according to DEIR ;Skillman reside nits _ opposed, but does not oV k .��rsSFy f �,. WA 1 believe Corona Interchange will encourage regional through - traffic to Bodega; Through- 2 . traffic on Skilman is threat, now, interchange will not worsen; Skilman arguments also apply " . 3 to Rainier; Rainier is growth inducing also: "Thus project would accommodate growth 4 rather than cause growth" quote from "unreadable" Admin. Draft EIR; If auction yard ( 5 supports: 100 miles, then interchange should be at Corona; Rainier residents now "endorsed 6 by Chamber "; Chamber of Commerce "City should support short -term solutions for Rainier 7 residents ", but they need long -term solution. 8 Gary Harmon - 216 Prince Albert - Earlier speakers 'impressive; lived here 8 years, likes is 9 Petaluma ambiance; Regarding economics: Planning Commission should not consider 10 business end, but.rather people, families. 11 Ken Bouchard -"128 Prince Albert - Sonoma Mountain Parkway better designed to handle traffic; Why is Rainier cheaper than Corona? Corona already has a connection; Tie is Corona to vacant lands for economic benefits; Can't equate economic benefits to .death of child. Madeline Ash - 141 Yosemite - Factory Outlet near Corona and in Cotati; Corona better supports. Factory Outlet. John Coos - 471 Yosemite Pagination must be changed; How is City going to pay? Why no State or Federal money? What is impact on vacant parcels? Can this zoning be I changed? Can we assume it will be changed to help pay for it. 20 Mark 'Roadhouse - 201 Prince Albert - Chamber focus too much' on revenue, should be 21 safety; If.not safety, then some individuals benefit from revenue. 22 Jim Becker - 953 Gossage - spoke before, lives in rural area near Skillman; neighbors do 23 not support Corona, Planning Commission has not heard from them much; He is Chamber 24 Chair of 27- member Economic Committee, supports Chamber position, decision - making 25 process long and drawn -out; Chamber'sympathetic t' Rainier residents. 6 Bill Kortum - Ely Road - Long term resident, T- intersection at Petaluma Blvd. (Rainier) ' 7 not serving much of westside; City should not depend on growth for revenue; especially at ► 8 the loss of great open space; SCTA has control of CIP funds (new Transit Land Use Plan); 29 land use needs to be planned around transit; Advocated need 3 -4 years to prepare plan; 30 CIP could widen Corona, fix Washington intersection; why pass Rainier if money may be 31 available for other fixes; Requested postponement of decision for CIP /MTC approval 32 maybe just to January? Would not like to see Corona, but its preferable; public_in Corona i 33 will not allow growth; Skilman will not compete with Stony Point /Pepper Road to coast. 34 Victor de Carli - Petaluma Inn associate - Good presentations; need solution , to 35 McDowell /Washington problem; regarding safety - no accidents at Kenilworth on a busy 36 street; Corona Road not viable alternative; people will not drive 2 -3 miles north to go 37 southbound on US 101; Rainier not crowded at 4:45 PM tonight (no cars).' 38 D. Keller - PRC - Transit will be brought up at General Plan hearing; Factory Outlet 39 conditions required- master plan; approval of Rainier first is "highly inappropriate ".. 40 B. Kumasi - 1533 Rainier - Neighbors not here feel even more strongly "this is, tip of 41 iceberg''.; This, is not special interest group, rather ass roots cross - section of society; 42 Citizen views matter; attended Chamber meeting they were obviously not: ,expecting 43 crowd); feels they held meeting just to be able to say they did; feels Chamber lost goodwill 44 today. ,. 45 46 The public hearing was closed 47 48 Planning Commission Discussion 49 0 Commissioner Parkerson - Clarify Corona alternative includes the extension of Rainier 1 Avenue las an overcrossing only with an-interchange at Corona Road. 2 Commissioner Torliatt - I thought EIR should show facts, not recommendation. �3 Associate Planner Jennifer Barrett - CEQA requires that if it is clear that one alternative is 54 less environmentally damaging to the environment the EIR must identify the 2 a environmentally superior alternative; EIR to identify potential .impacts and, recommend mitigation measures; not all "facts'; but evaluation of potential. . Commissioner Torliatt - Felt DEIR pushed toward' conclusion that Rainier is better. t . Associate Planner Jennifer Barret Because alternate is full project alternative, it was evaluated throughout the document in a comparative analysis. Commissioner Sh ea - Funding not in DEIR; when would this information, be available? Associate Planner Jennifer Barrett Usually funding details are presented ai City" Council Commissioner Rahman Was there a separate Traffic,Study? Associate Planner Jennifer Barrett - Yes, Traffic Report was included in EIR in its entirety. Commissioner Rahman Financing? Who's responsibility? Should Planning Commission be involved? Refer to Kortum statements. Commissioner Bennett - Planning Commission needs more financingg information (background) ' "sense of how to fund "; "sense of economic" impacts; wants information with response to comments. Not as in their authority but to provide clear _of .the, project, and possible options. Commissioner. Torliatt - What will be done to Washington /McDowell? Funding intersection? `Tiining of intersection improvements? Commissioner Rahman - Also needs to be looked at comprehensively, tie to General Plan review. C ommissioner` Bennett - Traffic - Need to look at any discrepancies between studies; clarify what the im acts /benefits are to Washington Street; better sense of how Rainier and Washin &ton /McDowell projects interrelate; plans for traffic enforcement of both project alternatives (as mitigation); safety, evaluate a range of mitigations; address Kortum s financing options for other improvements; address trip reduction `TRO /Keller "conservation" -comments and what can we do to* improve transit, how dependent. ° Commissioner Rahman - What can be .'done' to address Rainier.: - safety .:concerns. immediately (without.project ),; need a stop light at Prince Albert Court. Commissioner `Shea - Concerns with safety. Commissioner Thompson Restrips, change lanes, etc. between Prince Albert and Rainier; crossguards; define need for interchange, evaluate commute patterns; who are drivers on Washington? .Compare east and west drivers vs. bus users; Keller's comments on habitat (don't .over- landscape). Commissioner Torliatt - Explain better project impact on Army Corps flood control project; visual: bland overpass; does landscape plan vegetate new fill; Growth Inducement what is County zoning in Corona? Why is'this considered growth inducing ?; bike access Describe, bike upgrades if any on Petaluma Blvd. North; will Rainier bikelanes, go, anywhereT .Why are on -ramps designed as is (diamonds vs. loops); Why not diamonds on both sides, How .do ramps compare to Washington loops (Washington,., dangerous) Alterative shapes that can be considered? Is fill less money than posts /raised ?; Why so- much fill (visual obstruction) over poles?; Why is River Enhancement Plan. not mentioned? How will riverwalk connect to Rainier? Should we have spiral staircase? Intercity transit (rail) should be discussed /addressed. Commissioner Bennett - What will traffic volumes on Rainier, Corona, Washington be with; no project /each project ?; Succinct summary; not LOS but volumes, what is traffic. reduction; Compare to Caulfield; Payran (E. Washington to Petaluma Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Economic issues have a bearing; clearly explain source of funds; what, price paid; further explain how to get State and Federal funds, compare prices. of options; identify mayor traffic generators map = SRJC, Shopping Centers, Factory Outlet; Describe evolution of Rainier in General Plan since first inception, was it .always an, interchange?; Show all alternatives that were considered; define problem we are trying to solve; more - detailed . data. (crosswalks, driveways,, etc:); Why is Washington. Street not improved at buildout? Now? Can growth 'inducement be solved for Corona? 5 39 I 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 M 10 11 20 . 21 23 24 25 �f 6. � r 7 8 9 30 31 I 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 --39 40 41 42 1 43 44 r .. 45 f' 46 47 48 49 0 1 2 t 3 . `. 54 Commissioner Torl iatt - Corona impacts to rail crossing; Rainier relationship to railroad overpass on 101., will it affect- site distance (block views of stopped cars); Why curve in Rainier alignment? Why not-go straight through to Lands of Gavriloff. Commissioner Shea - Discuss r -o -w acquisition needs; how acquired, what land required for both; Corona and Rainier? Commissioner vonRaesfeld DEIR states Rainier was designed to accommodate traffic, describe, what features make it so. The hearing was closed and the Planning Commission discussion was continued to a future date after the response to comments is made available. Pamela Tuft clarified that a notice will be (sent out to mailing list when the Response to Comments is available and the meeting date is scheduled. II MOUNTAIN VALLEY PARTNERS; MOUNTAIN VALLEY VILLAS; SONOMA. MOUNTAIN PARTWAY AT RAINIER CIRCLE, AP NO'S ' 136- 120 - 60,61,78; FILES TSM92003, REZ92011. Request to amend the PUD Development Plan and Tentative Map for Phases 2A and 3 of Mountain Valley Subdivision to create 70 detached single - family lots. The public hearing was opened: SPEAKERS: Principal Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report. Doyle Heaton - (Applicant) Mountain Valley Partners - Project has undergone substantial revision per Commission direction; price range of homes (less) than $200,000; opposed to "tot lot" recommendation. John Thatch - �Dahlin Group (Architect) - Homes are innovatively designed, yet contain typical elements. Commission Comments Questions regarding paving surfaces; pedestrian Access;-adequacy of alterriate lot plans; Fire Department and service vehicle access. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Rahman and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to recommend to the City Council approval of the Amendment to the 'PUD Development Plan and Development Standards based on the findings and subject to the following amend6" conditions: COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes CHAIRMAN BENNETI': Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes I F indings for PUD Amendment 1. The amended development plan as conditioned, results in a more desirable use of the land, and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. N 1 3 5 6 8 _ : "* 10 . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44:, 45' 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 2. The amended plan for the proposed development, as, conditioned, presents a unified and organized arrangement' of -buildings which are appropriate in. relation to adjacent and nearby properties and associated proposed projects, and adequate landscaping and /or screening is included if necessary to insure, compatibility. 3. The natural and scenic qualities - of, the site will, be protected - through the implementation, of conditions of approval :pertaining. to landscape: areas and adequate: available public and private` 'spaces are designated ''on the Unit Development Plan. 4. The. development of the subject property, in thee manner proposed by the applicant . and conditioned by the City, _will not be detrimental . to the public welfare, will be in the best- interests of the, City.,and.will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of ;Petaluma and with the Petaluma General. Plan. 5. The development is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one or. more thoroughfares Sonoma Mountain Parkway) to carry any additional traffic generated by, the development. - 6.. The use of a private court and common driveways as proposed. for cluster- units contributes to a more efficient use tof land ' would be possible through use of standard public streets,, and enforcement of conditions of approval and applicable ,provisions in the project CC &R's' will ensure. that the development will function 'adequately,as designed. 7. This project has complied . with the requirements of the California Environmental (�ualt Act .(CEQA) through preparation and certification: of 'the Corona /Ely .Specific Plan EIR, and is exempt from further review, based upon 15182 of y the CEQA .Guidelines, consistency with the Corona f Ely Specific Plan. Conditions for Amendment 1._ 'This.project shall be subject to SPARC review prior to Final Map application. Plans submitted at time of SPARC application. shall reflect amendments and ,requirements .;:. J specified in.the following conditions. 2. The number of plan 3 (single story) units. shall .be increased to. = the . extent determined feasible by staff. Lot lines and building setbacks may be adjusted as necessary to achieve increased unit count. Lots 26 and 70 . 33- t- hratrgh -36 shall be -considered for this purpose. 3. The following minimum off-street. parking ratios shall be provided for each unit within phases 2A and 3: a. Two covered (garage) and one uncovered parking spaces for plans 1 and 2; and .b. Two covered and two driveway spaces for plans 3,4 and 5. 4. The arrangement of buildings and parking shall be modified as necessary to ensure the following minimum dimensions 7 C'1" f 1 a. Parking stalls shall measure a minimum of 8' x 16'. No encroachment, of 2 stalls into back up or.,driveway areas shall be permitted, but a 2' vehicular . 3 overhang shall be permitted adjacent to landscaping. fi 4 1. 5 1i A minimum of 22' shall be provided for back -up areas. 6 7 c: A minimum of 18' shall be provided for driveway stalls, measured from face 8 of garage door to edge of driveway, or back of sidewalk, whichever is less. 9 10 d. A minimum of 5' shall be provided. between pavement in driveway/parking 11 } areas and perimeter /yard fenchig ' (excluding any proposed vehicle ce overhang). co 5:: Proposed setbacks for plans 3, 4, and 5 shall be labeled and incorporated into the FUD Development. Plan as shown on the 'Tentative Map. 6. Proposed setbacks for plans 1 and 2 shall be labeled on the PUD Development j Plan. 20 �------ - 21 e4iisteF-- tm}ts-- 4ocated -- along -= Searles - -Wa-y 22 e4ffliHated -- -far- - this - ptrrpOse: -- P+Ovis}on .&-fof- OwfW-Ship - landscape -- treaty t --and 23a3r}tenanee- shall -be- addressed ateo € -5� applatx 24 25 8. A detailed fencing plan shall be provided at time of SPARC review, which shows the 6 location of all fencing in relation - 'to property lines and landscape areas. Fencing 7 details for .private yard, and perimeter fencing proposed shall be included in the 8 plans. Perimeter fencing adjacent to the junior college site shall be consistent with 29 that approved for construction in phases 1A and 2B. 30 z 31 9. Landscape plans submitted at time of SPARC review shall clearly delineate areas to 32 be maintained by the homeowners association, and those to be privately maintained. 33 34 10. Proposed landscape treatment in the vicinity of Lots 5 and 23, connecting Rainier 35 Circle and Almanor Street, shall include bollards'to preclude vehicular access and a 36 5' pedestrian /bicycle path. A pedestrian public access easement shall: be dedicated 37 at time of Final Map across this area, and the remaining. portion of Parcel A and j 38 Parcel B and provisions for maintenance shall be incorporated into the project '`be 39 CC &Rs. Details for proposed treatment shall submtted "at' time of SPARC 40 review of the project. 41 42 11. Paving and design for the private court and common driveways, (including Parcel A) ±. 43 shall be visually differentiated from that of the treatment for public streets. 44 Treatment shall ' include use of standard curb cuts in lieu of curb returns. Use of 45 decorative concrete, pavers or other alternative to asphalt is required. Design and 46 materials shall be subject to SPARC review and approval. 47 48 12. Plans submitted at time of SPARC review shall incorporate provisions for wheel 49 stops or curbing in shared driveway parking stalls to prevent vehicular 0 encroachment into landscape areas within the cluster unit portion of the project. 2 13. PUD Development Standards shall be amended prior to SPARC application to 3 address the following: 54 42 1 3 5 6 7 8 10 if 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28' ?9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ;8 . 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 a. No accessory structures shall be permitted outside private fenced areas for plans 1 and 2 except as permitted' by the. Homeowners Association. Accessory structures for plans 1. and 2 may not 'encroach ;more than 1' into the required 5' yard setbacks. Acc6'sory structures for plans 3,4 and 5 shall meet Zoning Ordinance provisions for setback and'lot coverage. b. References to recorded setbacks shall be deleted. C. Setbacks for plans 1 and 2 shall be clarified to indicate the location of front; side and rear yards. d. No ground floor area additions or garage conversions shall be- permitted for plans 1 and 2. e. Provisions for permitting accessory dwellings in accordance:. with... Zoning, Ordinance requirements shall be incorporated. f. Provisions for maintenance of fencing, walkways - and other pedestrian structures (e.g., trellising and seating) in unfenced private yard areas shall be incorporated into the PUD Standards and CC &Rs. g.. Exhibits for purposes of identifying biddable yard areas and responsibility for maintenance of yard areas shall be incorporated into the PUD Development Standards at time of. SPARC application. b. Minimum off- street parking requirements as specified under condition 3 shall be incorporated into the PUD Development Standards- i. - 'Sp.ecific provisions for installation of pools, spas, uncovered decks, and patio covers shall be incorporated, or reference to applicable provisions of the ..Zoning Ordinance specified. j. A reference to the approval dates and /or document numbers for the PUD Unit Development Plan, the Mountain Valley Subdivision Development Agreement and addendums, Tentative'Map Resolution, PUD Resolution, SPARC. Conditions of approval .and subdivision CC &Rs shall be inserted into the PUD' Development Standard's prior to Final Map approval. k. Provisions for emergency and service vehicle (e .g. trash pick =up). access, along . shared driveways and the private court shall be incorporated. into the PUD Standards and CC &R's. 1. Provisions to allow operation of small family daycare, large. family daycare and home occupations, subject to Zoning Ordinance provisions, shall be incorporated into the PUD Development 'Standards and referenced in the subdivision CC &R's. 14. Landscape plans shall be amended . prior to SPARC application.: to reflect all pertinent conditions of approval, and revisions made to the PUD Development Plan. 15. SPARC review of architectural and site design plans shall include emphasis on the following: s Z 43 1 a. Adequacy and desirability of the proposed distribution of units and exterior `2 elevations as specified on the PUD Plan. 3 4 b. Variety of exterior siding and roofing materials,' window treatments, garage 5 and front door treatments, and architectural detailing. Opportunities for 6 porch and entry treatments shall be stressed. 7 8 C. Orientation of units on lots to provide for variety in unit massing, setbacks 9 and garage orientation, as well as adequate open space along the streetscape 10 and walkway areas. 11 CD d. Review of parking plans to ensure optimal ease in vehicular maneuverability, CO while minimizing pavement to the extent possible. e. Adequacy of public and private landscaping, pedestrian routes, outdoor seating and play areas, and reasonable provisions for maintenance. f. Review of driveway and walkway paving materials and design to ensure visual distinction from public streets, protection of landscape areas from 20 vehicular intrusion, and long term durability and function. 21 22 & Review of proposed mailbox locations and refuse pick-up areas to ensure 23 adequate service functio.n.and minimization of parking/circulation- conflicts. 24 25 16. All trees within the public right-of-way street tree planter strips shall be maintained y 6 b' an Assessment District through contract - services subject to approval of the City '7 Council in conjunction with approval of the first Final Map.. Landscaping within 8 these areas shall be designed and installed to standards acceptable to the City of 29 Petaluma Planning, Engineering, Public Works and Parks Departments. Irrigation 30 to serve all landscaping in the street tree planter strips shall be designed to connect 31 with the private lot irrigation systems of the adjoining lots. This property may annex 32 to the same Landscape Assessment District (LAD) previously established for 33 Mountain Valley phases . 1A, 113, and 2B. Costs of formation/annexation of the 34 required LAD shall be b orne by the project roponent at time of Final Map 35 application. Following City acceptance of right-op-way areas,- landscaping other than 36 street trees and the irrigation systems serving the landscaping, shall be maintained 37 to City Standards by owners of the adjoining properties. 38 39 17 All' applicable provisions of the Development Agreement and subsequent 40 Addendums, and the Urban Separator Improvement and Park Improvement 41 Agreement documents pertaining to timing of required improvements for Mountain 42 Valley Subdivision shall remain in fall force and effect.for phases 2A and 3, unless 43 amended through written addendum and/or conditions of approval adopted for the 44 Mountain Valley Villas project. 45 46 18. Subdivision CC&Rs shall be subject -to the review and approval of Planning and 47 Engineering staff and the City Attorney prior to Council consideration of the first .48 Final Map. Review shall include emphasis on inclusion of adequate language to 49 ensure appropriate enforcement of maintenance provisions pertaining to the private 0 driveways, and commonly shared landscaping and - hardscape improvements in T ., l private yard areas. �2 t3 19. The Amended PUD Development Plan (including landscape plans) shall 54 incorporate all Council and SPARC conditions of approval within 30 days of 10 SPARC. approval of the project or prior to Final Map. application, whichever occurs first. All _revisions shall meet the specifications of Planning and Engineering staff, and. a reproducible copy of the finalized document submitted to the Planning Department prior to City Council consideration of the first Final Map. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council approval of: the amended Tentative Map based on the findings and subject to the following conditions: COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes Findings for Map Amendment 1. The proposed subdivision, as conditionally approved, together with provisions for its design and. improvement, is consistent - with the General Plan and Corona /Ely Specific Plan objectives, policies, general land uses and programs. 2. The site is physically suitable for the medium density, small lot detached single family and cluster home development proposed, as conditionally approved. 3'. The design° of .'the subdivision and _the proposed improvements therefore as conditionally approved, will not cause substantial environmental 'darriage, and' no J ry substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish and /or wildlife or (heir habitat. 4. The. .des ign of the Subdivision and the type of improvements proposed will not conflict, with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of prop ty within the proposed subdivision. Conditions for Tentative MaIAmendment 1. The subdivider shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer: a. Lots 63, 64', 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 are dependent on those' improvements installed within Mt. Valley Phase: 1A. Annexation to the existing covenants, conditions and restrictions '(CC &R's) for Mt. Valley 1A or a maintenance agreement for private'storm drainage system, the 100 year surface drainage - overflow, landscape, irrigation and other facilities within. this - area shall be required between lots served by this system and shall be submitted in a recordable form. This agreement ,shall also specify tuning, of maintenance and be in a form acceptable to City staff, and recorded concurrent with the final map• ; 50 b. The 100 year overflow relief Swale located between proposed Lots 64, 65 and 51 66 and extending across APN 136- 51 -41 to the Danby :Court cul -de -sac shall 52 be kept free of permanent structures. The CC&R's or the above mentioned 53 maintenance agreement between Lots 64, 65 and 66 shall clearly identify 54 surface easement so as to ensure adherence to this requirement. The final 11 WLM I '2 map shall dedicate this surface drainage easement to the City and clearly C' state that it shall be kept free of permanent structures. 3 4 c, The public storm drain located on private driveway easement for Lots 64, 65 5 and 66 shall be contained. within an exclusive 10 -foot dedication easement. 6 7 d. The sanitary sewer located within the private driveway easement for Lots 64, 8 65 and 66 shall be contained within an exclusive 10 -foot dedicated paved 9 easement. 10 11 e. The public water main and sanitary sewer located within Parcels A and B (0 shall each be contained in an"exclusive paved. 10 foot easement dedicated to CO the City. Any modification to the surface treatment (e.g. paving) shall be upon approval of the Director of Public Works. f. Access to Parcel B (private court) shall be via a City standard driveway approach with distinctive pavement treatment. ' I & public acce Parcel A and Parcel B rivate court shall be contained in a access (P ) P 20 and emergency n en vehicle access easements as required b the Fire Marshal) i g cY ( q Y 21 addition to the referenced utility easements. 22 23 h. Parcel A (adjacent to Lots 5 and 23) between Parcel B shall be used solely 24 for pedestrian and emergency vehicular access (as required by the Fire 25 Marshal). This re uirement shall be achieved through the use of bollards q g and signing to the satisfaction_ `of the Fire Marshal and Engineering 7 Department. 8' 9 i. The private court (Parcel B) and all public streets shall have a structural 30 section to meet traffic index of 5.0 design requirements. 31 32 j. The, private driveway easements shall have a structural section to meet a 33 traffic index of 4.0 design requirements. 34 35 k. The proposed extension of Searles Way to Rainier Circle shall be public and 36 constructed to City Standards. 37 38 1. Sanitary sewer and water services within the private driveway areas shall be 39 private and maintained in accordance with the CC &R's for this project. 40 41 M. All water meters shall be placed within the public right -of -way in accordance 42 with City Standards. .43 . 44 n. Some existing improvements- previously constructed within Mt. Valley 1A . 45 and 1B may need to be modified and /or replaced so as to accommodate the 46 proposed development. 47 48 0'. This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in the 49 soils report for this project. 0 w 1 P. The developer shall comply with the Petaluma Municipal Code Section 2 20.36.010 and 20.36.020 which require the developer to pay storm drainage 3 impact fees (as calculated in Chapter 17.30) on construction in all sections of 54 the City of Petaluma. 12 1 . 2 q. Signing and striping shall conform to City Standards. 3 4 r. All street lights within this development shall have standard (Corona /Ely) 5 metal fixtures dedicated to the City.for ownership maintenance. Pnor.to 6 City acceptance, _the developer shall verify all lights meet PG &E's.IS2 rating 7 system. 8 9 S. All grading and erosion control shall conform to the City's Erosion Control 10 Ordinance 15.76. 11 12 t. Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying 13 , the system adequacy for fire flows and domestic service.. (This item shall be 14 verified concurrent with improvement plan.review). 15 16 U. This development shall be required to contribute to the City's traffic 17 mitigation fee. 18 19 2. The subdivider shall comply with the - following requirements of the Public . Works 20 -Department: 21 22 a. All water meters are to be located 6" behind sidewalks. 23 24 . b.. No City water mains or sewer mains are to extend down' the common 25, driveways except Parcels A and B. 26 27 C. Locate two meters on each side of entrance to common driveways 6" behind 28 the sidewalk. 29 30 d. Common driveways are privately maintained. 31 32 e. Backyard or sideyard drains are to be privately maintained. 33 34 3. The subdivider shall comply with the following requirements of the Chief Building 35 Official: 36 37 a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with 38 approved plans and will be required for occupancy. 39 40 b. Where ground slopes greater than 1 on 10, foundation shall be stepped per 41 Uniform Building Code 2907(c). 42 43 C. Soils with expansion -index greater than 20 requires special design foundation 44 per Uniform Building Code 2904(b). 45 46 d. Show site drainage and grading topography. 47 48 e. Indicate all utilities on site plan. 49 50 f. Responsible party to sign plans. 51 52 g. Submit soils report to verify foundation design. 53 1 [1 13 . #{ 1 „1 2 .' 3 4 I 5 6 7 g 10 if I 12 (13 Cq4 M5 x"16 21 22 23 a° 25 > 26 28 29 3Q 31 32 33 34 35 36 h. Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1990 NEC. Plans must also show compliance to current. Title 24 Energy Code. i. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items. 4. Retaining walls shall be used in lieu of graded slopes where pad elevations on adjoining properties vary more than 18 ". Where determined feasible by staff; retaining walls in private yards shall be offset from fences, to provide a stepped landscape effect. Retaining walls along project perimeters shall be subject to staff review and approval at time of SPARC submittal. Plans submitted for SPARC review shall specify proposed maximum wall height in these areas, as reflected in cross section details D -D and E -E. - 5. The private court (Parcel B) shall be a named street. Application for approval of a street name shall be made to the Street Naming Committee prior to SPARC review of the project. 6. The Amended Tentative Map for Mountain Valley Villas shall be revised to incorporate all City Council and SPARC conditions of approval within 30 days of SPARC approval of the project, or prior to Final Map application, whichever occurs first. All revisions shall meet the specifications of City Engineering and Planning staff, and a reproducible copy of the finalized document submitted to the Planning Department prior to City Council consideration of the first Final Map. 7. This development shall be subject to all appropriate development fees, and on-and off -site improvements as set forth within the adopted Development Agreement or any subsequent amendment thereto. 8. Any labeling errors or other erroneous information appearing on the Amended Tentative Map, PUD Development Plan or landscape plans shall be corrected prior to Final Map approval. ADJOURNMENT 11:15 PM. min91$ /pc -min9 M 14