HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A-Attch05 04/19/2004•
CITY . OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
•
•
Community Development,Department, Planning. Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778 -4301 Fav (707) 778 -4498 E -mail. planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us
DATE: December 2, 2003
TO: Planning Commission.
"!l
FROM: Betsi Lewitter,�Project Planner
SUBJECT: Petaluma Village Marketplace
AGENDA ITEM NO. lI
The Planning Commission held public hearings on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (DSEIR) for the proposed development of Parcels B and C of the Petaluma Village
Marketplace on January 14, January 28 and February 3 of this year. The Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) was presented_ to the Commission on April 22 at which
time the Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the FSEIR. This decision
was upheld on May 27, 2003 when the Commission voted against reconsideration of the
recommendation. The Commission consi'd'ered project details at the May 27, June 10 and July
22, 2003 meetings. At. the meeting of July 22, the Planning Commission expressed a great deal
of frustration regarding the Chelsea Group's lack of response to Commission and citizen
comments relating to: the site plan and asked the City Manager to negotiate with the applicants to
address specific issues. At the meeting of October 28, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed
the agreements reached between the City Manager and the applicants, but still had several
concerns regarding overabundance of parking and hardscape, possible configurations and sizes
of buildings on Parcel B, Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan setbacks and circulation
within the project. A table sumrnarzing the issues and Chelsea'.s response is included below.
Materials submitted in response. to the Commissioners' requests are included as attachments to
this memo.
CO1VMt SIONERS' RE UESTS /CONC)ERNS
CHELSEA'S )ERESP.ONSE
Reduce parking — consider uni'class stalls
The parking on Parcel B was reduced to a
and /or shifting parking: over the 4:1,000 ratio
4.75 :1,000 ratio; approximately 30 % will be
on Parcel B to Parcel C.
compact size per City standards. 40 spaces
were moved from Parcel, B to Parcel C.
Remove parking from view corridor. View
All parking has been removed from the view
corridor requirements in General Development
corridor. The view corridor was reduced to
Plan should include minimum width, no
approximately 1,26' wide due to increase in
parking, possible access road and significant
river /creek setbacks. Section 5.4.2 of the
landscape.
General Development Plan does not include
specific language about the width.
ATTACHMENT 5
Petaluma Village'MarketplaceM'emo Page 1 Planning Commission, Uctober 28, 2UU3
Conform to Petaluma River Access and
The revised drawings and- General
Enhancement Plan setbacks.
Development Plan include an average setback
of 150' from. the river and a minimum setback
of 50' from `both Capri and Deer Creeks (see
discussion below).
Provide different possible configurations for
An alternative has been submitted and is
Parcel. B: one showing a 1.30,000 square foot
included as Attachment C.
building or, reduce the square footage and
outline what the baxirnum square footage
would benorth,and south of the view corridor.
Provide an exhibit.for Parcel C with retail uses
An alternative has been submitted and is
rather than a theater.
included as Attachment D: It. should be noted,
however, that the uses might not be. strictly
retail since restaurants and other uses are
allowed.
Consider improving, circulation on site by
The Chelsea Property Group has stated this is
providing a collector road crossing at Capri
not possible.
Creek arid corinecting with the road in front of
Parcel A.
Provide square footage of hardscape for new
Provided as Attachment E
p roposal_; compared with previous design.
Consider vegetated. swales. on Parcel C for
Vegetated swales are provided on both Parcels
water, uality.
B and C for water quality,
Provide average setback analysis of river
The applicants have provided a site plan
setbacks for Parcel B.
showing a 1,50' setback across all of Parcel B
as, well. as a site plan showing an averaging of
the setback, (Attachments.] and G)'
Describe - the - effect of taking fill from Parcel B
The project engineer will address this issue at
to C; estimate how much and whether this will
the meeting.
meet the2ero Net Fill, requirements.
Stake. 100" `..and 150' river setbacks on Parcel B
Setbacks have been staked both for the river
and the creeks.
The. applicants have also advised that: 1.) the Village Drive transition to the northbound
connector will be enhanced to soften the look of the road: and backs of the buildings; 2) the
requirement to mimic the look of the Outlet Center was removed. from the PCD text along with
the :proposed elevations to allow for more varied schemes per -the Commission's direction, and 3)
the river setback was `increased north of Village Drive from 100' to l 10'.
•
.7
Petaluma River, Access and Enhancement :Plan .
The Commissioners were; divided as to whether the portion. of Parcel. B that will remain
undeveloped should be included in the averaging of the River setback. The Petaluma River
Access andt Enhancement `Plan does, not offer any guidance on how to average the setbacks;, nor .
is there anything.in the Plan to exclude the undeveloped portion of Parcel. B from the averaging.
In this case, rather, than,,include the entire undeveloped portion of Parcel B, the applicants used a •.
200 -foot setback for `averaging purposes. The appl`icant's rationale for .using this 200 -foot
Petaluma village Marketplace Memo Page 2 Planning Commission, 000ber 28, 2003
setback is that. the River Enhancement Plan indicates an average, setback of 150' and a minimum
of 100', which implies that the maximum is 200. Therefore, they counted the length along the
river within the "triangle" as .2,00' plus the, area north of Deer Creek and south of the Village
Drive location as 150' as listed: This calculation gave them the required setback north of the
Village Drive location to achieve a 150' average. Due to the confusion regarding the required
setbacks for different zones in the Enhancement Plan, staff has prepared a table, provided
at the end of this memo, showing the locations of zones and the setbacks.
Other Issues
A Commissioner raised the issue of improvements to`'be required on Petaluma Boulevard North
in conjunction with this project. The SEIR traffic .study included operational analyses on
intersections only since the capacity of the intersections is usually more critical than the capacity
of the roadway. Therefore, no improvements to Petaluma Boulevard North were included as
mitigation measures. The City Engineer has advised that the only improvements to Petaluma
Boulevard North that would be required would be at the intersection of Village Drive and the
Boulevard since Chelsea's property does not abut Petaluma Boulevard North. Improvements,
including a bike lane, will be required 'as properties fronting on the roadway are developed.
However, the City does have right -of -'way ralong Petaluma Boulevard 'North, and there is a wide
shoulder upon which a bike lane could be stenciled, though it would not connect to any existing
bike lane.
A Commissioner also reiterated her desire for the applicant to post a bond in case the hydrology
data is wrong and flooding occurs. The City Attorney was previously consulted on this issue and
indicated he is unaware ,of any specific statutory or case authority which specifically authorizes
such a condition to the extent and scope suggested. On the other hand he has not found in the
review he has done to ,date any express authority to the contrary. If the majority of the
Commissioners agree with- the requirement for a bond, this could be included in their
recommendation to the City Council. If the Council then decided to require a bond or other
indemnification, the City Attorney would provide appropriate wording to the Council.
Another Commissioner suggested an .internal shuttle for customers between the parcels. The
applicant is not proposing to provide a shuttle service at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Draft Conditions of Approval
Attachment B: Revised PCD General Development Plan
Attachment C: Alternative Site Plan for Parcel B with 1.30,000; square foot building
Attachment D: Alternative Site Plan for Parcel C with retail use rather than theater
Attachment E: Site Plan comparing impervious surfaces of new proposal with previous
design.
Attachment F: Site Plan demonstrating 150' River setback on Parcel B.
Attachment G: Site Plan demonstrating averaging of River setback on Parcel B.
Petaluma Village Marketplace Memp Page 3 Planning Commission, October 28, 2003
RIVER ENHANCEMENT PLAN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
ZONE
_LOCATION
SETBACKS ,
Greenway The area within the river corridor
Development ,is not allowed in the
Where flood waters are. accom-
greenway, other than flood protection
modated and where nverfront
improvements, trails, and other
public access and habitat enhance-
recreational access, overlooks, city park
ment are recommended. It includes
amenities, habitat enhancement and
the river channel and its banks, flood
commercial water access.
management alterations,. the trail and _
access amenities, Habitat protection
and enhancement zones, public parks
as designated on the G. P. and a buffer
zone between the top of bank and the
adjacent develo merit._
Restoration
Includes riwerbank.and
Access is restricted from the banks
Zone
top of bank areas w ,/in greenway
and bank -top areas except at carefully
that.have disturbed vegetation
selected and controlled points. Minimum
:that requires restoration.
20 feet from top of bank.
Preservation
Critical habitat areas with valuable
All development including trails, grading
Zone
remnants of riparian and oak
and flood control. alterations' are severely
woodland, wetlands or other
restricted in this zone. Minimal intrusions
unique or threatened habitats.
in carefully selected locations wil .be
allowed For interpretive purposes only.
Grading alterations; shall be kept a
minimum of 50' away :from the drip lines
of trees. The width of the zone . vanes,
as,measured from the banktop, as.it is
defined by the occurrence of significant
vegetation.
Buffer
Within the ,greenway intended to
Public access and amenities . are allowed
Zone,
provide- protection to the restored and
(except in areas of existing sensitive
preserved habitats along the River.
habitat where access shall be: kept to outer
edge and the banktop Restoration Zone),
but parking and buildings are excluded.
'From Capri Creek to the railroad. tracks
the Buffer Zone is ,a minimum average of
150' from top of bank to preserve and
protect the riparian and oak woodland. In
no case should the Buffer Zone be less
than 100'.
0
Note: See page 67 of the River Enhancement Plan for Typical Trail Access 'System Diagram. Also see pages 62 and
63 for setbacks-that apply to `Petaluma Village Marketplace property (Upstream Segment) and Section E -E on page
77 for Corona'Reach — Oak Wood] and/Riparian vegetation area.
Petaluma Village Marketplace Memo Page .4 Planning Commission, October 28, 2003