HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B 05/17/2004!
•
-4
,-
CITY OF PLTALUNIA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA B ILL 9A 7 LON
Agenda Title Paula Lane Subdivision. Discussion and possible
Meeting Date: May 17, 2004
ction regarding: A) A Mitigated Negative Declaration for Paula
Lane Subdivision (APN 019 - 080 -009 & 010) to be located on'two
parcels at 431 Paula. Lane. and ,t 11.22 =acres on the corner of
' Meeting Time 7:00 P.M.
Paula Lane and Sunset Drive; B),Resolution denying a General Plan
Amendment to amend the Land Use Designation from Rural (0.0-
0.5 du/ac to Suburban 0.6 -2.0 du/ac
( ) C) Prezonng the subject.
parcels R -1 20,000; D) Tentative Subdivision, Map to subdivide the
1'1.22 -acres into 21 resideh ial.lots including with 3- acres of the'site
being retained as opens ace. E) Annexation.
Category Public Nearing. X New Business X
X Presentation
Department
Director
Contact Person
Phone Number
Community
Mike;M6o
Irene T. Borba
Development
J��
(707) 778 -4301
Cost of Proposal N/A
Account" Number N/A
Amount Budgeted N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to"Agenda Packet4tem
1. "Draft" Resolution Denying an Amendment to the General Plan. Land Use Map.
2. Location Map.
General. Plan Map.
Zoning Map. .
3. Minute excerpts of November 14, 2002' SPARC meeting.,
4. Planning Commission staff teportand minute excerpt of 14/12/03.
5. Planning Commission staffreport and minute excerpt of 1/.13/04.
6. Planning Commission staff report and minute excerpt of 2/24/04.
7. Plans
Tentative Subdivision Map`(Full size and reduced)
All attachments to the Planning' Commission Staff Reports and all correspondence received are on
file in the Cit " Clerk's office.
Recommended City Council Action /Suggested'Motion
The Planning Commission _recommends denying the General Plan Amendment and therefore by extension,
the associated applications: for the project. .
Reviewed by Finance Director,,:
Reviewe •ne :
A ed by City Manager:
Date:
D tee
owi Wt o
Revision # and Date Revised:
File Code:
s:/cc-city 'council /reports / paula lane
May 6, 2004
subdivision
L.
CITY 10F PETALU MA,' CALIFORNIA
MAY 3,1004 .
AGENDA,P.ORT
FOR
PAULA LANE SUBDYVMION
Subdivision of two contiguous parcels totaling 11.22 -acres into 21 residential' units with approximately 3 -acres
of the site being set aside as open space. 'General Plan Amendment, Prezoning'Tentative Parcel Map and
Annexation, at431 Paul Lane, APN APN'019 -080' -009 & 010
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Description
Mission Valley Properties has submitted an application for 1) Approval of a General Plan Land Use Map
Amendment to redesignate two icofitiguous parcels .(totaling '11.22-acres) from Rural (0.0 -0.5 du/ac) to
Suburban (0.6 -2.0 du/ac); 2) Approval to Prezone' the subject parcels to R1 -10, 000, and 3) Approval of a
Tentative Parcel Map for a 21 -lot subdivision.
The project proposes to develop ' a total of '11'.22 -acres located at the corner of Paula Lane and Sunset Drive.
The subject property is not within .the city limits of Petaluma but is within the Urban Growth Boundaries
,GB). The proposal includes the subdivision (Tentative Subdivision Map) of the subject property for the
elopment of 21 single - family residences on `lots ranging from 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet in
area. The homes sizes would range from 2 ; 800' to 3,500 square feet with a maximum height of 25'.
Approximately 3 acres of the subject property would be contiguous private open space for the development.
Project Approvals
Given that the subject property is not within -the city limits; the subject property, will be required to be annexed
to the city. The proposal requires _a General Plan.Amendment. 'The applicant is requesting that the General
Plan designation be changed ,from. Rural (0:045 du/ac) to Suburban (06 -2.0 du/ac). The request includes pre-
,
zoning the subject property to the,: tandard R -1 10,000 square feet zoning designation.
Following. Planning Commission review .and .City Council approval, the proposal would be, required to receive
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee final approval for the site, architectural, and landscaping plans.
General Plan Consistency
The subject property currently liar a, General Plan designation. of Rural "(0:0 =0:5 :du/ac). The applicant is
requesting a General Plan Amendment from. Rural Residential (0.0 -0.5 du/ac)' to Suburban (0:6 -2.0 du/ac). The
existing Rural General Plan. land use designation is intended to allow for very low intensity residential
development that'maynot need all urbane services, such as city water services. Under the current General Plan
land use designation, °the applicant would be allowed to build a total, of five (5) single- family residences. The
proposed Suburban (0.6-2:5 du/ac),land use-designation is applied to west,side lands away from the urban core
and toward the urban separator.. With the Suburban land use: designation, .the applicant. could potentially develop a
of twenty -two (22) single - family residences '(the proposal is for 21 single- family dwellings). Lot sizes will
nd on topography and surrounding land uses. The project as presented meets the .Suburban Residential
General Plan Land Use designation. The includes a Tentative Subdivision Map 'to subdivide the property
into 21 single- family residences-. This .General Plan land use designation of Suburban is consistent with the land
to the east of the project site and all of the,properties to the north along the Urban Limit Line with the exception of
the parcels across Sunset Drive, which are designated and adopted at the higher density standard of Urban
Standard (2.1 to 5.0 du/ac), (see Attachment 2, General Plan Land Use Map). For more detail, please see the
attached Planning Commission staff reports (see Attachment 3). ?
ZoninZ Consistency
Given that the property is not within, the city limits, .currently, the subject parcels do not have a zone
designation. The applicant requests that.the Cityprezonethe site to R -1 10,000. The purpose of the R -1 zoio
designation is to provide areas within Petaluma where existing single- family dwellings maybe protected and to
encourage the development of new neighborhoods of single- family dwellings. The R -1 district is intended to
accommodate groups of single - family homes together with schools, parks, open spaces; and other public
services required for ;a .satisfactory family environment. 'The, range of density classes indicated for the R -1
District is intended to permit the implementation of 'the density recommendations of the General Plan and to
permit .harmonious' development of residential districts with different characteristics. The R -1 10,000 zoning
designation has ,a maximum. height limit of twentyfive_feet for the principal, building and , a maximum height
limit of fifteen feet for accessory structures. Minimum lot width is 75. feet and minimum lot depth is 100 feet in
the R -1 10,000-zoning designation. Setbacks are as follows: front 25 feet, rear 25 feet, one side 8 feet with an
aggregate for both ,sides of 20 feet. With the exception of the pump house location on Lot; 1, the project as
proposed, appears to meet this zoning designation. The project will have to be modified 80 the pump house
meets the zoning requirements. Existing parcels across Sunset Drive are currently zoned R -1 10,000 (see
Attachment 2 Zoning Map).
2. . BACKGROUND:
Preliminary SPARC. Review
On November-14, 2002, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) preliminarily -reviewed
the proposal (see Attachment 3, SPARC Minute.Excerpts).
Planning Commission Review
At the November 12th,. 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented the proposed Paula Lan
project, and the public hearing was opened. However, due to the late hour and -the amount of: public comments
still to be; heard, the public hearingwas continued to January 13, 2004. Attached, are the Minute Excerpts from .
the November 12 2003 Planning Commission meeting (see Attachment, 4).
The Planning Commission heard this agenda item at:the January 13 t h, 2004 Commission meeting. At that
meeting,
wasclosed and the Commission r began he public testimony
stages of iheiradis and ues s. The Commission
Hearing
_ g om
continued the project proposal to.allow time for staffto review reports'pertaining to trees, wildlife. and historical
resources, which were,submitted by the, Paula Lane Action Network (PLAN) neighborhood organization.
.Attached, is the Staff report and the Minute Excerpts from the January 13 2004:Planning Commission
meeting, (see Attachment, 5).
The Planning Commission discussed this item again at its meeting of February 24 At this meeting, the
Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Council deny the request for- a General Plan
Amendment from Rural (0:0 -:0.5 du/ac) to Suburban (0.6 -2.0 du/ac). In recommending denial of "the request' for
a General Plan Amendment, the consensus Of 'the Commission were concerns due to the proposed increase in
density, the inconsistency with the feathering/urban separator polices in the existing General Plan coordination
with the General Plan update and impacts , and issues related to increased traffic, insufficient infrastructure,
drainage, and potential impacts to an existing wildlife corridor. Please see attached Planning Commission staff
reports and minute excerpts for detailed information on the project as well as project related issues (see
Attachment, 6).
3. ALTERNATIVES
a. The Y accept Cit Y Council may t the recommendation from the Planning Commission to deny the
request for a General Plan Amendment. from Rural (0.0 -0.5 du/ac) to Suburban. (0.6 2.0 dulac). In
`�. denying the request for a General. Plan Amendment, it therefore makes the request for adoption of a
{ Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Prezoning,'Tentative Parcel Map and the request for Annexation
moot.
b. The City Council may _choose to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the General
Plan 'Land Use Map Amendment, Prezoning to R1 -10, 000 and the Tentative Subdivision Map,
which would allow the 'applicant to apply to LAFCO for annexation.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This is a private development..subject to any'applicable City Special Development Fees. The Paula Lane
site is under private ownership.: The project was submitted prior to the establishment of the cost
recovery fee system. The City has collected:$6,195.00'in revenues (application. fees) to cover the cost of
processing this application. Approximately 150 'hours of staff time at a cost of $9,000.00 has been
expended.
5. CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission has ,recommended denial of the pr oject. request for a General Plan
Amendment. from Rural (0.0 -0.5 du/ac) to Suburban. (0.6 -2.0 du/ac), stating that the proposed density of
the project is not appropriate for the site and surrounding area. The Commission recommended denying
the request for a General Plan and, by extension, the Pre_ zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map and
Annexation requests „due to the proposed increase in, density, inconsistency with. the feathering/urban
separator polices in the .existing General Plan, coordination with the General Plan update and impacts
and issues related to increased traffic,, insufficient infrastructure, drainage, and potential impacts to an
existing wildlife corridor;
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCKNKASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY'!SUCCESS OR COMPLETION:
N/A
7. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends denying the General' Plan Amendment and, by extension, the
Pre- zoning, Tentative Subdivision;Map and Annexation requests due to the proposed increase in density,
inconsistency with the feathering/urban separator polices :in the existing General Plan, coordination with
the General Plan update and impacts :and issues related to increased traffic, insufficient infrastructure,
drainage, and poten ial impacts to an existing wildlife corridor
g: /forms /2003 agenda bill
0