HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 7.A-Attch05 06/21/2004CITY OF PETALUMA CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
U
Community Development Department, Planning Division, H English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4301. Far (707) 778-4498 E-Mdil-. p'jaliftdng@'Ipetalumd. ca. us
DATE 2, 2003, AGENDA ITEM NO. 11
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: B Lewitte'r.,Tr6liect Planner
SUBJECT Petaluma .:Village Marketglac&
The Planning Commission held he'arings �on the Dra'A Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (DSE for t.he',,p.TQppsed'i�dlevelbpment',of,'Par.clels Subsequent
- the Petaluma Village
Marketplace on January, 14 2 4nd FebruAr 3, f this year. The Final Subsequent
y " 0
Environmental Impact Report , SE'ik' w as prese'rited to the Commissr= on,Apfil 22 at which
time voted tojrecomm en& that theCity Council the FSE1R. This dec'i'sion
. was' upheld on May .27 '- -2001, wheif .,the' �Comrqiss i(on voted. 'Against reconsideration of the
recommendation., The Commission '&onsidered project &tafl's, at '
: ,the L May 27, June 10 and July
22; 2003 meetings. At the rneeting y
of Jul 22, the Planning Croffirnisslon expressed a great deal
0 q "
c omme ntsga'rding'.1he Chelsea ��,,Group!s lack of � respons&16, Commission and citizen
s relating, to the. and asked d',t the Cit Manager to the applicants to
address�.�specific m.eeting,of 0,ciober,.2.8."2003,.,the Planning '.Commission reviewed
the agreements reached bet the City Manager and the applicants, but still had several'
concerns regarding -overahundanc*e; of parking and hardscape, possible configurations and sizes
of buildings on Parcel B, Peidluma,River Access land Enh.ance.rneni; Plan setbacks and circulation
summarizing and response i 'included below.
within the proje table' the issues Chelsea is
Materials submitted in respons'e to they Commissioners,' r&quesciz are included as attachments to
this memo.
lng 7
Reduce parking' consider-%'unicl,ass stalls
And/or shifting par' bVer kin t he 4: 1,000 ratio
l h
on Parcel B,to Pafc,&LC.
Remove' parking , fto'm _view corridor. View
corridor req,uirements G-elieral'Development
Plan should , include minimum width, no
parking, possible acces& rodd and significant
landscape.
CHELSEA"S". RESPONSE
The parking on Parcel B was reduced to a
4.75:1,000 ratio; approximately 30 %o will be
compact size per, City standards- 40 spaces
were moved from Parcef. B to Parcel C.
All parking 'has. been removed from the -view
corridor. The view corridor Was reduced to
approximately 126' wide due to increase in
river/,creek s-e1backs. Sec'nom 5:4.2 of the
General Development Plan does not include
specific i
langaaae about the width.
A 5
Petaluma Village Markeipiace
110 pa,Qe I Mannimi Col=ission, October 28, 2003
The; .applicants have: also ad' ised that: 1 } the Village 'Drive transition. to the northbound
connector will be. enhanced to soften the look of the, road and backs of the'buildi'ngs ;.2) the
requirement to mimic the look of the.Outlet Center was removed from, the PCO text along with
the proposed elevations to allow for more vaned schemes - per the 1 Commi'ssi`on "s direction and 3),
the river setback was increased north of Vi;llageDri.ve from X100' to l 10'.
_.
Petaluma River Access' and EnhanceinentPlan
The Cornmissioners were divided as. to. whether t'}e portion of Parcel B'. ,that will remain
undeveloped should :be; included in the averaging of the River =setback, The. Petaluma River
Access and Erihancernent Plan does: not offer.any guidance on how to average the; setbacks; nor
is there anythtn'g; in the Plan to exclude the undeveloped portion of Parcel 13 from the averaging.
In this case, rather thar►. include the entire undeveloped' poili,o.n of Parcel $, the appl',i, ants,�used. a
200'- .f6ot setback: - for averaging purposes The apphcant''s rationale: for* .using this 2'00400t
0
Petaluma V! IIage `I rketplace Memo Pagc)2 Plaimino Commission, October 2'8',2003
Con'fonvn to Petaluma ,River Access and
The revised - drawings and General
Enhancement Plan seibacks'.
Development :Plan include an average setback
of 1 50' from the river and, a minimum setback
of 50`' from both Capri and Deer 'Creeks (see
_
discussion below,).
Provide di-fferent :possible, conf"gurat ons f for
Parcel B: one „showing_a 130,OQO square foot
'An, afternative has. been submitted . and is
indlud'ed'as Attachment C.
building or reduce the square footage 'and,
outline what 'the maximum sq uare footage
would he north And south of the view corridor.
Provide an, e.xhibit.for Parcel' C'w th retail uses
An alterriativ:e has been submitted and is
ra than a theater. „.'includ'ed
- as Attachment D, It should be noted,
however, that the, uses might not be strictly
:retail: since restaurants and other uses are
ri
allo,we&
Consider improving circulation on- site by
Th:e 'Chelsea Property Group has, stated this is
,providing; a collector road crossing at Capri °
not,possible.
Creek and connecting, with the road in 'front� of
Parcel A.
-
g � cape for new
Provide, s uare foota e , of hardy
: Provided' as AttachmenCEr .
ro �osal.com pared wi;tli revious d'esi n:,
'
Consider.' vegetated Iswales ion Parcel, :C 'for Vegetated swales are= provided .on both Parceis
water qualify- f
Band .0 for water "quality.
.
Pro wide' ;Average setback„ analysis, 'of river ' The applicants have provided; a site plan
setbacks for"Parcel B. showin g, a, 150 setback across of Parcel R
_
as well, as a ;site. plan showing an „ayerag'i`ng,, of
_ the setback, (Attachment's F'arid.G)'
Describe the effect of taking 'fill from Parcel B' The projeWeng neer will address this issue ;at
to ,C; es6rnate how much and whether this will . the
rneeting
meet the Zero Na Fill requirements.
Stake. 1,00 " and 150 river'setbacks�on Parcel
' B. Setbacks have been - staked both for the n ver
and the creeks.
The; .applicants have: also ad' ised that: 1 } the Village 'Drive transition. to the northbound
connector will be. enhanced to soften the look of the, road and backs of the'buildi'ngs ;.2) the
requirement to mimic the look of the.Outlet Center was removed from, the PCO text along with
the proposed elevations to allow for more vaned schemes - per the 1 Commi'ssi`on "s direction and 3),
the river setback was increased north of Vi;llageDri.ve from X100' to l 10'.
_.
Petaluma River Access' and EnhanceinentPlan
The Cornmissioners were divided as. to. whether t'}e portion of Parcel B'. ,that will remain
undeveloped should :be; included in the averaging of the River =setback, The. Petaluma River
Access and Erihancernent Plan does: not offer.any guidance on how to average the; setbacks; nor
is there anythtn'g; in the Plan to exclude the undeveloped portion of Parcel 13 from the averaging.
In this case, rather thar►. include the entire undeveloped' poili,o.n of Parcel $, the appl',i, ants,�used. a
200'- .f6ot setback: - for averaging purposes The apphcant''s rationale: for* .using this 2'00400t
0
Petaluma V! IIage `I rketplace Memo Pagc)2 Plaimino Commission, October 2'8',2003
r .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 .2Q0' : plus the area north of Deer Cr",eek and south , of the Village
Drive' location as 150' as listed. ThB 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 River Enhancement Plan, staff has prepared a table, provided
at the end of this memo, showing t`he 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 SEI'R. traffic study included, analyses on
intersections only since the capacity of the intersect_ons is usuallymore 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 ber 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 doesi have right =of way along 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
i data is wrong and flooding occurs. The City Attorney was previously consulted on this issue and
indicated he is unaware of Any 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. I,f the Council then decided to .require a bond or other
indemnification, the Clay Attorney wou'id 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 Br ' RevisedPCD'.General Development. Plan
Attachment C' Altem'ative Site Plan for Parcel B with 130,00,0 square foot building
Attachment D: '.Alternative,Site. Plan for Parcel C with retail. use rather than theater
Attachment"E: S' te,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 Nfarketplace 'vtemo: u„ Pa 3 Planning°C'ommission, October 28, 200'3
-
RIVER ENHANCEMENT PLAN SETBACK Q
RE UIREM'E'NTS'
p en e Market aye, property l U me "chop E E on pa 'and
Note:: ;See; age 67'of -'the River Enhancem se
63 for setbacks that apply Co Petaluma Village p ( p Segment) p
7Tfor Corona '�Reach— Oak Woodl'and/Riparian vegetation area.
PetaMr a Village ,'�l Memo Page 4 Planning Conuni'ssiori;October 23 „2003
i
ZQN -E
I LOCATI,ON
SETBACKS.
Greeti`ay_
The area. within the aver comdor
Development .is, not ;allowed in the
Where-flood waters are acco"m-
greenway, other than flood protection
modated and where tiverfront
improvements, trails, and other
public access and. hab enhance -
recreational access„ overlooks, city park
ment are recommended'. It mcludes
amenities, habitat enhancement, and
the river channel and its banks flood
commercial' water access.
management alteratioris, the trail and
access amenities, Habitat- protection
arid enhancement zones, pulili'c parks
as designated the G. P. and .a buffer
zone between the top of bank and the
ad'acent'develo merit.
Restoration
Includes riverbank and'.
,Access --is;restrcted frorn'the banks
Zone
top of bank areas whn ;greenway
and bank -;top ar,-eas except at carefully
thathave disturbed vegetation
selected and controlled points. Minimum
that- requires restoration
20 feet from top of bank.
Preservation
Critical habitat areas with ual'uable
All development, inc uding:frails
Zone
remnants ofripanan and oak:'
and ( flood controf alterations are severely
woodland, wetlands, or other.
restricted'in this zone. Minimal intrusions
unique or`" threatened.habitats.
in carefully selected. locations wi'l'l: be
allowed For interpretive purposes only:.
Grading alterations •shall 'be kept a
minimum of •5,0" away'from the drip lines
of trees: The width rof the,zone. vanes,
as measured from the; banktop,, as -it is
defined by the: occurrence of significant
vegetation.
" Buffer Within the greenway intended to,
P.ubl.ic access;and amenities are allowed.
Zone, provide "pro;tection to the restored.;and;
(ex;cept in areas of existing sensifiwe,
preserved habitats along the River,
habitat where access shall be kept to outer
edge and the banktop Restoration Zone),
but parking and buildings are: exc
From Capri Creek to the railroad tracks
the; Buffer - one.:is a mini -mum: average of -
15:0' from top ,of bank to preserve ;and
protect the riparian and oak woodland. In
no ease should the Buffer Zone be less
than 100'.
p en e Market aye, property l U me "chop E E on pa 'and
Note:: ;See; age 67'of -'the River Enhancem se
63 for setbacks that apply Co Petaluma Village p ( p Segment) p
7Tfor Corona '�Reach— Oak Woodl'and/Riparian vegetation area.
PetaMr a Village ,'�l Memo Page 4 Planning Conuni'ssiori;October 23 „2003
i