HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.B-Attch06 09/13/20041 -' CITY' 'OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
2 MEMORANDUM
3
4' Community Development Department, Planning'D'ivision, 11 English Street, CA 94952
5
(707) 778-43,01 Fax (707)` „778 -4498 E- mail: plannio, @*i.petaluma.ca.us
6
7 DATE: Apr] 113, 2 004 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
8
9 TO: Planning, Commission
10
11 FROM: Irene T. Borba, Senior Planner
12
13 SUBJECT: Rivas Subdivision
14 Proposal for 3 -Tot subdivision outside City limits but within the' Urban Growth
15 Boundaries,. (UGB) on 'a 2 -acre parcel. The proposal requires a Pre- zoning,
16 Tentative Parcel Map and Annexation
17 1.081 Bantam Way
18 APN `010 -070. `043
19
20
21 '
2 REd6 rY99o9 EW DAt1 dNS
23
24
25 Action: 1. Forward a Recommendation. to the City Council to Adopt a Negative
26 Declaration, for the project.
27
28 - 2. Forward a Recommendation to the'City Council to approve:
2 9 A.. Pre- zoning the subject,parcel'to R- 120
3 B. A Tentative
• ' ParcelMapfora3- lot,suldiv'ision
31 C. Annexation of subject parcel
32
33
3 F PROJECT S
35
36
3:7 Project Planner; Irene T, Borba; Senior Planner
38
. 39 Project Appl'icant Joe Swicegood„ SWI -CO Construction
40
41 Property Owner - Augustine and Kathy Rivas
2 -
Nearest Cross Street to Project Site: BodegaAAvenue
44
A TACH'MENT 6
Page I
I Property Size .2.0 -acres (86,952 square feet)
2.
3 Site Char- ,acteristes: The two -acre subject property is located_at the end'.of'Bantam Way, north
4 of'Bodega Avenue in western Petaluma, The 'lot i`s bounded on the north by small residential
5 lots, the smallest of which measures approximately 36,000 square feet , size., To the: south Ties a
6 two -acre l.ot .recently subdi,. ided. into °three smaller lots. The subject parcel occupies a. southwest
7 sloping hillside with a 16% average natural grade. Existing development of't ,e site consists of
8 ' one single -story 'home, a detached garage and assorted outbuildings near the northerit end of
9 property... Currently, a- grass lawn, covers the site and there are no areas of cultural, scenic or
.10 historic importance.
11
12 Existing Use: Single - family residence.
t3
14 Proposed, Use: The ,project proposal is to subdivide the property into 3 lots and build two
15 additional single -fami I y residences for a total of 3 ; residences.
16
17 Current Zoning The subject parcel is currently within County jurisdiction.
18
19 Proposed Zoning: The. applicant is requesting_ pre - zoning the subject parcel to the R -1 20,000
20 zoning designation.
21. '
22 Current: General' Plan Land Use: Suburban (0.6 to 2.0 du/acre).
23
24 Proposed General Plan Land Use: Not proposing any change.
25
26 Subsequent Actions if'Project is Approved:
27
28 ® City Council = Review and Approval
29. • Approval ofAnnexation by LAFCO
30 e Improvements Plans /Final Map
31 • Building Permits
32
33
34 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
35
36
3,7 APPAgvA.L REQUESTED
38
39 The ,project entails the subdivision of a'two- acre parcel into three smaller lots in west Petaluma
40 on `Bantam. Way: Two of the ,proposed slots would be 24,200 , . square feet in area and Would each.
41 be developed with single- family homes. The third lot 'is currently - developed with,A'single, family
42 residence and would. be 38,552 square feet in area. The applicant„ is requesting Tentative Parcel
43 Map approval. The su'bj'ect property is not within the city limits but is within .the Urban. Growth
44 Boundaries (UGB). The property will b. e required to be 'Prezoned and annexed into the City of
45 Petaluma. The proposal requests that the .property be Prezoned to R -1 20,000.
Page' 2
1
w �2
r 3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
12.
13
14
`15
16
1`7
i8
F9
20 ..
21
z
SETTING'
The two -acrec subject property, is located at the end of Bantam Way, north of Bod"ega Avenue in
western Petaluma. The lot is bounded, on, the north, by small residential Pots, the smallest of
which measures approximately 36;000 "square: feet jin. size. To the ,south lies a two -acre lot
recently subdivided into three smaller l ots: The subject parcel occupies a southwest sloping
hillside with a 1.6 average; natural grade. Existing development, of the site consists of one
single -story home,, a detached •garage and assorted. utbuildings, near "the northern end of the
prope ' . y. g pare n overdue of cultural, scenic or
Currentl ,. a rass awn covers the site and the re
historic resources.
STA A NALY SIS
General Plan Consistenc " ..
v `.
The parcel is currently under •the jurisdiction of Sonoma County. The County General Plan
designates the property as 'suburban (q.,'6 io 2.0 du perz acre). Zoning _ restricts the use to
Agricultural Residential 86, which, •refers' to 'the,. density set 'forth by the, County `General Plan.
While a subdivision of the property would be feasible under county - regulations, the owner wishes
that his property join the City. of Petaluma through the annexation process to receive urban services
as envisioned in the General Plan. The Petaluma General Plan designates. this land as Suburban,
having `a density range of 0.6 to 2.4 units ,per acre.
The following policies obj ectives and programs relate o:this-proposal
25
26 Land. Use,and Growth.
Management Element: "
: 27 Policy 3 : It the policy of "the City .fo buiid within an agreed -upon Urban'Growth. Boundary. The
28 parcel to be subdivided lies within the Urban Growth Boundary and is, adjacent to the city limits.
29
30 Policy 5 It is the policy of thetity to diseour•age urban,sprawl. This�subdivision is adjacent to the
31 city limits'pf Petaluma. 'Nearby neighborhoods have already beenn developed.
32
33 Policy : Growth shall, be contained within
y , , - the - Urban Growth.. ,Boundary: The necessary
34 ".' infrastructure for owth will be rovided within the Urban Growth. Boundary. The subject parcel
P
35 lies within the Urban Growth Bound'ar
y. Bantam W"a Y an and urb services have been extended up
36 to the souther -ly edge of the p"' `ec boundary and are adequate to serve''the project.
37
38 Polic y 7: For properties ad p • ' nin g ,nth e Urban Growth Boundary, it is the intent of the City that
ects develo
j p d m the city or re .
39 pro e 'o questing City services shall `be, of limited density,.. and shall be
40 designed to prese rve the visual and physical openness and preserve the; aesthetic and natural
4"1
42.
43
0
features of that portion proximate_ to the Urban Growth Boundary ;line, The subject parcel lies
outside the City Limits, 'but within the 'Urban Growth Boundary„ and is requesting City Services.
The density of these new °parcels ; s consistent with the density range of the Petaluma General Plan.
Open Space, Conservation dnd'Energy Element:
,, d Page 3
1 Policy 25; Developers shall provide adequate drainage and erosion control during construction.
2 The- .project sponsors will prepare an erosion control plan before the construction. phase of
3 development. An easement exists along the. western edge; , of the property to the south that `will .
4 allow storm drainage; to be conveyed to the existing storm drains. :Additionally, a storm drainage
5 pipe, will collect runoff from the private driveway -and connect to � the city system at 'the
6 southeastern comer ofthe subject property.
8 Zoning District.Consistency
9
o Nearby neighborhoods in'the City of Petaluma afe zoned R -1 10,000 and, R -.l 20,000.. Lots, on
I1 Bantam Way between the�subject parcel and Bodega Avenue. zoned Rl; 20,00.0. The owner is
12 requesting - that thisparcel bedesignated R1- 20,000 when'the property comes under theF'urisd ction,
13 of the Crt y. ulna General 'Plan designates this land' as Suburban, having ,a density range
:. The; .Petal
14 of .O to 2:0 unitsper acre: The subject parcels are in conformance with the• applicable. RI 20, 000
15. development. standards.
16
1`7 Primary Issues'.
IS Utilities and Infrastructure:
19. The proposal will require the, extension of utilityservices. New service, lines will be. required to
20 provide water, sewer;,hatural gas, electric,, and storm drain utilities to the new ;residences. This
21 extension is consistent with the expected service needs of the General Plan:
22
23 Adequate domestic, sprinkler and',hydrant =water supply is available.to this project in.,accordance
24 with City" requirements At the request of the :Petaluma Fire 'Department, CSW %Stuber Stroeh
25: Engineering submitted a 8/4/03 air. gap •yank supply calculation to show .that new private . air gap
26 tanks fill at 25 •gpm during peak system demand (3.5 times average daily demand). The air
27 system for each lot will. provide domestic and emergency water pressure and water storage , for each
28 lot.
29
30 In a memorandum fiom. CSW Stuber.- Stroeh Engineering° dated .August l'9; 2003, it states that .the
31 City conducted a flow test at the end. Bantam Way on August •18, 2003, which:show;ed' adequate.
32 fire water supply° at "the existing hydrant near• the end of Bantam Way. The flow test showed that
33 155.0 gprn at, 2.Opsi is available at this - location; when Paula Lane Tank water elevation is at' 18.75 .
34 feet (less han -full fank). For these; reasons; it `is expected that no significant •impacts o the utility
35 infrastructure will occur as. a result of 'this proposal.
36
37 PU
38
39• A Notice of Intent, to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of Public Hearing was
p g
4.0 p ublished in the, Ar us Courier on March 24 2004 and sent:`to all residents and' property : owners
41 within 500 feet ofthe project site.
42
43 At. the .time of writing this staff report, no public' comments `have been received,,
44
45 �,
,,6
Page 4
IMPACT FEES
02
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13 ATTACI`IMEN
14
'15 Attachment A:
16
17 Attachment B:
18
19 Attachment C:
20
21 Attachment D:
_ Attachment E:
24
25 Attachment F:
26
27
28
29 Attachment G:
30
31 Attachment H:
32
33
34
35 Attachment I':
36
37
E
TS
"Draft" Findings for Adoption of a`Negative Declaration
"Draft" , Findings of Approval -to Prezone the subject, parcel to R -1 20,000.
"Draft Findings for Approval of a Tentative Parcel Map.
"Draft" Findings for Annexation
"Draft Conditions of Approval.
Location Map
'General Plan Map
Zoning Map
Project. Report dated March 2001
Initial Study
Letter dated September 1,1 2,003 from CSW /Stuber- Stroeh
Memorandum dated August '19 2003 from CSW /Stuber, Stroeh
Full, Size Plans and Reduced Plans (for Planning Commissioners only)
Page 5
The project will be subject to the City's adopted development impact.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Calfomla Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial
Study (attached to this report) of ; potential environmental impacts was. prepared. With the
completion of the Initial Study it °was determined that the. proposed project would not have a
significant effect on the environment and a negative declaration should be prepared.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 13, 2004
p, U
City , f Petaluyraa; California
z
City Council Ch amber's
City Ha1l, ° l.1 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone '707 /778 -4301 /Tax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail, pia I
ing(u;ci.petal ' wua.ca.us
Web Page httt> i '����.ci:���taliima ca:us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1,5
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Commissioners: Present.: Asselmeier,, Barrett, `Harris McAllister-, Rose, von Raesfeld
Absent: Dar"
* Chair
Staff. George White; Assistant Director, Community Development
Irene Borba, Senior':Planner
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
r,
Public hearing began: @ 7:00
PUBLIC HEARING:
NEW BUSINESS
RIVAS SUBDIVISION, 1081 Bantam Way
AP No.: 019 -070 -043
File: PRZ01,001,, TPM01001
Planner: Irene T. Borba
1.
Applicant i's requesting a recommendation :to the. City Council of a proposal for a
3 -lot subdivision , outs`ide City •li ' is but within th&'Urban. Growth Boundaries
(U:GB) on a 2 -acre parcel. The proposal requires Adoption of a Negative
Declaration_, :Pre- zoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Annexation of subject parcel.,
Irene Borba presented the :staff report.
Edge Robbins, CSW S
tuber- Stroeh: Answered commission questions regarding the air
gap tank referred to on,,Page 4 of the staff report.'
Joe Swicegood,, applicant: Addressed the air gap system, the questions regarding
removal of the trees and the reason for annexing into the•City of Petaluma.
1
'ATTACHME 6
Planning :Commission Minutes - April `13, 2004
1 '
2 John Fitzgerald; Answered commission, questions regarding improving the sidewalk;
3 - curb and gutter on Bantam Way. �
4'
5 Commissioner - McAllister: Wanted to make sure the storm drain and water lines are
6 outside the canopy of the existing trees.. So not want to see the. loss of the trees, as they
7 p rovide= screening.
8
9 Commissioner Asselrneier: Do not want the public to perceive this as a pnvate:road.and
10 would want the sidewalk to be continuous - ;on -:at least one side of Bantam Way.
1:,1 Recommend public thorough way. Want future connectivity to other neighboring_
12 subdivisions.
13
14 ._: Commissioner Barrett: Asked for clarification that the public'road stops at, the southern
15 edge of lot 3,
'16
17 Craig Spaulding: That is correct. ,
18
19 Public : comment opened.
20
21 Susan :Kirks; Paula Lane: Related neighborhood concerns. Suggested less. developme "nt.
22 Will impact visual aesthetics, biological xesourc.es, '.hydrology, noise rand lighting impa-c . ts,
23 water pressure and fire safety on the Paula Lane neighbors. Will be a significant.
24 cumulative, negative impact.
25
26 Katie O'Connor, 594 Paula Lane: Asked -to ;consider noise, feathering, density,; lighting;
27 and loss of land and wildlife habitat, 'significant visual and aesthetic impact. Did not
28 want to have the'' property annexed nto'the City.
29
30 Patrick Sheafer,, 594 Paula. Lane: What is this project good for the community = can this
31 be blended more into the hillside and , the environment considering the neighbors and the
32 community.
;33
34 Public comment closed:
35
36 Commission Discussion:
37
38 Commissioner Asselmeier: Can granny units be built on'these lots?
39
40 . Irene Borba: Yes, if it meets the requirements.
41
42 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked if the Planning.Commission can give direction toward
43 the size of the- ; homes?
44
45 George White however, it would have to be very specific.
46,
2
Planning Commission Minutes - April 13, 2004
`.
1
2
Commissioner Rose: Have: a concern about the use.,of Bantam Way as -a private road.
There is a proposal to abandon the right of way at the end of lot 1 — question if this is
3
something the City really wants to do.
4
5
Commissioner Barrett: Can the'water'easement be a. future pedestrian or bike path?
6
7
Craig Spaulding Yes, it °is not an, exclusive easement.
8
9
Commissioner Rose Reiterated.ihe responsibilityofthe City regarding public streets and
l0
private roads. Do not want the propertyto be over — there are compatible ways to
11
develop houses. Would be useful for'SPAR`C to reviewthe: design, details.
12
13
Commissioner von Raesfeld; Believe there is an adequate .basis to condition the two
14
parcels to go to SPARC, Some merits to public ;right of way going to southern, boundary
15
of lot 1.
16
17
Council Member Harris:, Believe clear direction to SPARC, on .fine of sight, etc. is
18
appropriate.
19
20
Commissioner McAllister: ,Design of the homes is critical: Difference in grade is huge
21
and needs a good architectural solution. Confused °regarding county residential
22
designation B6 versus what is in the.ataff report.
�.
'23
24
Consensus of the Commission;,
25
26
SPARC review of development on dots 2 and `3 regarding view screening, siting of
27
homes, particularly on '66 western' slope, arehitectural size and fitting into the
28
neighborhood, :especially o the west,,, lighting on the site, minimize grading. In addition
29
the commission requested to: maintain as many trees as
30
31
Commissioner Asselmeier: - Concerned about connectivity and :safety of school routes.
3z
Where :is public benefit from this subdivision? Want a condi`ti'on that allows public
33
access — needs to be considered in relationship. to where the homes will be. Can possibly
34,
have a.path on the 10 ft water easement.
'35
36
Commissioner Barrett: Would like the easement .c;onditioned with this subdivision.
37
Agree to move drairag.e lines out of the canopy of trees.
38
39
George. White: Suggested an evaluation ofthe trees and how; close the drainage is to the
40
tree canopy.
41
4.2
Commissioner McAllister; 'Would like to condition the project the trees — need
43
the footprint of the homes to work around the trees. I am iri support of an arborist report
44
and measuring the tree. canopy:
4''5
46
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Wanf to make -a; pitch for the public street or private with
47
an irrevocable' offer ' dedication for a public street in the °future.
3.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 13, wN
2
3
4
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'20
2.1
.22
23
24
25
26'
27
28
29
30
31.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
44
42
43
44
45
Craig Spaulding : If there were an irrevocable offer of dedication, I would want the
.private street developed to city standards.
Commissioner McAllister: Went over SPARC requirements, materials, and want ,trees to
be a separate condition. Need the siting of the homes to work with the topography -
stepped. architecture. 'Size of the .homes to fit with the. neighborhood — do not know how
to condition; this.
Commissioner. Asselmeier: Want SPARC to look at the built environment: Want to
- proceed I carefully so that the ambience of old neighborhoods is not °ruined by new homes.
Commissioner Barrett; This is infill,and', will be, a dominant part of new development ari&
we will want it compatible with,existing development.
Council. Member Harris: Is :it appropriate to. go to the• applicant again_ for �a ,response to
comments? -
Commissioner McAllister: Believe our conditions preclude a 3,000 sq. ft. home with a 3-
car garage,.,
The commission reviewed the consensus for,approval:
• Irrevocable dedication for private road to later become public street
• Private road developed
to city standards
• Arborist evaluation of 'trees
• Measure tree can to ensure drainage pipes are not under, or ;inside tree
;canopy line,
• SPARC to review development on lots ' Z and 3 regarding view screening;: siting of
homes, particularly on the western slope; architectural size and fitting into the
neighborhood With compatible: materials and colors of surrounding area
espec'i 'ally to the west;: lighting on the site, ;and -minimizing ,grading. In addition
the commission requested to maintain as many`trees as possible,
■ 1.0 -ft. water easement to become future pedesti-ian/bike path
Commissioner Barrett: Do .not think there is a benefit to leaving this' in the county.
Commissioner Rose: Agree with what has been said, density is appropriate. Believe the,
lots are ,appropriate sizes.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Agree with, additional conditions and focusing on what the
homes ;look like would Benefit the city.
Applicant:' Pleased with the conditions; want to be good 'neighbors.
•
4 ;
Planning Commission Minutes -. April 13,2004 .
1 M/S McAllister /Rose to forward ax.ecommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration, Pre-
•' 2 zoning to R -I- ,20;000, Tentative, Parcel, Map, and Annexation of subject parcel per the
3 attached findings and amended conditions :of approval, 6 -0, Dargie absent.
4
5
6
7 Adjournment;,. 9:40
8
q
10 S:\PC- Planning Commission \MinutesTCMinLIWS'04 \041304.doc
•
D I.
•
5