HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.A 09/20/20046.A
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AC NTI A IT I, SeDt 20 20 4
Agenda Title Riverview Subdivision: Discussion' and possible
Meeting Date: September 20, 2004
action .regarding: A) Adoption of a Miti g ated' Negative Declaration
-
for the Riverview `PUD and Subdivision on ' seven': parcels totaling
"22.9 -acres at McNear Avenue and" Mission_ Drive (APN 019- 2;10 -
I
1Vleefin Time 7:00 P.M.
017, -019, -026, -027 -030, -031' &-. -037) and; B) 'Prezoning the
subject parcels to, PUD- Planned Unit Development,'C) A'Tentative
Sub:di "vision Map to subdivid& 17.11 =acres •into 63 residential lots.
and a 3.68 -acre parcel to be -"retained as open -space; and D)
Annexation.
Category Public Hearing, X 'New - Business X
X Presentation
, Department :
Direcior
Contact;Perso ..
Phone Number
Community
Mike Moo
Jayni Allse
(707) 778 -43`01
Development
Contract Planner
(415) 789 -073`6
Cost of Proposal N/A
AccountNumber N/A
Amount Budgeted N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to Ajenda Packetliem
1. May 11, 2004, Planning Commission Staff Report
2. Minute Excerpts of May 11, 2004, , Planning Comm tssion Meeting
3. June 8, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report ..
4. Minute Excerpts of June 8 „2004 Commission Meeting
5. Draft Resolution for A, — Negative Declaration.
6. Draft Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District (PUD)
7;. Draft Resolution for Approval of Development Plan and Development Standards
8. Draft Resolution for,App'roval of Tentative Subdivision Map
9,- Draft Resolution Supporting Annexation
10: PUD Development "Standards (revised)
11. Initial. Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
12. Correspondence Received (includes correspondence submitted after Planning - Commission
meeting)
13. Letter fromCobbl'estone Homes regarding Alternatives Study dated July 7, 2004
1.4. R'(potiT from Carlenzoli and Associates regarding Al;temate Plan, June. -24 2004"
15":' Arbori`sf's Review of Revised Road Alignment, June. 18,"2
16. E -mail froni jim Carr dated June 18, 2004
17: City Engme to Community "Development Director dated September2 2004
18. Alternative Studies A and B for Tree Preservation (pink and yellow 1 "1 X" 17` sheets)
19. Reduced Plans for PUD'
20. Tentative Map Sheets (full size sheets)
All attachments to .Commission Staff Reports and all correspondence " received are on
file, in the Cit _ • Clerk's, office.
Su' mmary'Statement:
The Riverview applications were reviewed by'the Planning Comrnission,on May 11 and June 8, 2004. The
P - nning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City" Council to approve the applications,
subject to certain conditions and provided that alternate -plans be considered and evaluated by staff and the
City Council, which would. dflow certain`mature oak trees to be preserved.
6.A
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AC NTI A IT I, SeDt 20 20 4
Recommended City °Council Action/S'uggested Motion'
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council:
1. Adopt thel Mitigated Negative Declaration;
2 Approval 'of pre- zoning of parcels to Planned Unit, Development _District;
3. Approval of Planned Unit Development Plan; and.
4. Approval of'T'entative Map to subdivide 17.11 -acres into 63 residential lots; and :a 3.68 -acre parcel
(Parcel B) to be, retained as open space.
5. Approval of a,Resol'ution to Support Annexation
Reviewed by`Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attorney App ioved b "Cit_ Mana er`
,Date: Date:; Dater
Today's Date Revision # and Date Revised: File Code:
September 14,, 2004
0
CITY'OF PETALUAIA, CALIFORNIA
'SEPTEMBER 13,2004
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
THE RIVERVI_EW PURAND' SUBDIVISION
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project site consists of seven differentparcels under,separate ownership that total ±22.9 acres, including a
4.9 -acre parcel occupied, by St. John Lutheran Church,' located southeast of4he intersection of McNear Avenue
City s Urban Growth Boundary,.. There are f ve existing outside the Petaluma City limits, but all are within the
rive. All properties are currentl locate
Cj Mission D Y g homes on the property,. and" several accessory buildings
(barns;. carports, sheds, garages). The site is gently , to inoderately sloping fom west to south, with an average
slope of 14.6 %. Most of the site is covered.with grassland, and oak - ,woodland, which occurs mostly on the hilly
southern portion of the site. A separate cluster of oaks is located "in the- more•central portion of the site.
The proposed PUD would allow a 67 single - family homes; the existing, St. John.Church facility and a
future total of
an area where groan e constructed o n the c of the trees and a. seashurcli property: In addition, a 3.68 -acre: parcel, which encompasses
oval drainage 'are to be.retained, and a play area is now planned; is
proposed to be dedicated to the City Proposed`1oi sizes would range. from 4,900 square feet to 23,417 square
'' home s) would be two stories ,
eet q � proposed homes (except for the existing and custom
average lot si three to five hbedrooms and each would have 'a two - car garage, with
an avera g would" haue 8 TQO s
�me plans offering ;a third optional tand em, garage space. Home sizes would range from approximately
3.00 + /- to 3600 ± /- square feet m
, Two or ore phasesare °anticipated for the construction of the new homes.
The Planning Commission reviewed this project at its. May 11 and June 8, 2004 meetings; and forwarded a
P g Y pP P ,J pP_ provided recommendation to the 'City Council to a „ `rove the ro'ect a hcations with conditions, and rovided
Specifically, the the Planriin d Com on e 1 ue ted that the tiered ant ex vlore ted by staff and the City Council.
Planning q pp p the feasibility of alternate site plans,
lot _configurations, and: realignment; of proposed streets that would, allow certain mature oak trees to be
preserved. Many of the Planning Commission recommendations are reflected in the attached plans and
materials that have been revised'b applicant since the Planning :Comrriission,review.
2. BACKGROUND:
For a discussion of site history„ conformance with General Plan`polices, and proj eet issues, please refer to the
prepared for 8 200'4 Plane n Commission g Commission meeting (Attachment 1,) and' memorandum.
staff re report prepared for the Ma gl' 2004 Planni eeting (Attachment 3)
Preliminag SPARC "Re,view
The project did not "undergo 'Preliminary SPARC review.
PlanninZ Commission Review
O e Riverview Subdivision was fist presented to ,the Planning Commission on "May 11, 2004. After the staff
report ,; applicant presentation, ,public co' mment and discussion, the Commission voted to continue the
application to June 8, 2004 requested by the applicant. The purpose of the continuance was 'to allow the
applicant an opportunity to address issues raised by the Planni' omm ssion. . The two main issues to be
addressed were the provision of a play area within the subdivision, and the desire to preserve additional =trees
beyond those initially proposed to be preserved. Attached are the Minute: Excerpts of the May 11, 2003
Planning Commission meeting ('see Attachment 2).
Revised. plans
sues raised b d by the applicant and reviewed by the. Planning Commission on. June 8, 20,04.
T p ,. tt
y he Planning Commission, two water quality ponds proposed with the original pla�
were eliminated and replaced with underground water quality facilities in order to: provide a play, area within
Parcel B o en s ace arcel , and six additional mature oak trees were able t figuring
(' P p p ) o be preserved by reconfi guring
soiree of 'the lots and making, other design changes. The Planning. Commission Minute Excerpts of the June 8,
2004 Planning 'Comm ssion meeting.are attached (see�_Attachment 4).
After considerable discussion regarding the ;desire to preserve specific treest on the ,site; the Planning
Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to ,approve the applications, subject to certain
conditions , and rovided that the applicant explore alternate plans to be considered and evaluated by. staff and'
the l
P
Co mi C
ss on reco� which would allow certain :mature oak trees to be preserved. Specifically, the Planning
ouncrl
mniended that the applicant, develop, an alternate, an that would retain Tree #s' &5 86 and 87.
All <of these trees are located - in the southeastern portion of the site and would be i' acted by the proposed
extension of Mission ;Dri've (please refer to Sheets 3 and. 4. of the Tentative Map:). The Planning,:Commission
recognized that;it was not possible to preserve all of the mature ,trees in this area; 'however, Tree , # &7 (a 35" Live
Oak in excellent condition) 'is: the tree that Commissoners:.are most interested in .preserving: In, addition, the
Planning Commission recommended that as part of develop r g this ,alternate plan, the .applicant should explore
the ossibi'lit of relocat p y g, .or. "swapping'' the proposed play' area` with Lot 49, where another large cluster of
trees is located.
Alternate Plans for Tree Preservation
As requested by the .Planning Commission, the applicant has "prepared an Alternatives Study that explores way
to preserve speciEc trees. The Alternatives Study consists oftwo alternatives; A and' B. The applicant
Cobblestone Homes, has indicated that it is there :.desire, to request approval of the plan presented to the.
Planning Commission ;at the meeting of June 8, 2004, for reasons cited in their letter- dated July ' 7, 2004 .
(Attachment 12 `)
Alternative A (Pink l l X 17" sheet) would require; the realignrnent-of Mission Drive and Rovria Lane; as well
as modifications to the lot layout in that area and relocation of the proposed play area. Features of this
alternative are outlined in more detail in the report from. Carlenzoli and Associates, dated. June .24 2004
(Attachment '13). In addition, the. project arborist's review of the: revised road ,alignment; is summarized in a
report, dated June 18, 2004 (Attachment 14). The arborist's report indicates that of the 25 trees that could be
impacted by the alternate A street alignment, 10 trees would be preserved (including Tree #s 86 and 87) , and 15
trees would. be'removed. The report goes on to note that while Tree #87 could be preserved, it would need to be
pruned extensively to raise the crown to acconiinodate equipment and traffic, and grading would occur within
11 feet of the trunk, which would. impact the roots significantly: The :arbori"st's report concludes by indicating
that in the opinion: of the arborist the best tree groups and specimens would be preserved with the street'
alignment "that is proposed by the applicant.
Alternative B (Yellow `1 l X 17" sheet) would ",swap" the play area. with Lot 49 (southeast corner of proposed
Rovina Lane /Jacquelyn Lane intersection_ As presented .by the applicant, the, this alternate layout would not
preserve, the specimen trees identified by the Planning Commission, but would retain other trees ( #107,108)
within the. play area,. as- opposed to being on privately -owned Pots.
Evaluation, of Alternatives, Both of the, alternatives, were reviewed by planning, engineering an'(O
park/recreation staff. From an engineering standpoint, both alternatives are considered' to acceptable: However,
when eonsdering' the relocation of the proposed play area; the Director of Parks' !and Recreation, has indicated
that,his preference is not to relocate the proposed play area. for a number of reasons,, including safety concerns
about the proximity of trees to play area given that trees may adversely affected by construction activities; the
ht
top of the proposed site off of Jacquelyn Lane (Alternative B- yellow sheet), does not lend itself to a
level, sizable play area, and accessibility as compared to the lbcation.of` the, play'area originally proposed by the
applicant..
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Planning Division staff has prepared an
Initial Study of potential "environmental impacts and has identified 'several 'impacts that are potentially
significant. As a result of this study, mitigation measures to avoid, substantially reduce or compensate for the
environmental impacts have been developed. The Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been
received available
Mitigated t ve Declaratent beginning .on April `2`l, 2004. To date no comments have been
g ated Ne g on.
4. ALTERNATIVES
a: The City Council may approve, in concept, either Alternative A or B and direct staff to revise
conditions of approval. as appropriate, and � eturn to the City Council with revised 'conditions of
approval.
b. The City Council could direct the applicant, to explore, other possible alternatives that would meet the
objectives of the Planning Commission with regard t" tree preservation, and provide an acceptable
park/play area location.
c. The City Council could .adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Prezoning to PUD, and the
Tentative Subdivision Map as proposed by`the applicant.
d. The City Council could deny'the applications.
5. FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This is a ;private development proj,ect.;subject to standard cost recovery fees. and any applicable City. Special
Development Fees.
6. CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation, to the City Council to adopt the mitigated negative
decla ation, ;and approve-the' prezoningto PUD and subdivision of the ,property with the provision that that
atives'. be presented to the City Council that preserve certain mature oak trees on the site. The applicant
p .
has repared an Alternatives Study that explores ways to preserve, the trees, but has indicated that it is their
desire to request approval of the project as presented in the PUD and Tentativ ' 'Map plans presented to the City
Council.
7. OUTCOMES OR'
PERFORMANCEMEASUREMEN.TS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESSOR COMPLETION:
N/A
8. RECOMMENDATION:
Oh Plannin g Commission and 'staff recommend that the City Council ;consider the Alternatives Study presented
e� adopt theF Mitigated. Negative Declaration approve pre - zoning of parcels to Planned Unit
Development District, approve Planned Unit Development Plan; arid approve the Tentative Subdivision Map.
S:ACC -City Council \Reports \Riverview Subdivision Final doc