HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.A-Attch03 09/20/20041
2 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
3 MEMORANDUM
4
5 community'Developmen[Department, Plan'nii:gDrvision, I`I Eirglish Street; Petaluma,'CA 94952
6 (707).778-430 Tax.(707) 778 -4498 &mail: plann'ing@ci.petaluma.ca.us
7
8 DATE: June 8, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
9
10 TO: Planning Commission
11 -
12 FROM: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
13
14 SUBJECT: RIVERVIEW RESIDENTIAL 'SUBDIVISION " AN APPLICATION TO
15 PREZONE .PROPERTY AT MCNEAR AVENUE 'NEAR MISSION DRIVE
16. TOTAL
1NGe '22.9 ACRES: `TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO
17 ANNEX TAE .PRE ZONE
D PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF PETAL•UMA, AND TO
18 SUBDIVIDE Al 17.11 -ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY INTO 63
19 RESIDENTIAL LOTS (APN 019= 21.0 -017; -019, -02j6, -027, -030, -031 & -037);
20 FILE NO. PRZ 037PRZ -0187
21
22
23 BACKGROUND
24
25 On May 11, 2004, the Riverview Subdivision, was. presented to the Planning Commission. After
26 the staff report, applicant preser tation,, public comment; and. discussion, the Commission
27 continued the application to 7u"ne 8, 2004. The purpose of the: continuance was to allow the
28 applicant an opportunity to address issues raised by the Planning, Commission (see Attachment
29 C, Minutes of May 1.1,, 2004 Planning Commission meeting) The following is a list of the main
30 issues discussed at by the Planning - Commission:
31
32 The number of`trees to be removed
33 ■ Development Standards for t_he Church property
34 The proposed not'child friendly_ / No play area for children
35 ® The Young parcel is amissing piece
36 ■ Streets ; at 15 % :slope from sloped driveways — will be a challenge. for homeowners
37 ■ Rear yard setbacks
38 Wat
■ t er ;Quality Ponds,— want to make" ;sure water does not accumulate and become
39 dangerous: incorporate as a landscape feature.
40 D,ensitypcal should be based on I8 -acre residential area only; not including
41 Church .ro erty
42
43
44
45 ATTACHMENT 3
1
Y.
Revised Plans°
2
.3
4
5
6
7
8
91.
1o.
11
12
13
14
1'5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2
25
26
27
28 .
29
30
3.1
32
33
3'4
35
36
37
38
,39
40
4-1,
42
43
44
The applicant has submitted revised plans in response to issues raised at the Planning
Commission meeting. The most significant changes are summarized below;
v
•
Several sigmfcant trees originally slated for remoNial, have been preserved as` e ested by
ahe'Planning Commission. Specifically:
o Lot: 4,9 was expanded to encompass the area with mature trees (previously° on Lot 48)
Undercurrent: plan, ;the trees would be located on private property (Lot '49) outside the
proposed building envelope.
o, Tree 426 m front of Lot 16 was preserved`by wrapping the sidewalk around tree without
any changes la street width.
o Lots located in the southeast corner of site were rearranged and grading was adjusted''to
provide for a better transition/cointinuation of the proposed pedestrian trail, and to retain,
Tree #66 on Lot 3'5:
• The two previously proposed water quality ponds have been eliminated from the plans.
Underground facilities for -construction: storrnwater management; are proposed and
planned for; if needed to satisfy Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements.
• A play area is now designated on the plans where the pond on' Parcel: B was previously
Proposed, south of the Mission Drive extension, just east ofthe�Churchfproperty.
• Lot. 48 is ,now located where the Parcel A pond 'was previously proposed. Lot 49 was
expanded to - retain existing oak trees (see Tree Preservation discussion below),
o A 154601 wide water main easement is shown on north side of Lot 3`5 as =recommended by
the City Engineer conditions of approval.
In addition to revised ;plans, the applicant has also submitted revised PUD. Development
Standards, which provide more detailed regulations for. both the single - family and church land
use areas: The ;revised PUD Development Standards are :included as Attachment F.
ANALYSIS
The following is a staff analysis of the. revised submittal for the Riverview Subdivision:
,Tree Preservation
As noted above, several significant trees originally slated' for ,removal, are now proposed to be
Preserved. According; to the revised Arborist Report: prepared by Becky Ouckles, Landscape
Consultant &. Arb.orisi, six additional mature oaks afe proposed to be preserved. The ;`revised
Arborist report is' provided as Attachment G. In. addition, a Tree Exhibit'is provided in the ,plan
packet, which indicates the trees that are to remain,and"those that are, proposed to be.removed
46. I ld but .outs de the designated buildn . envelopes. ese To ensure the long- a rederuapo wate
proper g p g p n,of
r
Page 2
the
where Commission may wish to recommend that conservation easements be
2 estab trees the lrshed on. lo is where trees' are to. be- preserved. The conservation easements would serve to
3 notify future' property':owners that the trees are` to'be•preserved and that,grading landscaping and
4 improvements near or within the root zone or ;drip line of the trees .may be restricted-. In addition,
5 staff recommends that Section 3.3 of PUD. Design 'Guidelines Landscaping, be expanded to
6 address preservation �of existing, trees on ;private property. At a minimum, the, Guidelines should
7 include maintenance, irrigation, compatible lands caping and tree care; as recommended by the
8 applicant's arborist, to promote the long -, term health and survival of the tree. These
9 recommendations could be included as an appendix to. PUD Standards /Guidelines.
10
1.1 In addition, it is staff's understanding that Rovina Lanewas shifted in an attempt to save Tree
12 #108. However, based on consuliation with arborist'Becky Duckles, it was determined that the
13 tree- would not likely survive, primarily :because the tree canopy is supported by two other trees
14 Tree � #'s 109 and 1 °10) that aie proposed to be removed be cause. they are within - the proposed
15 Rovina Lane right -of -way. .Asa result, the revised plans show all three of these `trees ( #'s 108,
16 109 and 110), being removed. In order to .retain these .trees; sign ficanY adjustments to the street
17 alignment, utility plan,, grading plan and /or the numbd -n, size and configuration of lots would be
18 required. Modifications necessary to retain the trees could also be limited given that the Young
19 property, although part of and annexation is not,part of`the Cobblestone subdivision.
20
21 Play Area /Open Space
22 The applicant is proposing a play -area within the Open Space - Parcel B, south of the Mission
23 Drive extension, just east of `the.church property: The size of the pla
4 no other details'-have y.,area, is not specified and
been provi`ded!. It should be noted that - the acant is now pr ng that
pplioposi
05 all of the open space (Parcel. B), which includes, the proposed play area °and edestrian trail,
,
26 would "be dedicated to and owned and maintained by, .the City of Pefaluma, The revised PUD
27 Development Standards propose that a Special "Tax District `be� formed- to, pay for the cost of City
28 maintenance of the open space areas. ('Revised PUD Standards,. page 3). Previously, the
29 applicant proposed Parcel B as a privately owned common area %to be,maintained by a
30 homeowner's. ;association. J.m Carr, Director ;of •Parks /Recreation has reviewed the revised
31 plans, and his recommendations for the play area and pedes
p � tri'an trails are contained in
32 Attachment E. These recommendations have been incorporated, into the revised Draft
33 Conditions of Approval (Attachment B).
34
35. Church Parcel,
36 As ,rioted above, revised? I UD Development, Standards have been ,submitted, which provide more
3:7 detailed development standards for'the, 4.9 -acre St. John Church. property. According to the
38 revised PUD standards, fit is the ap p licant's intent to allow `for.continued and on= going use of the
39 property as a religious facility accommodating a full range of religious. activities and functions;
40 and to allow !for- expans'ion;- ,ahe Church .facilities,, and activities„ subject to normal and
41 customary .City procedures and standards; and as set forth in PUD. Development, Standards.
42 Under the revised "'.PUD standards; existing church, facilities and activities, including tu mor
43 expansions thereof, would. be principally permitted uses,, ,thus requiring no other discretionary
44 approvals. In additibn parsonage to'be constructed on -the church parcel, north of the proposed
45 Mission Drive extension, would be a principally permitted 'use: subject to. Design Review as part
of the Riverview Subdivision. Expansions of, and/or 'additions to all church facilities and /or
: ..Page 3
I activities that, are- not deemed minor ; expansions would be subject to a Conditional. Use Tennit,
2 and /or Design Review. Staff finds the 'proposed changes to the PUD Development 'Standards:
3 acceptable 'provided 'that the, development standards for the St. John Church property reflect the
4 following: `
5
6 • Any 'build_ings, including the proposed churchparsonage ,:shal_l"b'esubject to
7 Plan and tural Review; -and
s
9 • Addi'tions to existing buildings shall.be subject to Site Plan. and Architectural'Review:
10
11 These recommendations have been incorporated into, the revised Draft Conditions of Approval:
12
13
14 ATTACHMENTS'
15' A. Draft Findings
1.6 B. Revised Draft Conditions of Approval
17 C. Minutes Excerpt of May 11, 2004, P anring Commission Meeting
1s D Revised Engineering. Conditions of Approval June 1, 2004
19 E. E -mail, from Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation dated. May 30 2004
20 F, Riverview .Planned Unit District Development Standards /Design Guidelines;
21 Revised May 25, 2004
22 G. Riverview Subdivision Arborist':s.Report, Revised May 24, 2004
23 H. Revised Plans (Planning Commission.only)
Page 4