HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B 03/03/2003M A R 0 53 200%
%3 ( 9 6
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL
IWF-6nda Title: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding a
Meeting Date:
Recommendation from the Planning Commission to Approve a Request.
March 3, 2003
for Prezoning to Planned Unit Development, a Request, tbAnnex to the
City of Petaluma and a Request for a Tentative Subdivision Map for 62
residential ideritial lots on a 123-Acre Site at Windsor Drive and Western Avenue,
APN 020-030-037, 039, 013 and 015. File ANX 00004, TSM 00003, PRZ
0001, PUD 00004. (Moore/Lafler)
Department:
Director:
Person:
Phone Number:
Com mum Development
Mike Moore
Laura La Contact
fle
778-4301
Project'Pla r
"Cost of Proposal: N/A
Account Number: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
1. Location Map
2. Staff Report: 10/22/02 Planning Commission meeting (withol&attachments)
3. Minutes; 10 1 /22/02 Planning. Commission meeting
4. Staff Report: 9/24/02 PlanningLCommi meeting (without attachments)
5'. Minutes: 9/24/02 Planning Commission meeting
6. Initial Study
7. Site Plan Submitted by Commissioner Von Raesfeld
Public Notice
_" "Draft Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
-Draft Ordinance Authorizing a Prezoning to Planned Unit
Deive lopffient
11. - Draft Resolution supporting ;annexation to the City of Petaluma
12 ' Draft Resolution Adopting the Tentative I Subdivision Map
13. Plans (City Council members only)
'Summary Statement:
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on October 22 2002; After deliberating and taking public
testimony, the Commission forwarded a recommendation to the 'City Council to -adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, to approve the requested prezoning to Planned Unit Development, to support annexation to the City of
Petaluma, and to approve the Tenta Subdivision Map for 62 residential I . ots on a 123-acre parcel at Western
Avenue And Windsor Drive.
Council Ptio'ki :,, TfiISAGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED To BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY To, ONE OR MORE
OF THE 2001 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED By THE CITY CouNCIL ON JULY 21, 2001.
Pfiotity(s)'- 11
Recommended City Council Action /Suggested Motion:
The Planning 'Colir i on
'nigs that the City Council 1) adopt a resolution approving a Mitigated
. gm , , staff recommend h
Negative Declaration, 2 introduce I an ordinance prezoning the subject to Planned Unit Development, 3) to adopt a
,resolution supporting annexation to the City of Petaluma, and 4) to adopt a resolution approving the Tentative
Subdivision Map:, A
Reviewed by Finance
Reviewed by City Attorney:
Approvwl' Mty Manner:
Date-
Date:
Date:
Today's Date, I
Revision # and Date Revised:
File Code:
2/118/03 V
#
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
3 MARCH1 2003
4
5 AGENDA REPORT
6 FOR
7 .R OCKRID GE POINTE
8 Prezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map
9 APN 020 = 030 -037, 039 013 and 015
1,0
11
12 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
13
14 The applicant, Mardel LLC, is requesting approval to - prezone the 123 -acre parcel at Western
15 Avenue and Windsor Drive to Planned Unit. Development, to annex the property to the City of
16 Petaluma and to subdivide the property into. 62 residential lots. The Planning Commission
17 reviewed the proposed project on October 22, 2002. After deliberating and taking public
18 testimony, the Commission forwarded a recomendation . to the City Council to adopt a
19 Mitigated Negative Declaration, to approve t m he requested .prezoning to Planned Unit
20 Development and to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for 62 residential lots on a 123 -acre
parcel at Western Avenue and Windsor
2. B ACKGROUND :
24
25 Setting
26
27 The project site has been owned and maintained by the Varnhagen family for over 20 years. The
28 property served as a primary -single-family residence and has been used for grazing and
29 livestock/dairy , agricultural uses prior to the current. ownership. The existing house is currently
30 occupied and the land is still used for ,grazing. Please refer to 'Attachments 1 through 4 for
31 additional background and information on the project site.
32
33 The project site is not currently within Petaluma's incorporated limits, but is within the Urban
34 Limit Line. The proposed project involves prezoning, annexation, a tentative subdivision map,
35 and envronmental review to construct the Rockridge Pointe Subdivision. Prezoning is the
36 process by which the city prezones an unincorporated territory that it expects to annex in the
37 future. The proposed zones must be consistent with the City General Plan.
3
39 The proposed project would prezone the property to. Plann
40 the,; �ro ert y into the City of Pet ed Unit. Development and then annex
p p aluma. The City of Petaluma 'serves as the lead agency for the
41 proposed'`project and is responsible for approval of the environmental documentation of the
42 proj ect.
Fill
Page 2
I PROJECT HISTORY
2
3 On November 27 2001, the Planning Commission conducted the first public hearing on this
4 project. Staff presented a report requesting direction from the Planning Commission regarding
5 consistency with applicable General Plan Policies, the application of the General .Plan density
6 calculation and issues related to grading visual impacts and aesthetics. The Planning
7 Commission also took testimony from the public, on the proposed project. The Planning
8 Commission outlined a series of issues for further discussion and continued the public hearing to
9 January 8, 2.002.
10
11 On January 8, 2002, the Planning Commission. once again discussed the project. They generally
12 favored the proposed project in regard to the density and the preservation of open space, but
13 ultimately denied the project without prejudice because they could not make the required
14 findings to recommend approval of the Prezoning and Planned Unit Development to the City
15 Council. The main concern of the Commission centered on the amount of grading required and
16 the significant topographical change that wouldresult from the project. The applicant appealed
17 this decision to the City Council.
18
19 On March 4, 2002, the City Council considered the appeal at a public hearing. Prior to the
20 public hearing,, the 'applicant presented a revised plan to individual council members. At the
21 hearing, the City Council 'directed the Community Development Director to place the revised
22 application on the Planning Commission agenda for April 23, 2002: The City Council directed
23 the Planning Commission to review the revised grading plan and to forward a recommendation •
24 on the revised grading plan to the City Council for the meeting of May 6, 2002. The Council
25 also requested that the applicant address the following:
26
27
1.
Reduce grading by designing a site plan that works.with the topography
28
2.
Reduce size of lots and houses;'minimize grading
29
3.
Remove ball fields, but retain access to open space and Helen Putnam Park
30
4.
Consider saving the barn and incorporating amore rural architectural theme
31
5.
Integrate the project with the surroundings
32
6.
Present mockups of the project viewed from Windsor Drive and from Western Avenue
33
near Howard Street.
34
35 On April 1, 2002, the applicant formally submitted a revised plan that further constricted the
36 built /graded area, thus reducing the total amount of grading from 275,000 cubic yards to 250,000
37 cubic yards. The overall reduction in grading decreased the developed area and in some cases
38 increased the acreage for several of the undeveloped parcels.
39
40 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 23, 2002. The Planning Commission.
41 took testimony from the public on the proposed project and considered the applicant's
42 presentation. The Commission continued to be favorable to the project in regard to the proposed
43 density and the preservation of open space but voted to confirm their previous denial of the
44 project without prejudice. The Planning Commission concluded that they could not make the
45 required findings to recommend approval of the Prezoning and Planned Unit Development to the •
46 City Council based on excessive grading and a site plan that did not work with the topography.
Page 3
40 ' On April 26, 2002, the project applicant, submitted a,letter requesting that the scheduled May 6,
3 City Council hearing on the proposed project be continued, so that his team could revise the plan
4 and return to the Planning Commission for their review and support.
5'
6 On July 8, 2002, Vin Smith, on behalf' of the 'project applicant, submitted revised plans and a
7 letter describing revised develo ment Ian. The submittal included a revised Vesting Tentative
g p p mitta
8 Subdivision Map, prelinnnary grading plan and architectural plans. On July 24, 2002, Giblin and
9 .Associates submitted a supplemental geotechnical letter evaluating the revised plans. The
10 applicant also submitted a photo simulation of the project as viewed from Windsor Drive.
H
12 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
13
14 The revised project proposes to subdivide the subject property into 62 lots for residential use and
15 construct 62 homes and related improvements such as streets, parking and sidewalks in a single
16 phase. Lot sizes would average approximately 14,000 square feet. The houses would be 2 stories
17 in height, would each have garages for 2 to 3 vehicles, and would range in size from 3,200 to
18 4,000 square feet. The maximum building height would be 35 feet.
19
20 The development would cluster the homes on approximately 28 acres in the northern portion of
21 the site and would include a 1 -acre park within the interior of the residential subdivision and
22 approximately 95 acres to be dedicated for open space purposes. The proposed drainage system
p designed would include a detention/sedimentation basin desi ed to ensure a result of no net incre ase in
runoff and to protect water quality for Windsor and Mann Creeks. The total amount of grading
25 proposed ha's been reduced to approximately 80,000 cubic yards.
26
27 The project site is not currently within the incorporated limits of ',the City of Petaluma, but is
28 within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The Petaluma General Plan (amended 1995) land use
29 designation for this site is Rural Residential with, a .permitted density of .50 units per acre, or 1
30 unit per two acres. The property is designated Urban Separator which requires a 300 foot
31 setback from the south and west property lines. The'proposed project includes applications for
32 prezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD), annexation into the City of Petaluma, a Vesting
33 Tentative Subdivision Parcel Map, and approval of the Planned Unit Development Plan. The
34 proposed;Project would prezone the property to PUD and then annex the property into the City of
35 Petaluma: 'Two adjacent parcels of 4,55 and 6 acres, are also proposed to be annexed into the
36 City as part of this project. Neither parcel is proposed for 'development at this time. The City of
37 Petaluma serves as the lead agency for the ro osed roject and would also be responsible for
g y p p p
38 adoption of the appropriate environmental documentation for the project.
39
40 Planning Commission Review of Revised Submittal
41
42 On September 24, 20.02;, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the revised
43 submittal. The Planning Comm ission took testimony from the public on the revised project and
44 considered the: applicant's presentation. The Commission complimented the project applicant on
• efforts to reduce grading and to integrate the project into the surrounding topography.
Page 4
I
Commissioners discussed issues related to the project and continued the public hearing to
2
October 22, 2002. The applicant was asked to return with the following:
3
4
® Show views of the project from Chileno Valley Road, Howard, and Western Avenue.
5
® Provide sections through the project that show the proposed residences, neighboring
6
properties and the deepest cut areas.
7
a Provide story poles indicating the location of proposed structures on the project site.
8
® Clarify.exactly which. trees are to be retained
9
® Provide a landscape plan that includes the detention basin
10
e Provide a trail plan
11
e Indicate a proposed route for students to reach the junior high on Western Avenue
12
o Show public and private open space
13
® Show traffic calming measures on plans
14
• Show anyproposed improvements to the, frontage on Western Avenue
15
e Incorporate all the recommendations, from the Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee
16
• . Show methods to reduce speed on Windsor Avenue
17
e Narrow streets wherever possible
18
. Indicate on- street parking along Windsor Drive
19
« Enhance wetlands and provide trails nearby
20
21
22
On October 9, the applicant submitted revised plans with a letter, forwarded on October 11,
2002, describing the additional information. The applicant addressed the requests from the
23
Planning Commission as follows:
24
25
1. The applicant, stated an intent to present a computer animation video depicting visual
26
simulations of the project from different streets at the meeting of `October 21
27
28
2. The applicant agreed to a condition of Vesting Tentative Map approval to provide peer
29
review for soils and geotechnical issues. The applicant agreed to a third party 'inspection
30
oftheproject grading by a soils or geotechnical engineer during construction.
31
32
3. The revised plans provided sections for Lots 14 -17 and Lot 45.
33
34
4. The existing tree cluster on the rock outcropping would be retained with grading outside
35
the dripline of the trees.
36
37
5. Trails are shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. Revised landscape plans include
38
proposed landscaping for the detention basin.
39
40
6. Project plans included a pedestrian/bicycle point on Western Avenue. The applicant
41
proposed to stripe the south side of Western Avenue with a Class II bike lane. If there is
42
insufficient room for the Class II bike lane, the applicant proposes to paint a "fogstripe ".
43
44
7. The applicant proposed to construct the trail system and dedicate it to the City of
•
45
Petaluma for future public access. The balance of the land on Parcels A; B D would be
46
retained as private open space and maintained by the future Homeowners Association.
Page 5
L-A
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
LJ
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
.38
39
40
41
42
43
r - I
LJ
46
The applicant proposed to dedicate the land on the south_ side of Windsor Drive to the
County of Sonoma.
8. The Vesting Tentative Map depicted the proposed - roundabout and the median/island
within the Victoria II portion of Windsor Drive.
9. The applicant intended to incorporate all of the PBAC's recommendations, except for the
trail system.nearthe detention basin due to safety concerns.
10. The applicant supported efforts to .reduce the speed limit on Windsor Drive to 25 mph
and to allow parallel parking on Windsor. Drive.
11. Based on ongoing discussions with the Fire Department, the applicant concluded that the
streets could not be any narrower than, the 32 feet shown on the plans.
On October 22, 2002, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the project. The
Planning Commission considered the applicant's presentation and received testimony from the
public. The public raised issue's` several issues including: traffic on Western, ongoing flooding
problems at Marin Creek, construction traffic on Windsor Drive, .need for story poles, need for
trails, need for public open space. Commissioners discussed issues related to the project;
including the following:
• Need for story poles to reflect the height and mass of the proposed houses.
• Need for project to contribute fair share toward solving traffic problems on Western Avenue
• Grading should appear less engineered and more "park- like" to blend in with surrounding
topography.
• Integrate detention pond as a landscape feature of the project, not just a drainage solution.
• Design and build the proposed park to include trails and benches before dedicating the area
to the City.
• Provide contiguous open space that is integrated into the project rather than just surrounding
the developed area.
• Fencing should be reviewed by SPARC to insure that appropriate fence designs are used
throughout
• Enhance design =of corner lots with landscaping and fences.
• Provide an irrevocable offer of the open space to the City of Petaluma
• Direct SPARC to specifically review Lots 1 through 4� and Lots 14 -17, especially the rear
elevations and the corner lots.
• Enhance and articulate design of individual homes with "multi- volume" concepts.
• - Propose a cohesive landscape plan.
• Include recommendations from the Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Commissioner von Raesfeld commended the redesign effort but stated that he had concerns
regarding site grading and proposed architecture. He warned against grading that is too
engineered and suggested that open space be integrated throughout the project. He submitted a
graphic (Attachment 7) that reconfigures the proposed site plan in order to cormect open space
areas. He stated that the proposed architecture should be clear, inspired and well thought out
Page.6
I with sensitivity to specific lots: rear elevations on Lots 1 through 4, the homes proposed for Lots
2 13 -17, and corner lots. 0
4 Commissioner McAllister expressed concern about being able, to make the required findings for
5 the Prezoning and Planned Unit Development. She stated that the .submitted sections were not
6 adequate and that the applicant did not install the requested story poles. She stated that
7 submitted exhibits should show the community 'what the project would look like after
8 completion. She proposed that Lots 46, 47 and 48 be connected to the park. She supported
9 comments that 'the detention basin be more of a landscape element, an amenity to the project.
10 She supported public ownership of the open space areas. She said that :a rural vernacular would
11, be more appropriate.
12
1.3 Commissioner Barrett stressed the importance of giving SPARC strong direction. She: requested
14 story poles for Lots 14 through 17 and Lots 43 through 48. She expressed concern for ridgeline
15 development and stated that the project is visible from Chileno Valley Road. She expressed
16 concern about directing traffic to Western Avenue from Windsor Drive. She did not want to
17 approve f a project that would create an unsafe condition.
18
19 Commissioner Darge stated that the open space should be available to the public. He stated that
20 62 homes would not cause more traffic on Western to Chileno Valley Valley, but might add
21 traffic on Western Avenue connecting to downtown Petaluma. He said that computer animation
22 is not sufficient and the. should erect story 'poles to inform thecomrriunity about the
23 proposed. project. He concluded that the detention basin should be a landscape feature and the
24 proposed park should be improved before the land is dedicated to the City.
25
26 Commissioner Asselmeier agreed with the previous comments and requested that a condition be
27 added to, address the recommendations of the Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee: He
28 requested story poles and a public notice at street level that would describe; the proposed. project.
29 He said that the in -lieu housing fee of $150,000' does not seem adequate. He would like the
30 proposed open space to be integrated throughout the'project rather than "ringing the outside of
31 the developed area. He recommended that the applicant work with the City and County to agree
32 on a fair share contribution for improvements to Western Avenue.
33
34 With 'these clarifications, the Planning Commission by a vote of 511 (McAllister opposed)
35 recommended that the project be approved by the City Council with several added conditions.
36 These conditions have been added as Conditions of Approval from the Planning Commission
37 and read as follows:
38
39 1. All proposed open space parcels, with the exception of the parcel to be dedicated to the
40 County as part of Helen Putnam Park, shall be dedicated to the City as public open space.
41
42 2. The applicant and staff should work with appropriate County staff to develop a formula
43 for fair mshare - contributions from the applicant for addressing increased traffic- on Western
44 Avenue especially in the vicinity of existing schools.
45
•
•
Page 7
�b
3. The design, development and dedication of the proposed. public park, including trails and
benches, shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any individual housing unit.
3
4 4. The conceptual unit development plan shall be revised as follows:
5
6 a. Show a contiguous open space concept with a cohesive landscape plan — do not look
7 at the property as separate open-space parcels.
8 b. Recommend possible relocation of Lot 15 to the end of the cul de sac., "G" Court.
9 c. Integrate detention pond into the project as a landscape feature
10 d. Respond to concerns about contouring and propose solutions that are more like
11 grading for golf courses than just engineering
12 e. Lots 43 -48 — need particular attention to the rear of these lots — revise architecture
13 and elevations to reflect rural vernacular recommendations from SPARC.
14
15 5. Application materials for SPARC shall include:
16
17 a. Proposed fencing for variety of conditions
18 b. Side lot landscaping and. fencing for corner lots
19 C. Particular attention to the most visible 'elevations for rear and corner lots,
20 specifically Lots 1 -4, 14 -17
21 d. Provide further articulation on individual proposed residences with multi - volume
2 concepts
7. Story poles will be in place at least 10 days before the hearing for Lots 38 -45, Lots 1 -4,
25 Lots 14 -16, a sign placed at bottom of hill .on Windsor Drive describing the proposed
26 project, graphics enhanced with an illustrative plan, and 62 -lot desired density.
27
28 The Planning Commission Minutes are included as Attachment 3.
29
30 3. ALTERNATIVES
31
32 a. The City Council may approve the proposed project with modifications to the
33 conditions of approval and /or to the conditions previously modified by the Planning
34 Commission.
35
36 b. The City Council may deny the request' for the Prezoning and the Tentative
37 Subdivision Map.
38
39 4. FINANCIAL'IMPACTS
40
41 This is a private development project subject to standard processing permit fees and any
42 applicable City Special. Developinent Fees. A contract planner, working on a full cost recovery
43 basis, has processed „the application.
44
5. CONCLUSION
Page 8
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The Planning Commission found that the proposed Prezoning to Planned Unit Development,
annexation of the property and the Tentative Subdivision Map would not create any new .
significant environmental impacts and that the proposed project would be consistent with the
General. Plan,, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Municipal Code, and recommended that the City
Council approve the project.
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION:
N/A
7. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution
authorizing a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, introduce an Ordinance Prezoning
the property to Planned Unit Development and adopt a Resolution approving the Tentative
Subdivision Map for 62 residential lots, in order to allow the construction of 62 residential units.
SACC -City Council \Reports\roclaidge03- 03- 03.doc
a
•
Page 9