HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B-Attch02 03/03/2003ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
2 MEMORANDUM
3
4 Community Development. Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
5 (707) 978 -4301 Fax (707) E =mail: planning@ci.petaluma.ca us
6
7 DATE: October 22, 2002 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
8
9 TO: Planning Commission
10
11 FROM: Laura J. Lafler, Project Planner
12
13 SUBJECT: ROCKRIDGE P.OINTE - AN APPLICATION TO PRE-ZONE A PROPERTY TO
14 PLANNED UNIT .DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF
15 PETALUMA, AND TO SUBDIVIDE A 123 -ACRE PARCEL AT WESTERN
16 AVENUE AND WINDSOR DRIVE INTO 62 RESIDENTIAL LOT_ S
17 (APN 020 - 03'0- 03'7;' 039, 013 & 015)
18 ANX 00004, SM 00003; 'PRZ 0001, PUD `00004
19
20
1 BACKGROUND
On September 24, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the revised
24 submittal. The Planning Commission took testimony from the public on the revised project and
25 considered the applicant's presentation. The Commission complimented the project applicant on
26 efforts to reduce grading and to integrate the project into the surrounding topography.
27 Commissioners discussed issues related to the project;, includingthe following:
28
29 a Public or private open space and issue of public access.
30 a Need for peer review of the geotechnicatreport.
31 a Visual quality and views ,:of the proposed project from;surrounding areas.
32 e Need' to be able to better evaluate proposed grad
ing, especially near Lots 14, 15, 16 and Lots
33 31, 32 and. Lots 43 and 45.
34 a Need'.assurance of protection for remaining trees.
sin' be': integrated 35 Desire that' ^.detention ba ' gr in to proposed- landscaping :rather than appearing to
36 be an engineered feature.
37 e Regarding :proposed architecture, reminded applicant that SPARC is looking for rural
38 vernacular iri „projects proposed for outlying areas.
39 ® Traffic Committee may need to review traffic calming features or other needed
40 improvements to Western,Avenue. gr
42 a .Desire to .seeeater range o loo ail lans for osed h ' appropriate connections.
41 a 'Need to coo
gr g ,p p p o' mes.
The draft minutes, from the September. 24 hearing are included with the packet.
45
g ports\rocicilidgememol0-22-
S:�PC= Plannin Commission\Re , 02.doc Page 1 .
4 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8"
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29'
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ultimately, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to October 22' and asked the
applicant to return with the following: 0
• Show.views of the project from Chileno Valley Road, Howard Street, and Western. Avenue.
• Provide sections through the project that show the proposed residences, neighboring
properties and tlie'deepest'cut areas.
• Provide story poles indicating the location of proposed structures on the project site.
• Clarify exactly which trees are to be retained
• Provide a landscape plan that includes the detention basin
• Provide a trail plan
® Indicate a proposed route for students to reach the junior high on Western Avenue
• Show public and private. open space
• Show traffic. calming measures on plans
• Showany °proposed improvements to the frontage on Western Avenue
• Incorporate all the recommendations from the Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee
• Show methods to reduce speed on Windsor Avenue
• Narrow streets wherever possible
• Indicate on- street parking along, Windsor Drive
• " Enhance wetlands and provide trails nearby
On October 9, the applicant ;submitted the attached set: of revised plans with a letter, forwarded
on October l l j 2002, describing the additional information. The applicant has addressed the
requests from the Planting Commission as follows:
1. The applicant will present a computer animation video depicting visual simulations of the
project from different streets at the meeting of October 22nd.
2. The. applicant agrees to a condition of Vesting Tentative Map approval to provide peer
review for soils and geotechnical issues. In addition, the applicant agrees to a third party
inspection of the project grading by a;soils or geotechnical engineer during construction.
3. The attached plans ;provide sections for Lots 14 -17 and Lot 45. The applicant has.
declined to provide the requested story poles.
4. The existing tree cluster on the rock outcropping will be retained with grading outside the,
dripline of the trees.
5. Trails are shown on the attached Vesting Tentative Map. Revised landscape plans will
include proposed landscaping for the detention basin.
6. Project plans show a pedestrian/bicycle point on Western Avenue. The applicant
proposes to stripe the south side of Western Avenue with a Class II bike lane. If there is
insufficient room for the Class II bike lane, the applicant proposes to paint a "fogstripe ".
7. The applicant has not provided a proposal for a safe route to school for Junior High.
students using Western Avenue. It should be noted that the area cited by a member of the.
SAPCG Planning Commissioriuteports)rockridge memol0- 22 -01doc - ' Pg g e'2
•
6:
pu is a
p s potent>ally dangerous is an existing- condition under the jurisdiction of Sonoma
County and not the responsibility of this developer. Staff ,has contacted the citizen that
3 raised this :issue and will continue to work on coordinating a response from appropriate
4 City and County staff.
5
6 S. The applicant indicated that the graphics plans depict the Public Access /Public Open
7 Space and Private Open Space. The applicant proposes to construct the trail system and
8 dedicate it to the City of Petaluma for future public access. As discussed previously, the
9 City has agreed to accept and maintain the proposed paths through the project as well as
10 the pocket park already indicated on the plan. The balance of the land on Parcels A, B D
11 will be retained as private open space and maintained by the future Homeowners
12 Association. The applicant proposes to dedicate the land on the south side of Windsor
13 Drive to the County of Sonoma.
14
15 9. The attached Vesting Tentative Map shows the proposed roundabout and the
16 median/island within the Victoria -II portion of Windsor Drive.
17
18 10. The applicant intends to incorporate all of the PBAC's recommendations, except for the
19 trail system near the detention basin due to safety concerns.
r
20
21 11. The applicant support's efforts to reduce the speed limit on Windsor Drive to 25 miles per
22 hour and to allow parallel par -king on Windsor Drive. Any formal reduction of speed on
0 this road will require a speed warrant study by the City's traffic committee. Parking on
Windsor Drive adjacent to the proposed County Park is not currently possible due to
25 insufficient road width. In order to provide a parking lane, an 8 foot wide area adjacent to
26 the existing road would have to be improved and/or excavated. Future maintenance of
27 this parking area would be�the responsibility of the: City.
28
29 12. Based on discussions with the Fire Marshal, the applicant and staff conclude that the
30 streets cannot be any narrower than 32 feet, with parking on both sides, as currently
31 shown on the plans.
32
33 In the previous packet for the meeting, of September 24, 2002, staff attached the previous staff
34 reports to the Planning Commission and the City Council, minutes from these previous hearings
35 and the Revised Initial Study. This packet only includes the material submitted since the
36 meeting of September 24, 2002.
37
38 ATTACHMENTS:
39
40 A. Planning Commission Staff Report, September" 24, 2002
41 B. Letter from Vin Smith dated October 11, 2002
42 C. Plans (Planning Commissioners only):
43 ® Three sets of laris ;from M
p ilani & Associates received 10/10/02
44 ® One conceptual landscape plan dated 10115/02
• ® One Front Garden Area Scenario dated 10/15/02
S: \PC Planning 'Commission \Reports \rockridge memol0- 22- 02.doc Pa e 3
g