HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B-Attch04 03/03/2003ATTACH M ENT 4
r�
CITY OF .PETALUVIA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Community Development Department, Planning Division, 1T English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778 -4301 Fax (707). E -mail: plan. ning@ei.petaluma.ca.us
DATE: September 24, 2002 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Laura J. Lafler, Project Planner
SUBJECT: ROCKRI)GE POINTS AN APPLICATION TO PREZONE A PROPERTY
TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO ANNEX TO THE CITY
OF PETALUMA, AND TO SUBDIVIDE A 123 -ACRE PARCEL AT
WESTERN AVENUE AND WINDSOR DRIVE INTO 62 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS (APN` 020- 030 -037; 039, 013 & 015)
FILE# ANX 00004, TSM 00003, PRZ 0001, PUD 00004
BACKGROUND
On November 27, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted the first public hearing on the
above referenced item. At -that time staff presented a report requesting direction from the
Planning Commission regarding consistency with applicable General Plan Policies, the
application of the. ' Genetal "Plan , density calculation and issues related to grading visual
impacts and aesthetics. The Planning Commission also took testimony from the public on
the proposed project. The Planning Commission 'outlined a series of issues for further
discussion and continued the public hearing to January 8 2002.
On January 8, .2002, the Planning Commission once again discussed the project They
generally favored the proposed; plan in regard to - density and the preservation of open space,
but ultimately denied tl e'project without prejudice because they could not make the required
findings to recommend approval of the Prezoning and Planned Unit Development to the City
Council. The main concern of the Commission centered on the amount of grading required
and the significant topographical change that would result from the project. The applicant
appealed this decision to the City Council.
On March 4, 2002, the City 'Council .considered the appeal at a public hearing. Prior to the
public hearing, the applicant presented slightly revised plan ito individual Council members.
• At the hearing, the City Council directed the Community Development Director to place the
revised application on the Planning Commission agenda for April 23, 2002. The City
SAPC- Planning Commission \Reports\rockridge9- 24- 02.doc
•
Council directed the Planning Commission to review, the revised grading plan and to forward
a recommendation on the revised grading plan to the City Council for the meeting of May 6,
2002. The Council also requested that the applicant address the following:
1. Reduce grading by designing a site plan that works with the topography
2. Reduce size of lots and houses; minimize grading
3. Remove ballfields, but retain access to open :space and Helen Putnam' Park
4. Consider saving the barn and incorporating amore rural architectural theme
5. Integrate the, project with the surroundings.
6. Present mockups of the project viewed from Windsor Drive and from Western
Avenue near Howard Street.
On April 1, 2002, the applicant formally submitted the revised plan that further constricted
the built /graded area, thus reducing the total amount of grading from 275,000 cubic yards to
250,000 cubic yards. The overall reduction in grading 'decreased the developed area and in
some cases increased the-acreage for several of the undeveloped parcels.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 23; 2002. 'The .Planning
Commission took testimony from the public on the proposed project and 'considered the
applicant's presentation. The Commission continued to be favorable to the.project in regard
to the proposed density and the preservation of open space but voted to :confirm their
previous denial of the project without prejudice. The Planning Commission concluded that
they could not make the required findings to recommend approval of the Prezonm& and
Planned Unit Development to, the City Council based on excessive grading and a site plan
that did not work with the topography.
On April 26, 2002, Doyle Heaton, the project ,applicant, submitted a letter to George White,
Planning Manager, (see Attachment H) requesting that the scheduled May. 6, City Council
hearing on the proposed project be continued, ,so that his team could revise the plan and
return to the Planning Commission for their review and support.
Staff has attached the previous Planning Commission and City Council Staff Reports
(Attachments D: and E) as well as Minutes Excerpts, from the Planning Commission and City
Council Meetings (Attachment F and G).
On July 8, 2002, Vin Smith, on behalf of the project applicant, submitted the attached plans
and letter describing, a revised development plan. The submittal includes a revised Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map, preliminary grading plan and architectural plans. On July 24,
2002, Giblin and Associates submitted a supplemental geotechnical letter evaluating the
revised plans. The applicant has also submitted a photo simulation of the project as viewed
from Windsor, Drive which is included as part of the attached plans. The applicant will be
making a presentation at the Planning Commission hearing. •
SAK- Planning Commission \Reports� 24- 02 :doc 2
r�
u
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The revised project proposes to subdivide the subject property into 62 lots for residential use
and construct 62 homes and related improvements such, as streets, parking and sidewalks in a
single phase. Lot sizes would average approximately 14,000 square feet. The houses would
be 2 stories in height, would each have garages for 2 to 3 vehicles, and would range in size
from 3,200 to 4,000 square feet. The maximum build. ing height would be 35 feet.
The development would ,cluster the homes on approximately 28 acres in the northern portion
of the site and would include a 1 -acre park within the interi or of the residential subdivision
and approximately 95 acres to be dedicated for open space purposes. The proposed drainage
system would include a detention/,sedimentation basin designed to ensure a result of no net
increase in runoff and to protect water quality for Windsor and Marin Creeks. The total
amount of grading proposed has 'been reduced to approximately 80,000 cubic yards.
The project site is not currently within the incorporated limits of the City of Petaluma, but is
within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The Petaluma General Plan (amended 1995) land
use designation for this, site is Rural Residential with a permitted density of .50 units per acre,
or 1 unit per two acres. The property is :designated Urban Separator which requires a 300
foot
setback from the south and west property lines. The proposed project includes
•
applications for prezoning to Planned 'Unit Development (PUD), annexation into the City of
Petaluma, a Vesting Tentative ,Subdivision Parcel Map, and approval of the Planned Unit
Development Plan. The proposed project would prezone the property to PUD and then
annex the property into the .City of Petaluma. Two adjacent parcels of 4.55 and 6 acres, are
also proposed to be annexed into the City as part of this project. Neither parcel is proposed
for development at this time. The City of Petaluma serves as the lead agency for the proposed
project and would also be' responsible for adoption of the appropriate environmental
documentation for the project.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Grading
The amount of grading has been reduced from 225,000 to 80,000 cubic yards, a significant
reduction. Overall, the applicant has „made a commendable effort to reduce the amount of
grading and to increase sensitivity to the topography of the site. The most significant
difference :in grading occurs on the eastern side of the ;proposed subdivision. The applicant
has reversed °the `:arc of the .proposed roadway and associated lots to follow the curve of the
hillside. 'This solution, has ,greatly reduced the amount of grading in this area. The proposed
plan would ;extend the northern roadway /cul de sac thereby extending the grading line further
east and slightly increasing the amount of grading in the northeastern portion of the
• subdivision. However, when combined with the grading reductions throughout the site, this
increase would still result in a net reduction in the total amount of cut and fill required for
development. The revised project accommodates 62 residential lots, works with the
SAK- Planning Commission\keports\rockridge9- 24- 02.doc 3
V.
1
•
topography, and retains the knolls that define the landscape of this area. Staff now believes
that site plan appears to be consistent with the intent of the General Plan policies and the
Hillside :Ordinance for hillside development and for maintaining the rural character of
western Petaluma.
Lot Size
According to the plan, the average lot size has been reduced from. 18,710 square feet to
14,052 square feet. Overall,' the applicant has significantly reduced the lot sizes so as to
decrease the amount of grading required on the site.
Open Space
The reduced grading and redesign of the roadways has resulted in minimal changes;to the
parcels dedicated as open space, with the exception of Parcel D and the elimination of
Parcels E, F and G discussed below. The revised parcel sizes are as follows:
As shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, the' proposed project includes dedication of ' the
streets and park (Parcel C) to the City of Petaluma. Parcel I,would be dedicated to Sonoma
County to .connect to Helen Putnam Regional Park. As recommended by 'Planning and
Engineering staff Parcels A, B, and D should be maintained by a Homeowners Association.
House Size
To accommodate the reduction in the amount of grading, the applicant has significantly
increased the number of split -level houses. The submitted plans show 43 stepped foundations
and 19 flat lots. According to the design plans submitted in conjunction with'the Vesting
Tentative Map, building footprints would be scaled down to correspond to the reduced lot
sizes.
Accessfor Pedestrians /Bicycles
To accommodate a more compact project footprint, the applicant has eliminated the
pedestrianibicycle access ways (Parcels E, F, G) that would have connected the project to
SAK- Planning Commissi6n \Reports\roelcridge9- 24- 02.doc 4
•
.Previous Submittal
Revised Submittal
Parcel
Square Feet
Acres
Square Feet
Acres
A
446,281.0
10.2
475
11.3
B
805,238.0
18.5
818,608.0
18.9
C
_ 90,407.0
2.1.
85;302.0.
.9
D
895,548.0
20.6
1,065,007.0
24.2
I
1,737,008.0
39.9
1,737,008.0
39.9
Total
3,974,482.0
91.3
4,181,466.0
95.2
As shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, the' proposed project includes dedication of ' the
streets and park (Parcel C) to the City of Petaluma. Parcel I,would be dedicated to Sonoma
County to .connect to Helen Putnam Regional Park. As recommended by 'Planning and
Engineering staff Parcels A, B, and D should be maintained by a Homeowners Association.
House Size
To accommodate the reduction in the amount of grading, the applicant has significantly
increased the number of split -level houses. The submitted plans show 43 stepped foundations
and 19 flat lots. According to the design plans submitted in conjunction with'the Vesting
Tentative Map, building footprints would be scaled down to correspond to the reduced lot
sizes.
Accessfor Pedestrians /Bicycles
To accommodate a more compact project footprint, the applicant has eliminated the
pedestrianibicycle access ways (Parcels E, F, G) that would have connected the project to
SAK- Planning Commissi6n \Reports\roelcridge9- 24- 02.doc 4
•
surrounding open space The applicant has retained the 20' wide Emergency Vehicle Access
(EVA) easement that would provide pedestrian/bicycle access to the project from Western
Avenue.
Views from Neighboring Subdivisions
While the southern boundaries for lots 15 and 16 (those closest to Victoria III).have been
moved further north, the building pads for those two lots are similarly located with respect to
the Victoria III" subdivision as previously designed. The applicant has reduced the number of
visible lots from five to two. At the northernmost edge of the subdivision, the applicant has
reduced the amount of grading by emphasizing stepped foundation buildings. As a result,
some of the building pads for lots 31 through 45 have: been located,.closer to the northern
property boundary than previously designed. Inmost cases, the difference in elevation from
the lower building pad to the northern property line has been reduced this difference ranges
from P to 32' with an average of 16'. As previously° designed, this difference ranged from 6'
to 40' with an average of 24'. The revised plan indicates an increase in three homes along.the
northern boundary from twelve to fifteen.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Recommendations
• In March 2000, the City Council adopted the City of Petaluma .Bicycle Plan and Map as an
amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states that the City
shall route development plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
( PPBAC), to allow consideration of bicycle /pedestrian issues. The PPBAC reviewed the
proposed project and had specific recommendations. The full text of the PPBAC
recommendations is included (Attachment Q).
Staff concurs with a majority of the recommendations from the PPBAC and has included
these recommendations 'as conditions of approval. Several of the recommendations are
discussed below.
In reducing proposed grading, the applicant revised. the previous plan to eliminate the
public access throughways that connected Western _Avenue from the proposed EVA
through Parcel C, through the subdivision to. Parcel D. This area previously was
noted as Parcels ; E, F, and G. PPBAC strongly recommends that the current site plan
be revised to include these public access throughways. This recommendation is
included as Condition 92. Staff seeks direction from-the Planning Commission and
recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of Bike Access to /from this
proj ect.
SAPC- Planning Commission \Reports\rockridge9- 24- 02.doc 5
® PPBAC recommended
Class II bike lane improvements
on Western Avenue.
•
Recommendations for
improvements on Western Avenue
cannot be included as
SAPC- Planning Commission \Reports\rockridge9- 24- 02.doc 5
0
conditions of approval, because Western Avenue will remain within the County
jurisdiction.
PPBAC recommended improvements (signs, drinking fountain) to the proposed trail
connecting to Helen Putnam Park. Staff has not included this as a condition because
the area to the southwest of Windsor Drive is proposed to be dedicated to the County
Park System who would be responsible for any improvements' and associated
maintenance.
Fire Department Recommendations
The Fire Department forwarded a series of recommendations to planning staff (Attachments
L, M, N). As a result of working with the Engineering and Fire Department staff, the
applicant is providing roadways 32 feet in width with parking on both. sides. This width will
still allow safe passage of of emergency vehicles. The Fire Department has also made
recommendations `regarding the required width for turning radius of emergency vehicles,
which has been included as a condition of approval.
Police Department Recommendations
The Police Department forwarded recommendations regarding maintaining roadway width
•
and tunung'radius for emergency vehicles. In addition, the Police Department recommended
that the proposed project include sidewalks on the north side of Windsor Drive to connect to
the existing sidewalk at Edinburgh Drive (Condition 90).
School Services
The project site is within the Petaluma School District. City staff routed the revised project
plans to the Petaluma School District and received no comments, as of the, writing of this
report.
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) will .review the project after
the project receives City Council and LAFC0 approval. Prior to building permit issuance,
SPARC will' review site plan design, building and accessory structure design, colors and
materials, landscaping and fighting.
Required Findings for Prezoning and Planned Unit Development
The proposed project involves prezoning, annexation, a vesting tentative map, and
environmental review to construct the Rockridge Pointe project. Prezoning is the process by •
which the city prezones an unincorporated territory that it expects to annex in the future. The
proposed zones must be consistent with the City General Plan, which includes stated goals,.
S K- Planning Commission\Reports Uockridge9- 24- 02.doc ( .
•
objectives and policies. Upon annexation into the City .of Petaluma, the City's zoning
ordinance would regulate development on the property.
Prezoning (Article 27 Amendments, Petaluma Zoning Ordinance), requires that the Planning
Commission recommend a zoning designation to the City Council making the following
findings:
1. That the proposed amendment is in general conformity with the Petaluma General
Plan and any applicable plans.
2. That the public necessity,. convenience and general welfare require or clearly permit
the adoption of the proposed amendment.
The PUD District allows a mix of uses and densities, and building intensity or design
characteristics that would-,not normally be permitted in a single use district. Development in
this zone would be allowable after the City Council approves a complete Planned Unit
Development Plan showing the .internal design of the District -and the relation to surrounding
areas and LAFCO approval of the annexation.
• The City Council may approve the PUD with a recommendation from the Planning
Commission based on a series of findings (Article 19A, Section 19A -300 City of Petaluma
Zoning Ordinance). These findings include:
• Suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares with adequate capacity to carry any
additional traffic generated by the development.
• Unified and organized arrangement of buildings, facilities, and landscaping to ensure
compatibility with, nearbyproperties;
• Protection of natural and scenic qualities of the site with adequate available public and
private spaces; and
• Development of the property will not be detrimental the public welfare and will be in
keeping with the general intent of the Petaluma General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and
other applicable plans adopted by the City.
ATTACHMENTS: (Project referrals, are included if comments were received)
A. Draft Findings
B. Draft Conditions of Approval
C. Revised Iriitial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Report dated September 4, 2002
D. Planning Commission staff reports without attachments dated November 27,
200.1,'7anuary 8, 2002 and April 23, 2002.
E. City Council staff report without attachments dated March 4, 2002
SAK- Planning Commission \ReportsUockridge9- 24- 02.doc 7
•
F. Planning Commission minutes excerpts dated November 27, 2002, January 8,
2002 and .April 23, 2002
G. City Council Minutes excerpt dated March 4, 2002
H. Letter from Doyle Heaton dated April 26, 2002
I. July 8, 2002, letter from Vin Smith to George White
J. Letter from Giblin Associates, geotechnical engineers, dated July 24, 2002
K. September 1, 2002, Engineering Conditions of Approval
L. Memorandum from the Fire Marshal, August 15, 2002
M. Memorandum from the Fire Marshal, September 3, 2002
N. Memorandum from the Fire. Marshal, September 6, 2002
O.. Memorandum from Police Department, August 8, 2002
P. Memorandum from Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation dated April 23,
2002
Q. Memorandum from Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee dated August 22,
2002
R. Memorandum from Public Facilities and Services dated August 22, 2002
S. Revised Plans (Planning Commissioners only)
•
SAKI Planning Commission \Reports \rockridge9- 24- 02.doc