HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4.F Part 1 07/14/2003•
17A
i a
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
I' moo
AGENDA BILL J U 'a I
Agenda' Title Discussion and Possible Action Regarding
Meeting Date: July 14, 2003
Recommendation from the Planning Commission to Approve: (A)
Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 47
Single- Family Lot And 46 Townhome Lot Subdivision Located on a
, Meeting Time ❑ 3:00 PM
17 -acre Parcel. at 710 Sonoma'Mountain Parkway; (B) Resolution
[1 7:00 PM
Approving Rezoning the Property to a Planned Unit District for the
"Gatti" Subdivision; (C) Resolution Approving a Tentative
Subdivision Map for the "Gatti" Subdivision; and (D) Resolution
Approving Planned Unit District Development Guidelines for the
"Gatti" Subdivision. APN 137 -070 -079. File REZ02003,
PUD02002, & TSMO2002. (Moore/Robbe)
Category (check one) ❑ Consent Calendar EZ Public Hearing E] New Business
❑ Unfinished Business F Presentation
Department
Director
Contact Person
Phone Number
Community
Mike Moore
Tiffany Robbe,
778 -4301
Development
Associate Planner'
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. Minutes from the May 13, 2003 Planning Commission meeting
3. Staff Report from the May 1 Planning Commission meeting without attachments
4. Minutes from the April 8, 2003 Planning Commission meeting
5. Staff Report from the April 8, 20 3 Planning Commission meeting without attachments
6. Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring Report, and Related Studies (Biological, Site Assessment, Hydro,
7.. PUD Development Guidelines Traffic, Tree, & Peer Review)
8. Public Notice
9. Letter from Alexandra L. Meyer of 1915 Buckingham Lane
10. Draft Resolution. Adopting a::Mitigated Negative Declaration
11. Draft Resolution Adopting aRezoning to Planned Unit District
12. Draft Resolution Adopting the Tentative Subdivision Map
13. Draft Resolution Adopting the PUD Development Guidelines
1.4, Plans.(City Council members; only)
Summar'y Statement The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on April 8 and. May 13,
2003. After deliber and taking public testimony, the Commission forwarded a recommendation to the
City Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, to approve rezoning to a Planned Unit District, to
approve a Tentative Subdivision Map, and to approve Planned Unit District Development Guidelines for a
47 unit single- family and 46 unit townhouse subdivision on a 17 -acre site now occupied by the Gatti
Nursery greenhouses.
Recommended City °Council Action /Suggested Motion
The Planning Commission and staff 'recommend that the City Council 1) adopt a resolution approving a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2) adopt a resolution approving a rezoning to, Planned Unit District; 3)
adopt a resolution approving a Tentative Subdivision Map, and 4) adopt a resolution approving PUD
Deve�lapment Guidelines for the 93 -unit Gatti ion.
Revfiwed bv F'nan `Director:..
Revief ed b me :
te:
ApprovoA it Manner:
Date:
/ at .")
Today's Date ,�
Revision # and Date Revised:
File. Code:
#
July 2, 2003
SACC -City Council \Reports \GattiC.C..doc
•
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
JULY 14, 2003
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
GATTI SUBDIVISION REZONING, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP,
AND PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicants, Matt Hudson and Doyle Heaton, are requesting approval to rezone the 17 -acre parcel at
710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway to, Planned Unit Development to subdivide the property into 47
Single - Family Lots And 46 Townhouse Lots, and to adopt PUD Development Guidelines for the
"Gatti" Subdivision. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on April 8 and May 13,
2003. 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 rezoning to
Planned Unit Development, to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map, and to adopt PUD
Development Guidelines for 93 residential lots at 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
• 2. BACKGROUND
Site History:
The property has been a hay growing pasture for most of its recorded history. in approximately 1980,
Gatti Nursery, Inc. purchased an 80 -acre parcel, which included the subject site, and developed a
commercial nursery operation in ,which ornamental plants, principally azaleas, were propagated in
greenhouses. In 1989, the City Council adopted the Corona/Ely Specific Plan which covered the 675
acres along the outer edge of the City's northeast quadrant. All of Gatti Nursery was within the
specific plan boundary. The balance of the original 80 acres have been developed over the last nine
years with single-family homes, apartments, and a shopping center, pursuant to the specific plan.
Seven acres of the original site were acquired by the City for a park.
Project Description.
The 17.17 -acre site is located on the east side of Sonoma Mountain Parkway, east of the City park site.
Access to the subdivision would be from Casella Way and Yorkshire Road. On the east side of the
parcel, thirty =five two -story and nine .one -story single- family detached homes are proposed on lots
ranging from 3,849 to 8,209 square feet (average lot size is 4,345 square feet). Six house plans are
proposed and these range from 2,075 square feet to 2,612 square feet. Every plan has a two -car garage
and two parking spaces in the driveway. Many of the house plans i and 3 fit together with a plan 2 or
4 in a "zipper lot" configuration (see Attachment 14, Tentative: Map C.7). On the west side of the
parcel, forty -six two -story atiached townhome.s are proposed on lots ranging from 1,442 to 1,815
square feet (average 'lot size is 1;562 square feet). The townhomes are attached in groups of two and
a three units each, forming either duplexes or triplexes. Three duplex /triplex elevations are proposed.
Each townhouse will be 1,524 square feet with a two -car garage accessed from an alleyway at the rear.
The applicant is proposing -the following land dedications to the .City 1) the western 7 „0400t wide, IA -
acre strip for incorporation into, the adjacent city park, 2,) approximately 70 feet from the centerline of •
the seasonal Capri Creek (1.2- acres) for riparian habitat '.And a path, and 3); the eastern 4 4 acres of the
parcel for; incorporation into the urban separator: The dedicated land totals. 6.7 acres.
General Plan Consistency:
The parcel is comprised of four General Plan Land Use designations.
The 70 -foot wide strip adjacent to Sonoma Mountain Parkway and currently used as an access road to
the nursery is designated Open Space. The applicant proposes dedicating this 1,..1 -acre strip to the City
for incorporation into the future park. The Open,Spacel. designation continues .up the southeasterly
property line hugging Capri Creek. The designation is intended to underscore the City's desire to
maintain. these creeks in a natural or existing state. Land designated as open space shall be. essentially
unimproved and devoted to the preservation Of natural resources, outdoor `recreation, ;or public health
and safety. 'The proposed project 'is consistent with this designation in that the creek setback area
would be improved only with a bike and pedestrian path; native trees, benches, and the like and would
be dedicated to the City.
The next 3.8 -acre portion of the site is designated Urban High which allows f6r a density range,
between 10.1 and; 15.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposal calls for 46 townhomes (formerly 50'
townhomes) this results in a proposed density of 12.2 dwelling units per acre.
Further to the ,northeast the General Plan Land `Use designation is Urban Standard which allows for a, •
density range between 2.1 and 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposal calls for 47 single- family
homes (formerly 50, homes); this results in a proposed density of 3.8 units per acre with a density
transfer from the 'urban separator property pursuant to Policy 1,3 Chapter 4 which states that on
residentially designated properties the- urban separator shall function as an overldy the intent of
which is to provide.property owners with the opportunity to transfer the development potential:of land
designated as urban separator to another: portion. of the same site. (Without the density transfer
policy the single - family density would-be 6.0 units per acre.)
Further still to the northeast, the last 3,00 linear,feet. of the parcel is designated Urban Separator and the
applicant proposes to dedicate�this 4.4 -acre area to the City for the continuation of the urban separator,
a primarily open space area.
Thus, the current proposal complies with the density and use specified by the General Plan.
There are also* numerous General Plan policies that relate to,Ahis proposal. Principal among, these are
the three that follow (for others please see Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 5).
Community Character Element.
Program 9 Require meaningful amounts of usable urban open space in and between
developments.
■ A total of 6.7 -acres - of open space and parkland - "39 %0 of the total site acreage - will be
dedicated to the City. •
3
Land Use and Growth Management Element.
Policy 7. For properties adjoining the urban limit line, it is the intent of the City that projects ... be
of limited density (as shown on the General Plan Land Use Map).
® The General Plan Land Use Map does show a density more limited at the urban limit line than
it is farther into the site and the development proposal is consistent with this layout.
Housing Element.
® includes
Objective a: Provide a range of housing types.
The proposed project'. an equal mix of attached . townhomes and detached homes
p P P J
ranging from 1,524 to 2,612 square feet. Additionally, this project would provide for -sale
townhomes, a housing. °type underrepresented in the Petaluma market. The developer will also
be required to contribute to the in -lieu housing fund per Policy 10 of the .General Plan
Housing Element.
Corona /Ely Specific Plan Consistency:
The project is generally consistent °with the Corona/Ely Specific: Plan policies. For a summary of these
policies please see the Planning Commission Report (Attachment 5). The proposed project density is
also consistent with the Specific Plan, which includes Policy 127 allowing the transfer of density from
the urban separator. The specific ,plan anticipated that the original 80 -acre Gatti parcel would have a
maximum of 447 residential units. Totaling the unit counts built on this land: Heritage subdivision (97
units), Americana subdivision '(100 units), Tuxhorn subdivision (32 units), Capri Creek Apartments
(100 units), and the proposed Gatti subdivision (93 units) results in 422 units.
• Planning Commission Review:
The Planning Commission held' two public hearings on this project: At both of these hearings (and at
the Preliminary SPARC hearing) one of the largest modifications sought was a redesign of the
townhouse area to provide ; more outdoor spaces for each individual, :unit as well as for the townhouse
neighborhood as a whole and conversely to reduce the amount of pavement and roadways. The current
plan shows a revised. townhouse plan which follows the direction given by the Planning Commission.
All of the townhomes now have larger private front yards; the average being about 21 feet deep by 20
feet wide, where as, early plans depicted yards about 12 feet deep by -20 feet wide. A 71 by 253 foot
(Al acres) semi - public park (to 'be owned by the townhouse HOA) has'been incorporated into the plan,
thus providing the shared open space that the Commission was seeking. Half of the townhouses front
directly onto this shared outdoor space and another 11 units face the future Gatti Park. Thus, staff
finds that the Planning Commission's concern about lack of outdoor space and abundance of paving
has been alleviated with the current townhouse proposal.
After hearing from a numberaof residents on the adjacent Buckingham Lane who were concerned that
the '1,2 two- story homes proposed to back onto their lots were incompatible, the Planning Commission
directed the applicant to create a plan. more acceptable to .the neighbors. At the second Commission
hearing, the applicant presented two alternative plans, one to relocate Road A directiy behind the
Buckingham lots and the second to reduce the number of lots bordering the Buckingham residences
from 12 to 9 and design one -story houses for these lots. The neighbors expressed their support for
Road A to be relocated directly behind their rear fence. The Planning. Commission found the 9 lot one-
story alternative (as shown on the current Tentative Subdivision Map, Attachment 14) to be the
preferable design. The Commission felt that a street at the rear of' the Buckingham homes would be
inconsistent with the development pattern of the area, would physically divide the neighborhood,
would result in an unmaintained "dead zone" in the area between Road A and the rear of the
4
Buckingham residents, would result in increased traffic noise, streetlight, and security impacts to the
Buckingham residences, and would cause Road. A to become a speedway. The ,Planning Commission
also recommended that Road A be reduced from 36 to. 32 feet wide, thus providing an addition 4 feet
of setback between the Buckingham homes and those that back to them.
As a result of the two hearings, the Planning Commission added nine conditions of'approval for the
applicant to complete prior to City Council review. A discussion of the applicant's response to these
conditions follows. Where the applicant adequately addressed the condition, the language was struck
and does not appear;in the draft Resolution.
Condition 2: These plans shall reflect 9 single =story detached homes abutting the Buckingham Lane
residences : and the townhouse plan as presented by Commissioner von Raesfeld (similar'to the April
25` plan adjacent to the creek but with four townhouse rows extending to, .a public road adjacent to
Capri. Creek Apartments with a semi-public park, in, the center). If this modified townhouse plan is
impossible, the townhouses shall be laid out as in the.April 25` plan.
As discussed above, the plans have been revised ,so that nine single - story detached homes abut
the Buckingham Lane residences and so that the; townhouse area is comprised::of four townhouse
rows extending: to public Road E.
Condition 7: Prior to City Council review, the plans shall be modified to show the .width of Road A
reduced to 32 feet in order:to provide an extra four feet of rear 'setback for Lots 1; -9. Similarly, reduce
width of Road C to 32 feet and add 4 feet: to rear yards.
The current plans show this modification.
Condition 8: Prior to City Council review,- the plans shall be modified to show a public, through street
connecting Casella Way, to Yorkshire Road (as recommended by the City Engineer because the
roadway will be used for through travel by other than townhouse owners).
Public Road E now connects Casel_la Way and Yorkshire Roads. While public :roads are typically
required to have sidewalks and on each side of the street, staff recommends, that the City Council
,approve this .public street without a sidewalk on the Capri Creek. Apartment side because
`requiring one would provide little benefit and .result 'in. the loss of unit separation (resulting in
fewer duplexes more triplexes, and probably the addition of fourplexes ).
Condition 9: Prior to City Council review; the north prgperty line of Lot 9 shall coincide with the
urban separator line.
The north property line of Lot 9 now coincides with -the -urban separator line arid, as a result, Lot
9 totals 8,209 square feet.
Condition 10: Prior to City Council review, ithe,plans shall be modified to show a sidewalk and a
planting strip (a minimum width of 4 feet) along all proposed public streets.
The public streets in the current plan have a sidewalk and planting strip on each, side. The
exception is Public Road E adjacent to Capri Creek Apartment. Because requiring an additional
sidewalk on Road E would be little used and. would result in the loss of more meaningful
amenities, staff does not recommend requiring this sidewalk. Staff has modified condition 13 to
require that the planter strip on :the ! rsouthwe'st side of Yorkshire Road be located between the
street and the sidewalk pursuant to the Corona Ely Specific Plan Policy 19.
5
Condition 11: -Prior to City Council review, shift the house on Lot 42 [now Lot 40] out of the FEMA
100 year boundary.
The development plan has been modified so that no portion of any house is within the FEMA 100
year boundary. Condition 14 ensures that this modification is consistently made on the Tentative
Map.
Condition 12: Prior to City Council review, a full set of complete plans and updated PUD guidelines
shall be provided. This project,shall not be scheduled for a City. Council hearing prior to the review of
these plans by the City Engineer. This shall include the 'reexamination of turning radiuses for
emergency vehicles.
A full set of plans and 'PUD guidelines have been provided The Planning Division, City
Engineer, Fire Marshall, and Water Resources Department have-reviewed the plans and amended
their recommended conditions of approval. New recommended conditions are shown with italic.
Other conditions have been amended or, if no longer relevant or necessary, removed. The street
and alley turning, radiuses are satisfactory for emergency vehicle* access. The turning radiuses
which will allow emergency vehicles to use the 12 46ot w'i'de portion of the creekside path to gain
adequate access to the southeastern townhouse units need to be refined prior to improvement plan
approval (condition 46).
Condition 13: Prior to City Council review, the plans shall be modified to depict 90 degree parking
along the park side of Casella Way, subject to the review and approval of the Parks Director. Prior to
Improvement plan approval, those plans shall show signage on the park side of Casella Way indicating
that at those spaces, during daytime hours (6:00 AM to 5`00 PM), parking is restricted by time
pursuant to the Parks Director.
The Parks Director accepts this configuration, as it will provide parking for users of the northeast
part of the park. The signage portion of the condition stands (now condition 15).
Condition 46: Prior to City Council review, no on- street parking space shall be shown that restricts
the turning radius of the aerial ladder truck.,
Condition 43 ensures that all turning radiuses comply witlr"the.F,ire Marshall standards.
New Neighborhood Correspondence:
Since the last Planning Commission hearing, staff has received a copy of one new neighborhood
correspondence. Alexander L. Meyer wrote on June 27, 2003 recommending no parking on the east
side -of Yorkshire Road; as she;Teels the road is too narrow to allow two -way traffic and parking on
both sides, of the' street (see Attachment 9). The existing Yorkshire Road measures 32 feet from curb
to curb as' will the Yorkshire extension. Thirty -two feet is, the required minimum width of a two -way
street with parking on both` sides and, as such, is acceptable to the City Engineer.
ALTERNATIVES
a. The City Council may approve the proposed project with modifications to the conditions of
approval.
b. The City Council may deny the request for the rezoning, tentative parcel map, and PUD
Guidelines.
6
.4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This is a private development project` subject to standard processing permit :fees and all applicable •
Special Development Fees imposed by the City. The City collected $9,420 in application fees to. cover .
the cost o f,processing this application. Approximately $11,215 has been exp_ ended to date (this prof ect
was submitted, before the Department's Cost Recovery _system took effect). If this project is ultimately
approved, additional staff time will be required to guide the application through the SPARC, Final'
,Map, and building permit process; however additional fees will be. collected at. ahe, time these
applications are filed.
5. CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission. found that the proposed :Rezoning to a Planned.'Unit 'District,, Tentative
Subdivision Map, and Planned. Unit. District Development Guidelines to allow a 47 unit single, family
and a 46 unit townhouse subdivision on. a 17 -acre site would not crea te: any new si.gni f cant
environinental impacts and that the proposed project 'is consistent with. the General Plan, the Corona;
Ely !Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission and.
staff recommend that the City Council approve the project,
6. OUTCOME&OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS >OR
COMPLETION:
N/A
7. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and staff` are" recommending `that the City Council adopt a Resolution
authorizing a, Mitigated, Negative Declaration for the project, adopt a: `Resoluti'on approving the
rezoning to a Planned Unit District, adopt a Resolution approving the Tentative. Subdivision 'Map, and
adopt a Resolution approving the Planned Unit District Development Guidelines.in order'to, allow the
construction of'a 47 unit single4amily-arid 46 unit towr hadse subdivision on the 17 -acre site'.
•
7
...__ .. .... .
i
i
•
• •
C� • 1
1
e U , IL •
IL
uj
■
t
w
a
' <a�
Q U _
—4 Pot
spa
r
, WAml , ®R iz
Rom
ATTACHMENT 1
fill,
� B
spa
r
, WAml , ®R iz
Rom
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 2003
City of Petaluma, California
. City Council Chambers
l� City Hall, 11 English Street
a _
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778430,1 / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail plannini!nei.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page httr): / %ww.w:ci.petaliima.ca.us
•
•
1 ,
2 Planning Commission Minutes EXCERPT
3 May 1,3 ,Z® ®3 - 7e®® PM
4 .
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett *, Dargie, Healy, McAllister, von
6 Raesfeld
7 Absent: Imm
8
9 * Chair
10
11 Staff. George Whitey Assistant Director, Community Development
12 Tiffany Robbe, Associate Planner
13 Anne Windsor,:Administrative Secretary
14
15
16 Public hearing began @ 7 :00
17
18 OLD BUSINESS:
19
20 I. GATTI NURSER' SUBDIVISION, 710 Sonoma N ountain Parkway
21 AP No: 137 -!Q70 -079
22 File No(s): REZ02003, PUD02002, & TSN!02002'
23 Planner: Tiffany Robbe
24
25 The applicant: is requesting approval to subdivide a 17 -acre parcel into 49 single-
..
26 family lots and 48 `townhome lots and to rezone the property to a planned unit
27 district.
28
29 Continued from. April 8 2003.
30
31 Tiffany Robbe presented the staff report.
32
33 Matt Hudson: Presentedthe original plan from April 8, 2003 meeting, plan sketched by
34 Commissioner McAllfster. Regarding SFD — Plan A proposes 8 homes backing to
35 Buckingham Way with 5' sidewalk, 5' planter strip and F curb — total of 46 SFD.
36 Plan B — proposes 9 one -story homes with 15' to 18' rear setback total of 47 SFD.
Attachment 2
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 2003
2 Council Member Healy: Asked why Road.F is private.
3
4 Matt Hudson; Is only 2& feet wide— will provide signage to mark as a private road.
5
6 Council. Member Healy: Prefer�90 degree parking off Casella at the park.
7 k
8 Commissioner Dargie Discussed parking on Casella way . Casella is. dead end; traffic
9 would be compelled to use private alley.
10
11 Commissioner Asselmeier: 'Why won't the Gatti driveway be the primary access to the
12 project.
13
14 Matt. Hudson: Park & Recreation Director, Jim Carr wanted to include that land '`in the
15 park. As access to the proposed subdivision, is to close to the signalized entrance to the
16 Jr. college and is extremely awkward.
17
18 Doyle Heaton: Addressed the changes to the plan. ;Likes the changes proposed by
19 Commissioner McAllister at the townhouses. Want the neighbors to be happy and 'so
20 dropping original plan at Buckingham Way — alternative today is A or B as described by
21 Matt Hudson.
22
23 George White: Addressed concerns regarding proposed road behind Buckingham and
24 fencing along road — this primarily sets up a barrier in the neighborhood, raises concerns
25 about security issues, noise from traffic, and. visual impact of homes to face fence.
26
27 Commissioner Dargie: Who maintains fence?
28
29 George White: Probably Buckingham neighbors.
30
31 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked for elarificatiorn regarding the barrier effect.
32
33 Georg_ e White: Stated patterns of most: neighborhoods in the Corona, Ely Specific'area —
34 usual patterns are double loaded houses.
35
36 Craig Spaulding; Addressed his concerns presented in the staff report.
37
38 Council Member Healy: Is width, of private alley flexible?
.39
40 Craig Spaulding: 'A street mininiun width of 2`8' is fine — for a public street there is
41 usually an additional 10' for landscaping, sidewalk, etc. on each side
42
43 Public hearing opened:
44
45 Sheri Dito, 1934; Buckingham, Way: Addressed, Mr. White's comments regarding the
46 proposed road'. Presented photos with backyards backing up to a street - disagreed with
4 r
p
White's assessment of it being a neighborhood barrier. Referred to the plan with
2
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 2003
1
one -story homes — understood that this was only a backup alternative. If 32' road width
2
possible, want a 28' width with extra 4 feet used to widen landscape area behind
3
Buckingham homes. Asked for comments by the City Engineer for the proposed street.
4
fence on one side become a no man's land that is not maintained. Want some assessment
5
Larry Kane, 1923 S'estri Lane: Discussed traffic impacts of the Gatti subdivision.
6
Traffic count was done in one day — does not explain methodology. Referred to pg. 8 of
7
study — what was source of SRJC adjustment. Pg. 12 re: excess capacity Pg. 14 re:
8
future conditions with SRJC, Pg. 16 Future plus project conditions — do not
9
understanding meaning. Subdivision will add 100 more students, and 1000 -1200 junior
10
high students — will definitely impact traffic. No discussion re: safety for pedestrians and
1l
bicyclists. Did not account, for the new park, Turnbridge subdivision and Baker Ranch
12
subdivision. Mellow Roose tax is included in this development. Would not approve the
13
subdivision now — wait until expansion of junior college and building of the junior high
14
included and study'traffc for more than one day. Want to see more discussion regarding
15
access along the south border.
16
time than summer.
17
Jeri Schubert, 1926 Buckingham Re: Prefers Plan A. Also wants: 4 feet of street width
18
inside the fence of Buckingham backyards, no sidewalk behind Buckingham homes, 10'
19
of planting, mature trees planted behind Buckingham, 7' tall fence with 2' lattice, and
20
driveway graded out.
21
Was done in July on one specific day. Referenced to other traffic studies done in the
22
Hank Flum: Unfamiliar with the project. Lansdowne involved detention basin — why
23
does this project not have a:detention basin? Will walkway to east be extended into this
24
development? Need to build streets properly — do specifications apply to private roads —
25
quality needs to maintained. Do private streets have fire hydrants? Would road F with
26
fence on one side become a no man's land that is not maintained. Want some assessment
27
for the schools if there is no mellow roose.
28
1
29
Kimber Sterling, 1922 Buckingham Lane; Thanked the developer for exploring options.
30
Either of new options are preferable to old. Have some concerns and safety issues. Want
31
safety issues addressed re: perpendicular road ending, at my property. Barriers are
32
needed. Fence is falling down already. Concerns re: streetlight placements. Prefer
33
streetlights on side with new homes, lower lighting on the side of Buckingham Way.
34
Want mature trees.
35
36
Daniel and Lee Ann Smith,, Buckingham Lane: Want an_ alternate access considered in
37
addition to Yorkshire, request signed by 17 neighbors: Want traffic study done at another
38
time than summer.
39
40
Public hearing closed-
41
42
Steve Weinberger, W- Trans: Responded to data collection, time of day and time of year.
43'
Was done in July on one specific day. Referenced to other traffic studies done in the
44
same area. Adjustment was done for the junior college as well as the junior high.
45 Standard procedure for evaluating intersections. Explained a decrease in traffic level of
46 service, means. new trips, are making turning movements that are below the average — did
47 not imply traffic would take another route. Regarding pedestrian and bike issues — there
3
Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2003
existing bike and pedestrian routes — recommended that this subdivision ,not provide
these, however, provide sidewalks for pedestrians., Traffic study did, not include the
p roposed ark. A nei hborhood ark would add, an insignificant amount. of additional
traffic. Regarding other new subdivisions — used the City's traffic model which_ includes
proposed projects. Not asked to evaluate the Gatti access road, but would have concerns
with it since is very close to the junior college 'intersection signal —would not be
appropriate to provide full access.
Chair Barrett: How; do . you adjust numbers from the summer when you did the
evaluation as opposed to when school is in session?
Steve Weinberger: Added standard trip generation figures from ITE•manual for college.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked for clarification of projected number of'students used.
Steve Weinberger:. Did not project number of students, used the City?'SL new traffic
model, which showed significant growth and a doubling of traffic at. SRJC. .
Chair Barrett: Did you include Tunbridge: and Baker Ranch subdivisions?
Steve Weinberger: Used the City's new traffic model, which includes new subdivisions.
Chair Barrett: Asked.for feasibility of a.sireet behind Buckingham.
Dan Hughes: Is feasible.
Commission comments on Single Fami Homes:
Plan A with street backing up to Buckingham Way or Plan B with 9 one -story homes.
Commissioner yon Raesfeld: Want condition added re: architecture, on corner lots..
Prefer the one -story homes (Plan B) - makes more intuitive sense. If we ,approve Plan A
several issues;, security, maintenance, noise, &, streetlights. Hope ;neighbors 'understand
what it means to have z, street behind them,
Commissioner Asselrneier: Asked how many Buckingham Way neighbors; agree�with the -
proposed road.
Sherri Dito: All residents are supportive of the road.
CommissionerAsselmeier: What is value of sidewalk on each side?
Tiffany Robbe: City generally supports a standard of;si;dewalk construction on both sides
of.'street. Planning Commission can. approvewith 'a sidewalk on one side.
Commissioner-Asselmeier: Who would maintain strip? What does the City
4
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 2003
•
1
2
Tiffany Robbe: Unknown atthis time. Probably the Gatti Homeowners Association.
3
Council Member Healy: In agreement with Commissioner von Raesfeld. Nine single
4
story homes seem to be a superior solution. Concerns re: streetlight, security, and traffic
5
noise maintenance, and creation of "speedway. Agree with staff recommendation to
6
reduce road to 32' feet and create more separation from Buckingham homes.
7
8
Commissioner Dargie: Developer has made concessions and positive improvements to
9
the subdivision. Concerns about building a wall in the neighborhood. Plan B is
10
consistent with the way the area is developed.
I1
12
Commissioner McAllister:. Concur with other commissioners — have same hesitations
13
about Plan A. Concerned about the impact that Buckingham Way neighbors will be
14
faced with by adding a road behind and about maintenance of fence. Interested in
15
creating positive community for new neighborhood with houses facing other homes, not a
16
fence.. Not confident aroad is best solution for the neighborhood.
17
18
Chair Barrett: Agree with the majority of commissioners. Main concerns of the
19
neighbors were privacy, the density of the new project and views. Plan B with nine
20
single - family homes m`ay be -'a better option, especially if road 'is 32' and the buffer 4'
21
wider between the homes. Dead zone behind fence is a real problem. Can be an
22
attractive nuisance.
23
24
Commissioner Asselmeier: Share the concerns of other commissioners; appreciate the
25
neighbor's efforts. Have to consider the City as well :as the neighbors. Reducing the
26
number of homes and the stories will address the homeowner's issues.
27
28
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Want a condition to address corner homes — can be added
29
to condition 5,, should apply to townhomes as well.
30
31
Council Member Healy: Supports Condition 7, reduce road'C to 32', add 4' to backyard
32
of the new homes.
33
34
Commissioner - von, Raesfeld: Reword condition 8 so that property line coterminous with
35
urban separator.
36
37
Comments on. Townhomes:
38
39
Identified concerns:
40
® Removal of private alley
41
® Casella Way parking
42
® Design of middle units
43
44
Chair Barrett;_ Asked the developer to weigh in on removing the alley in the rear.
45'
46
Matt Hudson: Do not agree with staff's recommendation.
47
5
Planning •Ccmmiss on.Minutes - May 13, 2003
1 Chair Barrett: How are roads designed, streetlights; fire hydrants, etc.
2 ,•
3 Dan, Hughes: Alleyway in the rear. Fire hydrants and streetlights can be placed in the
4 landscape strip on the, public streets ; and in landscaped front yards on private street. No
5 streetlights: inalleyways, lighting mounted directly on the townhomes.
6
7 Chair Barrett: Asked about standards used for construction of private street.
8
9 Dan. Hughes: Same standards as for public streets_.
10
11 Commissioner- von Raesfeld: If you -can, continue the. townhouse pattern up to. Capri
12 Creek apartments,. seems everyone would benefit —could be option B. Corner lots, would
13 need special treatment from SPARC. Private alleys need to feel and look different from
14 public, streets, SPARC review.
15
16 Dan Hughes: Would be losing street front parking.
17
18 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Would gain parking on Yorkshire and Casella.
19
20 Doyle, Heaton-: If you come up with wording, we work with staff.
21
22 Commissioner von Raesfeld: If alternative B impossible, default to Plan A Cannot'
23 distinguish alleys from roads — need to be :addressed in design review. Whatever corner
24 units are do not want same elevations'. Like staff's recommendation to replace °private
25 alley, however, there is not enough information "to comment on.
26
27 Matt Hudson: Addressed the space issue between units — is 5' separation for purpose of
28 providing , light into units. No windows looking into another unit - will plant star jasmine
29 and Camilla on trellis between windows.
30
31 Commissioner Asselmei'er:- In. favor of an allemative that reduces hardscape and
32 increases green space and private outdoor space. In favor of Commissioner von
33 Raesfeld's configuration if it provides above. Would like description of walkways
34 between units 1 -18.
35
36 Matt Hudson: Provides light between units and provide landscaping — is a not walkway.
37
38 Chair Barrett:_ Asked who the 5 -ft. strip would belong to.
39
40 Matt Hudson: Would belong to one or the other unit,
41
42 Doyle Heaton Agreed with above owner who landscaping does not belong to would
43 have access to paint,their'home.
44
45 Commissioner Asselmeier: Homes without the '5' strip, would they 'have- another
46 amenity. •
47
6
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 2003
1
Doyle Heaton: No.
2
. 3
Council Member Healy: In agreement with previous commissioners, if new layout is
4
feasible. What would timing be?
5
6
George White: Would need to see before City Council - is a tentative map application.
7
8
Council Member Healy: Looking for design excellence on road F — prefer a public street.
9
Turn parking to 90 degrees on park side of Casella to alleviate circulation issues. Is
10
green space appropriate for purple pipe? Do not support staff s recommendation as it
1 l
would units — like the for -sale townhouse units.
12
13
Commissioner Dargie: Concerned, there is no plan for a public road with either design.
14
Do not see benefits of a road that does not go .through and concerned about passing on a
15
map that we have not seen.
16
17
Commissioner McAllister: Support exploring .Commissioner von Raesfeld's Plan,
18
however, looks like you will .lose a few units. Comments on existing proposal: support
19
staff's recommendation to make road F public. Public space is improved, however,
20
private space per unit is still problematic. There is a greater amount of space for
21
homeowners if the alley is eliininated. Create more landscape space on units 33 and 34.
22
• 23 Chair Barrett: Like Commissioner von Raesfeld's suggestion,— do not feel confident that
24 the developer will make good attempt at modification with no incentive. Plan A still has
25 a lot of problems. Agree with Commissioner Dargie there needs to be a public road from
26 Casella to Yorkshire. If road. 1 was public and the redesign went through with 4 parallel
27 designs to the Capri creek, too many unknowns. Street lighting is an important issue.
28 Agree with Healy re parking on Casella and purple pipe. If approved as is, design of
29 corner units needs to be looked at by SPARC. Would like the City to look at opening up
30 Gatti Driveway even, it would only be right turn only — would benefit these future
31 homeowners and residents on Riesling.
32
33 Council Member Healy: Will make a commitment to ensure Commissioner von
34 Raesfeld's concept is well explored in plan submitted to council. Road F should become
35 a public road. Access along Gatti driveway will take away from the park and separate
36 park from creek.
37
38 Tiffany Robbe: Also, the existing Gatti driveway is entirely within the 70' creek setback
39 required by the Corona Ely Specific Plan.
40
41 Craig Spaulding: Agree with the commission regarding need for public street. Access is
42 not a good idea on Gatti drive, too close to existing intersection, would -bet very unsafe.
43
44 Commissioner McAllister: Question on the bike rack issue.. — it in public right -of -way.
45
46 Tiffany Robbe: The applicant agrees to provide a bike rack at the bus stop.
47
Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2003
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3.1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Barrett: Will there be a detention pond and what will happen to the pond ,on the
urban separator.
George White: No detention pond. Land where pond is will be deeded to the.City.
George Whiter Clarfi'cation - no matter which plan-,goes forward road F °will be a, public
road.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Thought all references to accessory dwellings, 'would be
removed.
Matt Hudson: Do not want to allow accessory dwellings.
George White: Will strike that section.
M/S Healy /von Raesfeld to adopt a mitigated negative declaration, approve rezoning
from Agricultural to PUD and approve planned unit development guidelines per the
recommendations below and amended conditions of approval.
All in favor:
Council Member Healy:
Commissioner Dargie:
Commissioner McAllister:.
Chair Barrett:
Commissioner von Raesfeld:
Commissioner Asselmeier:
Commissioner Imm:
Yes
No.
Y es
Yes
Yes
Yes
Absent
Commissioner Dargie voted no — thought °the Planning Commission should compel the
applicant to return with revised tentative, map and plan with evaluation from the City.
Amend, conditions ;as ,follows:
• Adjacent to Buckingham shall be nine single =story single - family homes
• Narrow Road A and C to 32 feet in order to provide an extra four 'feet of rear_
setback for Lots 1 -9 and 4 feet to rear yards along Road C
• SPARC shall pay particular attention to street !side elevations of all corner lots
both in. the town homes° and single- family dwellings.
• There shall be a public road. in the townhouse area from Yorkshire, to Casella
® SPARC shall ;ensure that public and private roads - are clearly differentiated from
each other (both on ground plane -arid 3= dimensional)
• 'Townhouse `.Plan B' (Commissioner. von. Raesfeld's alternative) recommended to
Council (if impossible, then recommend townhouse plan as presented that
.evening). �.
8.
i 1
Planning Commission Minutes - May 13, 2003
1 0 90 degree parking on park side of Casella with review and approval of Parks and
2 Recreation
3 o Cul -de 'sac at'end of'Casella shall meet emergency vehicle standards
4 o Purple pipe shall be provided for townhouse green space
5 o Remove condition (elimination of alley behind apartments)
6 o Provide bike rack at transit stop on Sonoma Mountain Parkway
7 ® SPARC shall consider floor plan and elevation modification to achieve more
8 private outdoor space for'the townhouse units.
9
10 Adjournment: 10:25
11
12
13
14
•
E
Conditions as M6dified' `by Planning "Commission May 13, 2003
•' GATTI'SUBDIVISION
710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway behind Gatti Park
From the PlanningDiu'ision (778 - 430`1)
1. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or
other first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Permit plans to
list these Conditions of Approval as notes.
2. The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance
with the Development Plan dated March 27, 2003 and the Tentative Map dated
January 2 and April 25, 2003. These plans shall reflect 9 single -story detached
homes abutting the Buckingham Lane residences and the townhouse plan as
presented by Commissioner von Raesfeld (similar to the April 25 plan adjacent
to the creek but „with four townhouse rows extending to a public road adjacent to
Capri Creek Apartments with a semi- public park in the center). If this modified
townhouse plan is impossible, the townhouses shall be laid out as in the April 25
plan.
3. All mitigation measures ,adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the `Gatti nursery project are herein incorporated by reference as
conditions of project approval.
4. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of
Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to
the County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the
County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval.
5. SPARC shall :review site plan design, building and "accessory structure design,
PUD Guidelines, colors and materials, landscaping, and lighting. Particular
attention shall be paid to the design of the middle townhouse unit and to all corner
homes and townhomes. SPARC shall also consider floor plan and elevation
modification to achieve more private outdoor space for the`townhouse units.
6. Prior to :issuance of a grading or building permit, a Construction Logistics Plan
shall be submitted by the applicant and approval by the Community Development
Department. It shall describe construction vehicle routes and these routes shall
use the existing Gatti driveway to the full extent feasible..
7. Prior to City Council review, the plans shall be modified to show the width of
Road A reduced to 32 feet in order to provide an extra four feet of rear setback for
Lots 1 -9. Similarly, reduce width of Road C to 32 feet and add 4 feet to rear
yards.
h, 8. Prior to City ,Council review, the plans shall be modified to show a public,
through street connecting Casella Way to Yorkshire Road.
9. Prior to City Council review, °the north property line of Lot 9 shall coincide with •
the urban separator'line.
10. Prior to City Council review, the plans shall be modified to show a:sidewalk and a
planting strip (a minimum width of '4 feet) along all proposed public streets.
1.1.. Prior to City Council review', shift the house on Lot 42 out of the FEMA 10:0 =year
boundary.
12. Prior to City Council review, 'a full set of complete plans and updated PUD
guidelines shall 'be provided. This project ,shall not be scheduled for a 'City
Council ;hearing prior to the review of these plans by the City Engineer. This
shall_ include the reexamination of turning - radiuses for vehicles.
1.3. Prior °to City Council review, the plans shall. be modified to depict 90 degree
parking along the park side of Casella Way, subject to the review and approval of
the Parks-Director. Prior to Improvement plan approval, those plans shall show
signage I on. the ,park side .of Casella Way indicating that at those spaces, during
daytime hours (6:00 AM to 5:00 PM.),, parking is restricted by time pursuant to the
Parks Director. -
1,4, Prior to improvement Plan approval, the ,improvement plans shall show the
addition, of a pedestrian warning sign at the, Riesling Road mid- block crossing for
Westbound traffic. The sign shall be. installed :in the existing median so as to be,
more visible to. through traffic on Riesling'Road.
15. Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the improvement plans shall show the
addition of purple piping to the townhouse park.
16. Prior to SPARC review, the plans reflect. elements (both on thel ground : plane and
3- dimensional) that clearly delineate/differentiates the private. alleys from the
public streets, specifically Casella, Yorkshire, and Road F.
17. Prior ,to SPARC review; the plans shall' depict a bridge over Capri Creek at
Casella Way. Specifications on, the bridge shall also be provided to SPARC.. The
exact location of the bridge shall be reviewed and approved by the .Parks
Department and the Petaluma.administration of the SRJC.
18. Prior to SPARC review; the plans shall depict a Class .I path along the entire
project (.from. Sonoma. Mountain Parkway to the urban separator) :adjacent to the
creek. Pursuant to the Parks Department, the path shall be a minimum eight feet
wide and constructed of concrete. A bike rack shall be shown to the immediate
south and inline with the existing bus shelter.
U
19. Prior to SPARC review,
along the urban separator
SPARC.
the plans shall show at least 3 six -foot long benches
Specifications on the benches shall also be provided to
20. Prior to SPARC review, the plans shall show the specifications and proposed
location of a sign along Sonoma Mountain Parkway identifying the creek path and
the connection to the'urban separator path.
21. Prior to SPARC review, an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted. Said plan
shall include a detail of the types of all fixtures to be installed for ,review and
approval. All lighting shall be hooded and project downward, providing a soft
"wash" of - light. No lighting on the site shall create a direct glare into
cyclist /pedestrian eyes. I
22. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding
pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to lntegrated Pest Management
techniques for the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be
required to post "signs when pesticide/herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and
bicyclists.
23. Prior to SPARC review, the landscape plan shall be modified to address
improvements to the pond as determined by the Community Development
Department-, Parks'Department, and Water Resources Department.
24. Prior to Final, approval, the applicant shall work with City staff regarding the
transition'between'the proposed project and the new 7 -acre park.
25. Prior to certificate of occupancy of 80% of units, all trees referred to in the
arborist report and on the property to be dedicated to the City should be removed
and all stumps ground. Also, prior to certificate of occupancy of -80% of units,
these trees shall'° be replaced with appropriate species along the creek, the pond,
and the urban separator as approved by SPARC.
26. Prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading permits for work
within any channel, the applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Streambed
Alteration Agreement and proof of compliance with the permit conditions.
Removal and replacement of the non- native trees and a bridge shall be the only
in- stream channel work, shall be limited to the dry season, and shall be performed
in accordance with conditions specified by the Department of Fish and Game in a
Streambed Alteration Agreement.
27. A Landscape Assessment District should be formed for the maintenance of
landscape in 1). the Capri Creek area northeast of Casella Way from back of curb
to top of bank, 2) .the Urban Separator from property line to property line, and 3)
the landscape strips without residences directly to their rear to care for them such
as' the two areas abutting Capri Creek apartments along Yorkshire Road and the
Private Alley. Prior to Final Map -approval the LAD shall , be submitted to the
Planning Division and the Parks and Recreation Department for their reviewed
and acceptance.
28. In the. event, than archaeological remains are encountered during: grading, work
shall be halted temporarily and a. qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for
evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The. local Native
American community shall also be -notified and consulted in the event any
archaeological remains are uncovered.
29. All construction activities; shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. .
through Friday. Construction, shall be prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays and
all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first secured
from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for additional hours. There will be
no: start up ofmachines nor equipment prior to 8 :00 a.m., Monday through, Friday;
no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m. nor past. 5'00: p.m.,
Monday through Friday.; no servicing of equipment past 5:30 'p.m., Monday
through 'Friday. Plans submitted for City permits shall include. the language
above:
30. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion equipment shall;be
properly muffled and maintained to minimize noise. Equipment ;shall be turned
off when -not in use.
31. Construction maintenance, storage, and staging ,areas for construction equipment
shall avoid proximity to residential areas to the maximum extent practicable:
Stationary construction equipment such as compressors, mixers etc. °!shall be
placed away from residential areas. and/or provided with. acoustical shielding.
Quiet construction equipment shall be used when possible.
32. Construction and demolition debris shall be recycled to the maximum extent
feasible in .order to min mize�impacts, on the landfill.
33. -Prior to issuance of a,building °permit, the plans shall be modified to accommodate
recycling containers in the interiors of the units.
From the Engineering Section (778=4304
Prior to improvement plan and final map approval, the following Engineering conditions
shall be met.
34. All pubic streets shall have sidewalks on both sides of the street with pedestrian .
ramps at .corners, intersections and connections from streets to paths. All public
streets shall have a minimum width of 32 -feet with parking on'both sides or 28
feet with no parking. Parking may be allowed on one side of the street only if
houses are limited to one side. No "parking areas shall be indicated, with red curb
i
L,
v.
and signs. Asphalt thickness shall be a minimum of 4.,- inches. Streetlights shall
conform to City standards and the Ely /Corona Specific Plan.
35. The street right -of -way on the park side of Casella Way shall be dedicated by
separate document from the City of Petaluma and recorded simultaneously with
the final map.
36. Grading and "site preparation shall conform to the soil investigation report
prepared for this subdivision. Erosion control plans shall be prepared as part of
the improvement `plans: A storrn water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall
be prepared and a notice of intent (NOI) shall be filed. Moisture barriers shall be
installed to prevent pavement cracking along the curb on the park side of Casella
Way, on the creek side of Road D and on the urban separator side of Road B.
37. A vehicle barrier shall be installed between the public streets and parcel A (shown
on the tentative map as dedicated to the City of Petaluma). This vehicle barrier
shall be subject to SPARC review and approval.
38. All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain system design shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency.
39. The proposed water main system shall be capable of 'delivering a continuous fire
flow as required by the Fire Marshal's office.
40. Water service laterals shall be 1.5 -inch diameter with 1 -inch water meters.
41. Any existing overhead utilities on the property shall. be placed underground or
removed.
42. Install a stop sign and crosswalk at all tee intersections. Provide a three -way stop
at the intersection of Yorkshire Road and Road. D with one crosswalk on
Yorkshire and. one crosswalk on -Road D.
43. CC &R's for the common area shall define maintenance responsibility for the
private streets, alleys and utilities.
44. The developer shall pay a fee for review of the technical correctness of the final
map.
45. :Improvement plans and final map shall be prepared according to the latest City
ordinances, resolutions, codes, policies and standards.
From the Fire, Marshal. (778- 4398):
46. Prior r to City Council review, no on- street parking space shall be shown that
• restricts the turning radius of the aerial ladder truck.
47. In ,the townhouse units one through fifty provide the following. When one of the
conditions below are determined to exist at the site, a fire sprinkler system
installed in accordance. with N.F.P.A. 13 -D is required. Including extension of
sprinklem into the attic garage, attached porches and carports, bathrooms over .55 .
square feet, closets over 24 square feet, or 3 feet deep, and other attached
structures. These systems shall be' calculated • for two -head activation in the attic.
a. Are located where access is hampered by insufficient road widths,
excessive grades, lack of adequate turnaround or other conditions which
would impede or delay emergency response vehicles.
b. In the:opinion of the.Fire Chief, create an increase hazard or' condition that
will hamper the ability of fire :suppression crews to adequately suppress a
fire and/or affect firefighting safety.
48. In all other single family dwelling units provide the following. Fire sprinkler
systems designed and - installed in accordance with NFPA 13 -D, are required in
residential structures -bathroom over 55, square feet, closets over 24 square feet, or
3 feet deep, and other attached tructures: These systems shall` be calculated for
two. -head activation for the most remote two heads.
49. 'Activation of the fire sprinkler system shall sound an interior alarm-.that will
notify normally occupied spaces.
50. Prior to issuance of a building permit, proof that. required fire flow is, available
shall be supplied to the Fire Marshal. The minimum fire flow for this project is —
1,000- .GPM at 20 pounds residual per square inch.
51. Prior to certificate' of occupancy of 75 %0 of units, all curbs not. depicted for on-
street parking spaces on sheet .C2' shall be painted red and no parking signs
installed.. Where no _curb exists, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall be
installed.
52. Prior- to final map /improvement plan approval, the following ;modifications to fire
Hydrants shall be shown on the plans: (please see the Planning Division file for
plans red lined by fire)
a. Move hydrant at side of house lot 1 (Yorkshire Road) to front of lot (Road A) in.
reed on.
b. Move two hydrants .on public Road D across the street.
c. Add hydrant on Public road "B" .between house lots 21 and 22.
d. Add hydrant cn Private `alley to the north of townhouse lot 30 and just to the
.southeast of the street light.
•