CITY OF MERCED
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
RESOLUTION #518
Stonefield Home, Inc.
Establishment of Design Standards for
the Mission 108 Subdivision (formerly
Mission 106), approval of the proposed
architecture for the subdivision, and a
minor modification to VTSM #1319
(Mission 106) to add two additional lots.
APPLICANT PROJECT
133 Old Wards Ferry Rd., Ste. G
South side of Winder Avenue, east of G
Street
ADDRESS PROJECT SITE
Sonora, CA 95370 259-130-045
CITY/STATE/ZIP APN
209-533-3333 Planned Development (P-D) #58
PHONE ZONING
In accordance with Chapter 20.68.050 of the Merced City Zoning Ordinance, the Site Plan Review Committee reviewed and approved Site Plan Applicati on #518 on April 13, 2023, submitted by Benchmark Engineering on behalf of Stonefield Home, Inc., proper ty owner, to establish the design standards for the Mission 108 subdivision (formerly known as Mission 106), allow a minor modification to the approved Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1319, and approve the prop osed architecture for the Mission 108 subdivision. This site is generally located on the south side of Winder Avenue , east of G Street. The site has a General Plan designation of Village Residential (VR) and is zoned Planned Development (P -D) #58. Said property being more particularly de scribed as POR 205 (Remainder) as shown on the map entitled “Stoneridge South Phase 5,” recorded in Book 84, Page s 22-26 of Merced County Records; also known as Asse ssor’s Parcel Number (APN) 259-130-045.
WHEREAS, The Planning staff has conducted an environment al review of the project i n accordance with the requirements of th e California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and a Categorical Exemption (i.e., no fur ther environmental revi e is n eeded) is being recommended (Exhibit I); and,
WHEREAS, the M erced City Site Plan Review Committee ma kes the following Findings:
A) The project site is located on the south side of Winder Avenue, east of G Street (Exhibit A). The proposal complies with the General Plan designation of Village Residential (VR) and the Z oning classification of Planned Development (P-D) #58.
ATTACHMENT 5
Site Plan Approval #518
April 13, 2023
B) On May 18, 2022, the Planning Commission approved Ve sting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) #1319 for the Missi on 106 Subdivision (refer to the tentative map at Exhibit B and Planning Commission Resolution #4091 at Exhibit C ). This map approved the subdivision of approxi mately 9.71 acres into 106 small , single-family lots ranging in size from 1,875 squar e feet to 5,011 square feet. The table below shows the lot size range and number of lots within that range approved for VTSM #1319.
No. of Lots Lot Size (S.F.)
51 1,877
2 1,958 to 1,977
8 2,619 to 2,663
41 2,751 to 2,884
3 3,089 to 3,249
1 5,011
106
C) The p roposal includes a minor modification to V TSM #1319 to add two additional lots, increasing the lot count to 108 lots (Exhibit D). One lot was gained along the west property line and another along the east property line.
With the addition of the two additional lots, the lot sizes vary from 1,650 square feet to 5,688. Due to this change, the subdivis ion is now being call ed Mission 108.
The table below shows the lot size range and number of lots within that range proposed by this modification:
No. of Lots Lot Size (S.F.)
36 1,650
18 1,651 to 1,769
48 2,775 to 2,995
6 3,097 to 5,688
108
D) The developer is proposing to build two-story zero lot line townhomes. The homes would be in c lusters of 4 units throughout the subdivision (refer to the Site Plan at Exhibit D and the floor plans at Exhibit E ). Each cluster would contain a mixture of 2 and 3 bedroom units. There are three unit types – A, C, and D. Plan A contains 1,617 s.f. with a 2-car garage. Plan C contains 1, 259 s.f. with a si ngle-car garage, and Plan D contai ns 1,355 s.f. with a si ngle car garage. The units on the end of each cluster would be P lan A. The interior units would be the smaller units (Plans C and D) with single-car garages. The setbacks for each unit are shown on the building plans provided on pages 5 and 6 of Exhibit E (floor plans).
E) Condition #9 of Planning Commission Resolution #4091 (approved for VTSM #1319 requires the developer to obtain a Site Plan Review Permit to de termine the design standa rds for building heights, setbacks, lot cover age, etc., and to Site Plan Approval #518
April 13, 2023
review the architectural design of the homes. The building elevations are to be substantially consistent with the conceptual elevations approved with VTSM #1319. The conceptual elevations are provided at Exhibit F.
F) The proposed elevations are provided at Exhibit G. The proposed elevations use a variety of materials (cement plaster, h orizontal siding, board and batten, stone veneer, and composition roof shingles) which is consistent with the conceptual elevations approved with VTSM #1319. All the units are two-story units as shown in the conceptual elevations. The character and st yle of the homes are also consistent. A s described in Finding D , the units on the end of the 4-unit clusters have two-car garages and the 2 interior units have single-car garages.
G) As required by Condition #9 of Pl anning Commission Resolution #4091, Design Standards are required. The proposed Design Standards are provided at Exhibit H and would be consistent with the setbacks shown on the proposed site plan at Exhibit D.
H) The proposed modifications to the tentative map , the architectural design, and design standards would be in com pliance with the conditions of approval for VTSM #1319 as provided in Planning Commission Resolution #4091, with the exception of Condition #1. The modi fied map at Exhibit D would supersede Exhibit 1 of Staff Report #22- 360 presented to the Planning Commission on May 18, 2022.
Required Findings for Minor Modification
I) Per Merced Municipal C ode Section 20.72.050 (C), the Director of Development Services may approve a minor change to an approved project if the change complies with the following criteria:
1. The requested changes are consistent with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The requested change t o Vesting Tentativ e Subdivision Map (VTSM ) #1319 would add two additional lots to the subdivision and modify the size of th e lots within the subdivision. The site is zoned Planned Development (P-D) #58. The re are no minimum lot s izes established for this Plan ned Development. The Design St andards being proposed with this Si te Plan Review P ermit establish the minimum lot size for th e development. The Design Standards would also establish the setbacks, lot coverage, and parking r equirements for this development. Therefore, i f the Design Standards are approved, the project would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The requested changes are consistent with the spirit and intent of the original approval.
Site Plan Approval #518
April 13, 2023
The requested changes do not change the spi rit or intent of the original approval. The subdivision would still provide a small lot single- family development with zero lot line townhomes.
3. The requested changes do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for findin gs in a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report for the project.
The Env ironmental Review for the approval of VTSM #1319 was a Categorical Exemption based on CEQA Section 15183. T he requested changes do not cha nge the f act that the project is exempt based on this section.
4. The requested changes do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for conditions of approval for the project.
The proposed changes increase the number of lots from 106 to 108.
Although the basis for the approval of VTSM #1319 was 106 lots, the requested increase is very m inor and no conditions were placed o n the approval based on the number of lots.
5. The requested changes do not involve a feature of the project that was a specific consideration by the review authority in granting the approval.
As described in #4 above, the proposed change is to increase the number of lots by 2. Although the Planning Commission was aware of the number of lots being proposed with VTSM #1319, the spec ific number of lots was not a basis for granting the approval. Therefore, the increase in the number of lots would not be considered a feature that was a consideration by the review authority.
6. The requested changes do not involve any expansion or intensif ication of the use or structure by no more than 10 percent.
The requested increase in the number of units from 106 to 108 is less than a 10% increase. Altho ugh the size of some of the lots is smaller than originally proposed, they are adequate to fit the proposed zero lot line townhomes with front and rear setbacks that are typical of other zones.
Required Findings for Site Plan Review
J) Per Merced Municipal Code Section 20.68.050 – Site Plan Review Permit, the Site P lan Review Committee may approve an app lication for a Site Pl an Review Permit only if all of the following findings can be made:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and any adopted area, specific, community, or neighborhood plan.
The site has a General Plan designation of Village R esidential and is zoned Planned Development (P-D) # 58. T he Village Residential designation requires an average of 10 dwelling units/acre. The dens ity with the increase of two units is 11 units/acre. The proposed architecture Site Plan Approval #518
April 13, 2023
is of high quality to be consistent with the requirements of the P-D zoning.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Planned Development.
2. The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code.
With approval of the conditions found within this resolution and Planning Commission Re solution #4091, the proposal would comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code.
3. The design and layout of the proposed project will not interfere with th e use and enj oyment of existing a nd f uture neighboring properties and structures.
The site is located between Winder Aven ue and Miss ion Avenue. To the east is the Farmdale Elementary School and to the west is a si ngle-family subdivision. The proposed zero lot line townhome development would be consistent with the residential uses in the area. The townhomes would have a minimum 10-foot r ear y ard setback which is consistent with the requirements for the subdivision to the east. T herefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighbori ng properties.
4. The pr oposed architectural d esign makes use of appropriate materials, texture and col or, and will re main aesthetically appealing and appropriately maintained.
As described under Finding F the proposed design of the townhomes uses a var iety of ma terials, textures , and colors to provide an a esthetically pleasing development. Condition #22 requires that the exterior of the buildings and landscape areas will remain aesthetically appealing and appropriately maintained (refer to Condition #10).
5. Any proposed lands caping design, including color, loc ation, size, texture, type, and coverage of plant materials, as well as provi sions for irrigation, maintenance, and protection landscaping element s, will complement structures and provide an attractive environment.
Landscape plans for the subdivision and individual lots have not been submitted. Conditions #13 and #14 of Planning Commission Resolution #4091 require that all lands caping comply with s tate and local requirements and that all front yards and side yards exposed to public view be provided with landscaping prior to final inspection.
6. The pr oposed design will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Site Plan Approval #518
April 13, 2023
The proposed proj ect would not be materially det riment to the pu blic health, safety or wel fare, or be in jurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. T he project would develop a va cant lot with a much - needed housing development. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the land use designation for the site and the other residential uses in the area.
NOW, THERE FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Merced City Site P lan R eview Committee does approve Site Plan Application #518, subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions contained in Site Plan Approval Resolutio n #79-1 (“Standa rd Conditions of Site Plan Approval”) shall apply.
2. The pr oposed project shall be construc ted as shown on Exhibit D (revised VTSM and site pla n), Exhibit E (floor plans with set backs), Exhibit H (Design Standards), and as otherwise modified by the conditions within this resolution.
3. All conditions of approval for VTSM #1319 as provide d in Planning Commission Resolution #4091 shall apply with the exception of Condition #1 which requires the project to be constructed as shown on Exhibit 1 (Attachment C of Planning Commission Staff Report #22-360. Exhibit 1 shall be superseded by the revised map at Exhibit C of Site Plan Review #518.
4. Notwithstanding all other conditions, all construction and i mprovements shal l be in strict accordance with Z oning, Building, and a ll other codes, ordinances, standards, and policies of the City of Merced.
5. All other applicable co des, ordinances, poli cies, etc., adopted by the City of Merced shall apply, including, but not limited to, the Califo rnia Building Code and Fire Codes.
This may i nclude adding a hydrant, as required by the Fire Department.
6. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by the City), and hold harmless the Cit y, and any agency or instrument ality thereof, and any officers, offici als, employees, or agents thereof, from an y and all cl aims, actions , suits, proceedings, or judgment s against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, offici als, employees, or agents thereof to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body, including a ctions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the project and the approvals granted herein. Furthermore, developer/ applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the C ity, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, against any and al l claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against any governmental entity i n which developer/applicant’s project is subject to that other governmental entity’s approval and a condition of such approval is that the Ci ty indemnify and defend (with c ounsel selected by the City) such governmental entity. City shall promptly notify t he developer/applicant of any claim, ac tion, suits, or proceeding.
Developer/applicant shall be responsible to i mmediately p refund the lit igation
Site Plan Approval #518
April 13, 2023
F) Approved Conceptual Elevations
G) Proposed Elevations
H) Design Standards
I) Categorical Exemption
G ST
RANCHO CAMINO DR
PAIGE CT
LA HABRA ST
GERARD AVE
LUCY AVE
WINDER AVE
COLLEEN AVE
RHIANON
CT
ALLISON CT
DENA
CT
BARROSO AVE
ARCANGEL
AVE
SOLEDAD AVESONOMA
CT
EL VERANO WAY PAIGE LN
MISSION AVE
SISCO DE
ASIS CT
EL VERANO CT
SAN
CLEMENTE CT
GRANADA
CT
CADIZ CTBARCELONA
CT
SAN CLEMENTE DR
SONOMA ST
EL VERANO ST
LA PURISIMA ST
WAVERLY DR
ALLEGRA DR
SAN PEDRO ST
LUCAS CT SERANO CTCONNIE CT
LAS BRISAS CT
RHIANON DR
LIM ST
AMY ST
LA MESA ST
G ST
MATHER RD
Subject_Site
City Limit
Disclaimer: This document was prepared for
general inquiries only.The City of Merced
is not liable for errors or ommissions
that might occur.Official information
concerning specific parcels
should be obtained from
recorded or adopted City documents.
Site Plan Review #518
Mission 108
±
Subject
Site
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B - Page 1
EXHIBIT B - Page 2
EXHIBIT B - Page 3
EXHIBIT B - Page 4
CITY OF MERCED
Planning Commission
Resolution #4091
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission at its regular meeting of May 18, 2022, held a public hearing and considered Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1319, initiated by Benchmark Engineering, on behalf of Stonefield Home, Inc. , property owner. This application involves a request to subdivide 9.71 acres of land into 106 small single -family lots ranging in size from 1,875 square feet to 5,011 square feet. The site is located south of Winder Avenue, approximately 650 feet east of G Street and has a General Plan Designation of Village Residential (VR) and a Zoning designation of Planned Development (P -D) #58; also known as Assessor’s Parcel No. 259-130-045; and,
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission concurs with Findings/Considerations A through M of Staff Report #22-360 (Exhibit B); and,
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission concurs with the Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map Requirements in Merced Mu nicipal Code Section
18.16.80, 18.16.90, and 18.16.100 as outlined in Exhibit B; and,
NOW THEREFORE, after reviewing the City’s Draft Environmental Determination, and discussing all the issues, the Merced City Planning Commission does resolve to hereby adopt a Categorical Exemption regarding Environmental Review #22-21 and approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #131 9, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Upon motion by Comm issioner Dylina, seconded by Commissioner White, and carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Camper, DeAnda, Delgadillo, Dylina, Greggains, White, and Chairperson Harris
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Resolution # 4091
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1319
1. The proposed project shall be constructed/designed as shown on Exhibit 1 (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for “ Mission 106”)—Attachment C of Planning Commission Staff Report # 22-360, except as modified by the conditions herein.
2. All conditions contained in Resolution #1175-Amended ("Standard Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions") shall apply.
3. The proposed project shall comply with all standard Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act requirements as applied by the City Engineering Department, except as modified by the Planning Commission to grant a deviation from City Standard D-8.
4. All other applicable codes, ordinances, policies , etc., adopted by the City of Merced shall apply.
5. The project shall comply with the conditions set forth in Resolution #2808 for the Mission Avenue Annexation and all applicable conditions of the Pre - Annexation Development Agreement for the Mission Annexa tion (Pre - Annexation #04- 03) previously approved for this project including all applicable mitigation measures.
6. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by the City), and hold harmless the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof, from any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body, including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the project and the appr ovals granted herein.
Furthermore, developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, against any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against any governmental entity in which developer/applicant’s project is subject to that other governmental entity’s approval and a condition of such approval is that the City indemnify and defend (with counsel selected by the City) such governmental entity. City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of
EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
any claim, action, suits, or proceeding. Developer/applicant shall be responsible to immediately prefund the litigation cost of the City including, but not limited to, City’s attorney’s fees and costs. If any claim, action, suits, or proceeding is filed challenging this approval, the developer/applicant shall be required to execute a separate and formal defense, indemnification, and deposit agreement that meets the approval of the City Attorney and to provide all required deposits to fully fund the City’s defense immediately but in no event later than five (5) days from that date of a demand to do so from City.
In addition, the developer/applicant shall be required to satisfy any monetary obligations imposed on City by any order or judgment.
7. The developer/applicant shall construct and operate the project in strict compliance with the approvals granted herein, City standards, laws, and ordinances, and in compliance with all State and Federal laws, regulations, and standards. In the event of a conflict between City laws and standards and a State or Federal law, regulation, or standard, the stricter or higher standard shall control.
8. Community Facilities District (CFD) formation is required for annual operating costs for police and fire services as well as storm drainage, public landscaping, street trees, street lights, parks, and open space. This property was designated as a “Future Annexation” area with CFD Annexation No. 14.
Prior to recording a final map, the property shall be fully annexed into the CFD.
9. A Site Plan Review Permit shall be obtained prior to construction to determine design standards for building heights, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. and architectural design. The building elevations shall be substantially consistent with the conceptual elevations provided at Attachment D of Planning Commission Staff Report #22-360.
10. The project shall comply with all requirements of the California Building Code and all flood requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as well as the requirements for the California Urban Level of Flood Protection (CA 200-year flood).
11. All necessary documentation related to the construction of the residential uses shall be provided at the building permit stage.
12. The project shall comply with all the Post Construction Standards required to comply with state requirements for the City’s Phase II MS-IV Permit (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System).
EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
13. All landscaping within the public right -of-way shall comply with state and local requirements for water conservation. All irrigation provided to street trees or other landscaping shall be provided with a drip irrigation or micro- spray system and shall comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MMC Section 20.36.030). Landscape plans for all public landscaping shall be provided with the Improvement Plans.
14. Prior to final inspection of any home, all front yards and side yards exposed to public view shall be provided with landscaping to include, ground cover, trees, shrubs, and irrigation in accordance with Merced Municipal Code Section 20.36.050. Irrigation for all on-site landscaping shall be provided by a drip system or micro- spray system in accordance with the State’s Emergency Regulation for Statewide Urban Water Conservation or any other state or City mandated water regulations dealing with the current drought conditions. All landscaping shall comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MMC Section 20.36.030).
15. Compliance with the “corner vision triangle” per MMC 20.30.030 is required for corner lots, and may result in the applicant constructing smaller homes on these lots or increasing the front yard setbacks.
16. Winder Avenue shall be designed and constructed with a 6-foot -tall decorative wall and a 23-foot -wide landscape strip with a 5-foot -wide sidewalk along the project’s frontage (consistent with the subdivision to the east). The Developer shall submit landscape/irrigation/wall plans for approval by City Engineer. All walls shall be solid masonry. Fast -growing vines or other plants shall be planted on or near the wall to deter graffiti and/or a graffiti resistant coating applied to the wall. Details to be worked out with staff.
17. Mission Avenue shall ultimately be constructed to the full 128-foot width plus a minimum 10-foot-wide land scape strip with a minimum 6 -foot-tall block wall. In lieu of constructing the roadway improvements, the developer may pay their fair share of the cost of the improvements as determined by the City Engineer. The developer shall install the block wall and landscaping along the project frontage on Mission Avenue.
18. Mission Avenue is an arterial roadway. Construction of Mission Avenue would be eligible for reimbursement from the Public Facilities Impact Fees as provided for in Section 17.62 of the Merced Municipal Code.
19. Refuse containers shall be stored out of the public view.
EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
20. All street widths shall comply with City Standards. All turning radii shall comply with City Standards and applicable Fire Department Standards.
21. Fire hydrants shall be installed along street frontages to provide fire protection to the area. The hydrant s shall meet all City of Merced standards and shall comply with all requirements of the City of Merced Fire Department. Final location of the fire hydrants shall be determined by the Fire Department.
22. Traffic control signs, street markings, and striping shall be as directed by the City Engineer.
23. The developer shall use proper dust control procedures during site development in accordance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District rules.
24. The developer shall provide all utility services to each lot, including sanitary sewer, water, electric power, gas (if designed to use gas), telephone, and cable television. All new utilities are to be undergrounded, except on- ground transfer boxes for cable, telephone, and/or power, as necessary.
25. The developer shall install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with locations, names, and types approved by the City Engineer.
26. Developer shall provide construction plans and calculations for all landscaping and public maintenance improvements. Al l such plans shall conform to City standards and meet approval of the City Engineer.
27. Dedication by Final Map of all necessary easements will be made as shown on Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1319 and as needed for irrigation, utilities, drainage, landscaping, open space, and access.
28. The developer shall be responsible for construction and dedication of all interior collector and local streets within the Project Boundaries.
29. Developer shall provide storm drainage calculations as required by the City Engineer to confirm that the existing basin east of the project site constructed as part of the Stoneridge South Subdivision , has sufficient volume to serve this development.
30. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
31. Per Mitigation Measure 11.1 of Expanded Initial Study (EIS) #04 -13 for the Mission Annexation area, the applicant shall provide a noise attenuation study prepared by an acoustical engineer to show that the noise levels within this development meet the City’s adopted noise level standards. This study shall
EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
be provided prior to submitting for building permits for any phase within the subdivision.
32. Per Mitigation Measure 3-a of Expanded Initial Study #04-13 for the Mission Annexation area, a survey prior to any construction on site shall be conducted for special status species prior to the disturbance of potentially suitable habitat. All surveys shall be conducted in accordance with applicable state and federal guidelines.
33. Per Mitigation Measures 15.1, 15.3,15.4, 15.5, and 15.6 of Expanded Initial Study #04-13 for the Mission Annexation area, a fee of $1,002.61 shall be collected with each building permit issued within this subdivision to cover the costs of traffic improvements identified in EIS #04-13.
34. The water lines shall extend across the full project frontage on Mission Avenues. The water line shall be looped to Mather Road. Any oversizing of the water lines shall be eligible for reimbursement or credit per Merced Municipal Code Section 15.40.090 ( Water). MMC Section 15.40.090 provides that reimbursement may be given for any water line in excess of 8- inches, provided that the installing applicant does not need more than an eight- inch diameter water line to serve his own premises. Water lines extended beyond the project development shall be eligible for reimburse ment from a subsequent applicant per MMC Sections 15.40.070 and 15.40.080. Per MMC Section 15.40.080, no reimbursement shall be given after the 10th anniversary of the date the water lines were accepted by the City.
35. A deviation from City Standard D-8 is approved allowing more than 50% of the lot to be open for a curb-cut. The curb-cut width shall be approved by the Engineering Department at the Building Permit stage.
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
Findings and Considerations
Planning Commission Resolution #4091
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1319
FINDINGS/CONSIDERATIONS:
General Plan Compliance and Policies Related to This Application A) The proposed project complies with the General Plan designation of Village Residential (VR) Residential and the Zoning designation of Planned Development (P-D) #58.
The proposed subdivision would be constructed on 9.71 acres of vacant land.
The gross density for the site, would be 11 units/acre. The Village Residential land use designation has a density range of 7 to 30 units per acre with an average minimum density of 10 units per acre.
The proposed subdivision would achieve the following General Plan Land Use Policies:
L-1.2 Encourage a diversity of building types, ownership, prices, designs, and site plans for residential areas throughout the City.
L-1.3 Encourage a diversity of lot sizes in residential subdivisions.
L-1.6 Continue to pursue quality single -family and higher density residential development.
L-1.8 Create livable and identifiable residential neighborhoods.
Zoning Code Compliance
B) Zoning Ordinance Section 20.20.020 (Q) requires that individual projects within a Planned Development obtain a Site Plan Review Permit to address conformance with the Site Utilization Plan for the Planned Development. In this case, because the Planned Development does not include development standards, the Site Plan Review will also address development standards for this particular development. These standards will include setbacks, lot coverage, architecture, building height, etc. Condition # 9 requires the developer to obtain a Site Plan Re view Permit prior to construction of any homes.
Traffic/Circulation
C) The subdivision has access from Winder and Mission Avenues. Internal circulation includes an additional north/south street connecting to Winder
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
Avenue and four east/west streets dividing the subdivision into four separate blocks.
According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual, a condominium/townhouse generates 5.81 trips per weekday. Based on the proposed 106 lots within this subdivision, a total of 616 trips per week day would be generated. This would be consistent with the estimates made in the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan for this area.
Parking
D) Each lot is provided with a driveway that would lead to a two-car garage for parking. Per the Zoning Ordinance, each home would be required to provide one space of off-street parking. Due to the compact development, there would be very little street parking in front of the homes. Therefore, parking spaces have been provided in clusters along the street. There are five parking clusters along the east side of Street F and four clusters on the west side of Street G (refer to the tentative map at Attachment C of Planning Commission Staff Report #22-360). In total, these spaces provide 38 parking spaces. These spaces are in addition to on-street parking areas between some of the driveways. .
Public Improvements/City Services
E) The developer would be required to install all streets, utilities, and other improvements within the subdivision. City water and sewer lines would be extended from Winder Avenue to serve this subdivision. Each lot would be required to pay the required connection fees for sewer and water connections at the building permit stage.
Each lot within the subdivision would be required to meet the City’s storm drainage and run-off requirements for the City’s MS-IV permit (Condition #12). All storm water would ultimately be delivered to the storm drain basin constructed to the east currently serving the Stoneridge South subdivision.
Mission Avenue
The City is currently working on a project to improve Mission Avenue from Hwy 99 to G Street. This project would widen Mission Avenue to a four-lane arterial with a 128-foot right of way, plus a 10-foot landscape strip on each side. As an arterial roadway, Mission Avenue is eligible for reimbursement through the City’s Public Facilities Impact Fees . However, the developer is responsible for paying for a portion of the roadway (the collector e quivalent or a 74 -foot width). Condition #17 requires the developer to pay the
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
developer’s fair share of improvements along the project’s Mission Avenue frontage. This amount would be determined by the improvement costs approved by the City Engineer.
Refuse Collection
Each homeowner would place their refuse container along the street for pick- up. Due to the compact development, some containers may need to be placed in the parking clusters along F and G Streets as shown on the tentative map at Attachment C of Planning Commission Staff Report #22-360. There is also space between some of the driveways to allow for containers to be placed for pickup without blocking access to the homes. The streets within the subdivision are standard width local roads ( 59-foot right -of-way) which should provide sufficient room for the Refuse Department to service the area.
The property will be annexed into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) for Services (No. 3002- 2) as required by Condition #8 . The CFD covers costs related to police and fire, as well as maintenance of landscaping, streetlights, storm drains, etc.
Building Design
F) Conceptual building elevations are provided at Attachment D. These elevations show zero-lot line homes constructe d on individual lots. The architecture and design standards will be reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee prior to construction (Condition #9).
Site Design
G) As previously described, the proposed design of the subdivision includes two north/south streets and four east-west streets (all local streets). The proposed lots range in size from 1,877 to 5,011 square feet . Each lot would be connected by sidewalks throughout the subdivision. The table below shows the mixture of lot sizes in the subdivision.
Number of Lots Lot Size (S.F)
51 1,877
2 1,958 to 1,977
8 1,619 to 2,663
41 2,751 to 2,884
3 3,089 to 3,249
1 5,011
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
A concrete block wall would be required along the project’s Mission Avenue frontage along with a 10 -foot-wide landscape strip (Condition # 17). A concrete block wall would also be constructed along Winder Avenue with a 5-foot-wide landscape strip between the wall and sidewalk to match the Stoneridge South subdivision to the east of the project site.
As described in Finding B, the specific design standards for each site will be established through the Site Plan Review permit process.
Landscaping
H) Each lot within the subdivision shall be provided with front yard landscaping in compliance with Zoning Ordinance Section 20.36 – Landscaping. Section
20.36.050 requires all exterior setback areas, excluding areas required for access to the property to be landscaped (Condition #14).
A 10-foot-wide landscape area will be provided on Mission Avenue (Condition #17) and a 5-foot-wide landscape area will be provided on Winder Avenue. Lot A near the southwest corner of the subdivision will provide an open space area with landscaping. The landscape areas along these roads and Lot A would be maintained through the C ommunities Facilities District (CFD).
Neighborhood Impact/Interface
I) As shown on the location map at Attachment B of Planning Commission Staff Report #22-360, the site is adjacent to the Farmdale Elementary School to the west, the Stoneridge South subdivision to the east, and single -family homes to the north across Winder Avenue. There are two single-family homes to the south across Mission Avenue in the County.
The construction of the proposed subdivision would add two-story buildings to the area and an increase in the number of units in the area which would result in more traffic. However, the additional traffic was anticipated with the General Plan and would not cause a major impact or reduce the level of service for the roads in the area.
The proposed small- lot subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning for the site. The density of 11 units per acre is consistent with the Village Residential land use designation.
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
Public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. At the time of this report, the City had not received any comments regarding this project.
Land Use/Density Issues
J) As discussed in Finding A of th is resolution, the density is found to be consistent with the Village Residential (VR) land use designation.
Tentative Subdivision Map Requirements/Public Comments Received K) Per Merced Municipal Code (MMC) Section 18.16.080 – Information Required, a tentative subdivision map shall include all of the requirements shown at Attachment E of Planning Commission Staff Report #22-360. Said requirements include stating the location of the subject site, the name of the subdivision, and showing the layout of the proposed lots. MMC 18.16.090 – Required Statement requires the applicant to provide a statement that explicitly states any deviations from tentative subdivision map requirements, standard drawings, or Zoning laws. In this case, the applicant is requesting a deviation from City Standards for driveway approaches (see Finding L below). MMC 18.16.100 - Public Hearing – Generally, requires a public hearing to review and approve a tentative subdivision map in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act.
Per the California Environmental Quality Act a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site and published in a qualifying newspaper, Merced County Times, three weeks prior to this meeting. In addition, staff reached out to local utility companies, local school districts, and other relevant government agencies to solicit comments. At the time this report was prepared, staff had received comments from PG&E and the Merced Irrigation District (MID) . Th eir comments are provided at Attachment F of Planning Commission Staff Report #22-360.
Deviation from City Standard
L) City Standard D- 8, item 1(a) states that a curb opening for a residential driveway shall not exceed 50% of the width of the lot. Because these are very small lots and the width of the lots varies between 25 feet and 37 feet, the width of a driveway approa ch would be more than 50% of the lot width for many if not all of the lots. Therefore, the developer is requesting a deviation from this standard.
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4091
The City Engineer has reviewed this request and agrees to the granting of the deviation (Condition #35).
Environmental Clearance
M) Planning staff has conducted an environmental review of the project (Environmental Review #22-21) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and a Categorical Exemption (i.e., no further environmental review is needed) is being recommended (Attachment G of Staff Report #22-360).
EXHIBIT D - Page 1
EXHIBIT D - Page 2
EXHIBIT E - Page 1
EXHIBIT E - Page 2
NOT A PART
EXHIBIT E - Page 3
EXHIBIT E - Page 4
EXHIBIT E - Page 5
EXHIBIT E - Page 6
CONCEPTUAL
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G - Page 1
EXHIBIT G - Page 2
EXHIBIT G - Page 3
EXHIBIT G - Page 4
EXHIBIT G - Page 5
EXHIBIT G - Page 6
Development Standards
Mission 108 Subdivision
Units/Acres 108/9.71
Density 11 units/acre (minimum of 10 units/acre)
Lot Size 1,650 s.f. to 5,688
Building Type Zero Lot Line Townhomes
Clusters of 4 units
Setbacks (minimum distance) Zero Lot Line between individual units in 4- unit cluster.
Setback between clusters:
Exterior: 20 ft.
Exterior Corner: 15 ft.
Interior (side): 5 ft.
Interior (rear): 10 ft.
Driveway: 20 feet
Building Heights 24 ft.
Lot Coverage 55%
Parking Requirements 1 space
EXHIBIT H
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
_______________________________________________
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
From: (Public Agency): ____________________________
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 _______________________________________________Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk
(Address)
___________________________
___________________________
County of: __________________
Project Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific:
Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County:
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
_____________________
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _____________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ________________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one):
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Reasons why project is exempt:
Lead Agency
Contact Person: ____________________________
Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
Signature: ____________________________ Date:
Signed by Lead Agency
Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. _______________
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ____________________________________ ______________________________________________
______________ Title: _______________________
Revised 2011
X 15183
EXHIBIT I
The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Section 15183 Findings:
Application: _Site Plan Review #518________ Environmental Review __#23-10_
Location: __South of Winder Avenue, 650 feet east of G Street Assessor’s Parcel Number: __ APN: 259-130-045 _________________________________________
General Plan Designation: Village Residential (VR) Zoning: Planned Development P-D #58
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Public Resources Code §21083.3), provides that projects which are consistent with the development density established by a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified “shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.”
The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan and its associated EIR (SCH# 2008071069) were certified in January 2012. The document comprehensively examined the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of build- out of the 28,576- acre Merced SUDP/SOI. For those significant environmental impacts (Loss of Agricultural Soils and Air Quality) for which no mit igation measures were available, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (City Council Resolution #2011- 63). This document herein incorporates by reference the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, the General Plan Program EIR (SCH# 2008071069), and Resolution #2011-63.
The following findings are made in compliance with CEQA Section 15183 – Project consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning.
In approving a project meeting the requirements of CEQA Section 15183, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
1. Is the project consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the site (including density for residential developments)? Yes__X__ No_____
If yes, please explain below. If no, the project does not qualify for this exemption.
Comment/Finding:
The General Plan designation for this site is Village Residential (VR) which allows 7 to 30 dwelling units per acre, with an average of 10 units per acre. The proposed Site Plan Review which would modify VTSM #1319 adds one additional lot and would maintain the previous density of 11 units/acre which is consistent with the General Plan.
The site is zoned Planned Development (P -D) # 58 and has a residential land use designation. The proposed Site Plan Review is consistent with the zoning and establishes the design standards for this development. The Site Plan Review would also review the architecture for the development.
2. Are there any impacts that weren’t evaluated in the General Plan EIR that are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located? Yes_____ No_X___ If yes, an initial study or detailed analysis is necessary to determine if specific impacts will need to be mitigated.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 15183 Findings
If no, continue with CEQA Section 15183 Exemption.
Comment/Finding:
All potential impacts from this development were evaluated with the General Plan EIR. The site is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and has no unique features that were not evaluated with the General Plan EIR.
3. Are there project specific impacts which the General Plan EIR failed to analyze as significant effects.
Yes_____ No__X__
If yes, an initial study or other detailed analysis is necessary to determine if the impacts are considered to be significant and if mitigation is required.
If no, continue with CEQA Section 15183 Exemption.
Comment/Finding:
The proposed Site Plan Review would not result in any additional impacts that were not evaluated with the General Plan EIR.
4. Is there substantial new information which would result in more severe impacts than anticipated by the General Plan EIR?
Yes_____ No__X__
If yes, an initial study or other detailed analysis is necessary to determine if the impacts are considered to be significant and if mitigation is required.
If no, continue with CEQA Section 15183 Exemption.
Comment/Finding:
There is no new information as a result of the proposed Site Plan Review that would result in more severe impacts. The proposed changes to the tentative map and design standards are consistent with the General Plan density and circulation element and the land use designation for Planned Development (P- D) #58. All potential impacts were evaluated with the General Plan EIR.
On the basis of this evaluation, in accordance with the requirements of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines:
1. It is found that subsequent negative declaration will need to be prepared.
2. It is found that an addendum Negative Declaration will need to be prepared.
3. That a subsequent EIR will need to be prepared.
X 4. No further documentation is required.
Date: 4/3/23
Prepared By:
_________________________________
Julie Nelson,
Senior Planner
Prepare a notice of exemption using CEQA section 15183 based on this analysis.