The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 6.B 09/19/2005CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Consideration of an Appeal by Patricia Tuttle Brown of a Decision of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee to approve the 1st Street Townhomes project at 401 Second Street, APNs 008-126-003, 004, 005, 008, 010, 012 & 013, which includes the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop. (Moore/Gordon) 0.D September 19, 2005 Meeting Date: September 19, 2005 Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM © 7:00 PM Cateeory (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ® Public Hearing ❑ New Business ❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation Denartment: Director: (J Contact Person: Phone Number: Community Mike Mo re j \\ Kim Gordon, 778-4301 Development 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. Letter of appeal dated August 11, 2005 2. SPARC Minutes Excerpt from September 9, 2004 meeting 3. Staff Report (excluding attachments) and Minutes from the January 27, 2005 SPARC meeting 4. Memo to SPARC for March 24, 2005 meeting 5. Staff Report (excluding attachments) from the July 28, 2005 SPARC meeting 6. Clark and Associates Historical Evaluation of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop dated August 2004 7. Carey and Company Peer Review dated October 28, 2004 8. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding SPARC's project approval Summary Statement: On July 28, 2005, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the lst Street Townhomes project at 401 Second Street, which included 44 townhomes, associated site and frontage improvements, and the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop. Patricia Tuttle Brown appealed the approval of the project on the grounds that the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop is not consistent with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and not in the best interest of the citizens of Petaluma. Recommended Citv Council Action/Suggested Motion: Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee's decision to approve the lst Street Townhomes project, including the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop, located 401 Second Street. Reviewed by Finance Director, (i Reviewed by City Attornev: Approv `�tv Manager: Dle;p Date: Date: S Todav's Date Revision # and Date Revised: File Code: September 12, 2005 Sxc-citycouncil/reports/I ststrectappeal # CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 AGENDA REPORT FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL BY PATRICIA TUTTLE BROWN OF A DECISION OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE IST STREET TOWNHOMES PROJECT AT 401 SECOND STREET 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Patricia Tuttle Brown has filed an appeal of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee decision to approve the I" Street Townhomes project, which includes the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop. The appeal is based on the grounds that the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop is not consistent with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and not in the best interests in the citizens of Petaluma (See Attachment 1). 2. BACKGROUND: The 1.45 acre project site is located in the Riverfront Warehouse Area of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area and comprises most of the block bounded by 15` 2na F and G Streets (not including 110 G Street and 421 2'd Street). The project site is comprised of six vacant parcels and one parcel that is developed with the Hamilton Cabinet Shop building. On April 19, 2004, Cobblestone Homes submitted an application for SPARC review and approval of the 151 Street Townhomes project. The project included 48 condominiums in 3 buildings, the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop and associated site and frontage improvements. As part of the application materials, the applicant submitted a historic evaluation of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop prepared by Clark and Associates (See Attachment 6). The historic evaluation was peer reviewed by the City's historic consultant, Carey and Company (See Attachment 7). The Clark and Associates evaluation and the Carey and Company peer review concluded that the Hamilton Cabinet Shop building is not a potentially significant historic resource. On September 9, 2004, SPARC reviewed the project on a preliminary basis and provided comments to the applicant (See Attachment 2). The discussion included the possibility of reusing the Hamilton Cabinet Shop and incorporating the building into the project. On January 27, 2005, SPARC formally reviewed the 151 Street Townhomes project. The review of the project included the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop, the Clark and Associates historic evaluation, and the peer review prepared by Carey and Company. At the meeting the Committee took public comment and provided comments to the applicant related to design and consistency with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and SMART Code (See Attachment 3, SPARC Minutes). The Committee members indicated that reusing Hamilton Cabinet Shop would be an amenity for the project. However, it was not a requirement that the project be revised to adaptively reuse the building and a majority of the Committee agreed with the historic evaluation and peer review that the building was not a potentially significant historic resource. On March 24, 2005, the applicant returned to SPARC for an informal review (no decision requested) of the project to receive feedback from the Committee on the revisions to the project. SPARC took public comment and provided direction to the applicant (see ivwNv.citvo('netahuna.net, Attachment 4, and Attachment 5, Staff Report, Pages 1 and 2). The project was reduced to 44 units and included the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop. ri On July 28, 2005, SPARC formally reviewed the revised project (See Attachment 6). The project included 44 condominiums in four buildings, the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop, and associated site and frontage improvements. The Committee took public comment, reviewed the project, and approved the project with conditions. SPARC added a condition that the materials from the Hamilton Cabinet Shop be reused to the maximum extent practicable and be incorporated into the fencing and doors for the project. On August 11, 2005, Patricia Tuttle Brown appealed the decision by SPARC to approve the 15` Street Townhomes project. The appeal is based on the grounds that the demolition of the building is not consistent with the intention, goals, objectives, policies and programs contained in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and not in the best interest of the citizens of Petaluma (See Attachment 1). The Central Petaluma Specific Plan includes goals, objectives and policies that encourage the retention and adaptive reuse of the historically significant and architecturally interesting buildings located in the Riverfront Warehouse Area. However, the Plan does not require the retention or reuse of any specific structure(s). The Specific Plan does identify several properties within the Riverfront Warehouse area as potentially significant historic resources. The Hamilton Cabinet Shop is not one of these properties. In addition, the Historic Preservation chapter includes a survey prepared by Carey and Company that identifies the Hamilton Cabinet Shop as not eligible for the National Register. 3. ALTERNATIVES: a. Deny the appeal and uphold the SPARC approval. b. Grant the appeal and direct the applicant to redesign the project to include the reuse of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The appellant has paid the $170 appeal fee. Pursuant to Resolution 2004-028 N.C.S, the project applicant, Cobblestone Homes, is responsible for any additional costs associated with processing the appeal to the City Council. 5. CONCLUSION: The Clark and Associates historic evaluation and the Carey and Company peer review of the evaluation concluded that the Hamilton Cabinet Shop building is not a potentially significant historic resource. SPARC review of the project included review of the historic evaluation and peer review. Both were found to be adequate. While the Central Petaluma Specific Plan includes goals, objectives and policies that encourage the reuse of existing buildings, the Plan does not require that any specific structure be retained and/or adaptively reused. While the Committee encouraged the applicant to reuse the building, it was not a requirement of the Specific Plan, the demolition would not result in the loss of a historic structure, and the Committee included a condition for the project that the materials be reused for the 1st Street Townhomes project. 6. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold SPARC's decision to approve the I" Street Townhomes project, including the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop, which will allow the construction of 44 townhomes and associated site and frontage improvements based on the findings in the attached draft resolution (Attachment 8). 3 GAoms/2003 agenda bill Patricia Tuttle Brown, PhD, MFCC, LAc Tuttle Kilter Clinic: Acupuncture, Chinese Herbs, Counseling 513 Petaluma Blvd. South, Petaluma, CA 94952 Phone: 707-762-2240 Fax: 707-762-9290 ATTACHMENT 1 011LIpit ; yIPZ� OLL VIA s S 0lwv a 5 t I' -# 0- t�SYV- 6 z ��T)kT&--�$-12-.910�- ATTACHMENT SPARC Minutes September 9, 2004 1 w�AL° City of Petaluma, CA Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 186a 2 3 Minutes 4 Excerpt 5 Regular Meeting September 9, 2004 6 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m. 7 City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 8 Telephone: 707-778-4301 E -Mail: cdd@ci.petaluma.ca.us 9 FAX: 707-778-4498 Web Page: http://www.ci.petaluma.ca.us 10 11 12 The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages applicants or their 13 representatives to be available at the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item 14 need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. 15 16 Roll Call: Present: Teresa Barrett, Terry ILosewic, John Mills, Larry Reed 17 Absent: Jack Rittenhouse* 18 19 *Chairperson 20 21 Staff: Irene Borba, Senior Planner 22 Betsi Lewitter, Project Planner 23 Arne Windsor, Administrative Secretary 24 25 26 I. FIRST STREET TOWN HOMES, 401 -2ND Street 27 APN: 008126003, 004, 005, 008, 010, 012, 013 28 File: 04 -PRE -0534 29 30 The applicant is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 31 preliminary review of a 1.45 -acre site between First and Second, F and G Streets 32 into 48 town home units. 33 34 Frank Denny, Cobblestone: Introduced the project. 35 36 Justin Hansen, Dalin Group: Presented the unit plan and the architecture. 37 38 Bonnie Diefendorf, Engineer: Addressed the elevations, stoops and the streetscape. 39 5 SPARC Minutes September 9, 2004 1 Committee Member Reed: Asked if the streetscape reflects the City's Master Plan for the 2 streetscape in this area. 4 Bormie Diefendorf: Yes, it directly follows what the Central Petaluma Specific Plan asks 5 for. Comrnittee Member Reed: Who is doing the design of the street improvements? Vin Smith: Redevelopment's improvements are for I" Street, past F. 10 11 Committee Member Barrett: Asked for clarification on the materials and purpose of the 12 wall. 13 14 Frank Denny: Sound wall will be prefab and cementations. The sound wall is to separate 15 the property from the surrounding properties. 16 17 Committee Member Barrett: If there are cobblestone curbs, will it be replaced? 18 19 Bonnie Diefendorf. Yes, if we find cobblestone, we will replace it. 20 21 Public comment opened: 22 23 Tamara Norman, 501 Keller Street: Am here because I care about the warehouse district. 24 Believe it has symbolic interest for the City. Asked the committee to take care reviewing 25 the project, the design, the proportions and the materials — need to honor the area. The 26 developer should put in cobblestone to reflect the history whether or not the cobblestones 27 are there now. This site was noted as a possibility for the "D" Street fire station 28 relocation. 29 30 Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Blvd. South: Am a neighbor of the project and am 31 submitting 3 items for the public record. Want to state that the Hamilton cabinet site 32 needs to be rehabilitated as part of this development per the following: 1) PBAC 33 conditions submitted to Kim Gordon on May 13, 2004 quoting the CPSP regarding the 34 cormnitment to maintaining mixed uses and a commitment to maintaining the historic and 35 "architecturally interesting" character of the area, including "restoration of sites 36 deteriorated by neglect and mis-use." The project falls short of this goal since it is all 37 residential and is proposing to demolish the Hamilton Cabinet shop. 2) A letter dated 38 June 22, 2004, from Katherine Rinehart, historian, recommending that The Hamilton 39 Cabinet Shop be evaluated for its potential significance as a contributor to a historic 40 district; that the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee rather than the Site Plan 41 and Architectural Review Committee review this development proposal; and that 42 Cobblestone Homes be encourage to adaptively reuse the Hamilton Cabinet Shop 43 building and incorporate it into their development. 3) Letter from Marianne Hurley 44 expressing concern over the prospect of another demolition within the Riverfront 45 Warehouse District. Ms. Hurley reiterated that Petaluma has already lost many buildings 46 in the area and the importance of these buildings as part of the context for the entire area. 1I SPARC Minutes September 9, 2004 The CPSP supports preservation in Chapter 9. Ms. Brown read Policy 3.1 of Chapter 9 "recognizing the industrial complex of structures along First and Second Streets" and stated that this is not a mixed use project. Reiterated that the project needs to retain the Hamilton Cabinet Shop and needs to be mixed use. This is one of the 4 sites being looked at for the new Fire House. The Hamilton Cabinet site needs to have a night watchman. We have had 4 historic buildings burned down. We need to have protection for the Hamilton Cabinet Shop. Asked the committee to stop the demolitions. Project should be conditioned to replace any cobblestone curb removed per City requirements. 10 11 Katherine Rinehart, Historian: Have been researching the warehouse district since 1997. 12 The I" Street town homes is proposing to eliminate Hamilton Cabinet Shop which may 13 not be individually significant but does contribute to the fabric and overall character of 14 the district. Asked the developer to incorporate the Hamilton Cabinet Shop into the 15 proposed project. 16 17 Janet Grayck, 615 Prospect: I am in agreement with some of the other speakers. Some of 18 the warehouse district needs to be preserved, particularly the Hamilton Cabinet Shop. 19 Need to respect the historic fabric of the area. Want mixed use. Look at decorative 20 concrete. Too monotonous. Garage entries with plantings are not consistent with the 21 renderings. Planting areas are very narrow. 22 23 Stuart Hyde, 800 Middlefield Drive: Agree with what everyone has said. I have been 24 inside the Hamilton Cabinet Shop — it is constructed from old growth redwood that is no 25 longer available, can incorporate into the development, can reuse — would be a gesture of 26 goodwill toward the community. Spoke with the Historic Preservation Group- they 27 highly recommend reusing Hamilton Cabinet Shop. The community has a vested interest 28 in reusing this building. 29 30 Jane Hamilton, 110 G Street: It is difficult to be here and not see all of what the 31 committee is seeing. The design needs to come up several notches in quality— I hope for 32 a higher level of architectural standards. It is a special area of the City. Materials seem 33 to be a hodgepodge. Too much going on. The roof and massing on 15i Street are too 34 overbearing, needs to be brought down some. Would rather see 40 units and break it up 35 with a view corridor to see Sonoma Mountain. The roofline and building is huge — it will 36 close everything in. The shingle roof does not work. Pedestrian circulation is very 37 important here. It is imperative to think about parking in the neighborhood and not just 38 for this project. There is already a parking problem. The CPSP calls for commercial on 39 the ground floor, especially on a development this large. Do not know about the 40 interpretation that mixed use is an option and not a requirement. The development needs 41 to be interactive with pedestrians with retail on the ground floor. Cobblestone curbs due 42 not exist on I" and 2"d and G Streets. The sound wall would look out of place. Should 43 probably be a wooden wall. It needs to fit with what is there and what benefits the entire 44 community. There was talk of uncovering the creels at F Street and I believe that is 45 possible and it is a good idea. Hamilton Cabinet Shop needs to be retained as part of our 46 history. The building has been here for a long time. I ani not against development 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 SPARC Minutes September 9, 2004 happening there, just want it to be good quality. Joe Durney, 618 — 2"d Street: Want to support Jane's idea of uncovering the creek at F Street. It could be a wonderful amenity to the proposed development. Hope the developers will consider that and saving Hamilton Cabinet Shop. Brian Rosen, 1000 Mountain View: Like the idea of ownership units in the area. Want the architecture upgraded. Want more vertical articulation in the roofline, possible veritical orientation on the units. Get away from the repetition. Like the density, could be reduced a bit. Would like more mixed use per the CPSP. Raise the project up to standards in the nearby building done by Tim Tatum. Public comment closed. Committee Comments: Committee Member Reed: I was a member of the CPSP Committee. Felt that public comment was very articulate regarding this district. There is great potential in this neighborhood. I am concerned at reducing the resource of historic buildings. How is this plan reflecting the amenities of this district — had difficult seeing this. Mixed use is very important for the district — this�roposal is all residential. I don't see the integrity of the neighborhood, such as I" or)' street in massing or land use. Feel we need to vary the uses on the site, different variations on different streets. Reusing Hamilton Cabinet Shop would be an amenity for the project. It would be helpful to have a master plan of the district and how you address pedestrian and bike circulation. Vary the units and the articulation. The one picture of this area in the CPSP shows quite a variety of unit types, lots more trees, and 1 and 2 story uses — do not see this in this application. Seems more appropriate than this project. Committee Member Kosewic: Asked how many sq. ft of retail in the Theater District. Vin Smith: Approximately 120,000 square feet. Committee Member Kosewic: Retail space is almost zero now — should be no problem renting retail space. Vin Smith: Want to set the record straight — it is not as easy as you think. It is difficult for a prospective tenant to corrunit to the cost of tenant improvements, relocation and new business start-up. Committee Member Kosewic: Approved the demolition of warehouse 14 where the lofts are and approved the demolition of the warehouses where the apartments are going in. A sheet metal warehouse building is difficult to do adaptive reuse. All the other buildings, the ceramic tile buildings, have some form and shapes that can be reused. There is no I SPARC Minutes September 9, 2004 1 mention of Hamilton Cabinet Shop in the application. Asking for retail now is a stretch. 2 There are many buildings that can be preserved and there are viable alternatives. Can 3 understand why people are afraid of setting a precedent. Hamilton Cabinet Shop is an 4 important part of this project. 6 Committee Member Barrett: I do think this building is critical and should not be 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 overlooked. Comments made before are important, why emulate buildings that you are tearing down. Incorporate what is around you into the project. Want to see Hamilton cabinet shop incorporated into the project. Part of what would attract people is adaptively reusing the Hamilton shop — will add to the project rather than detract from it. The notion of mixed use is not in the CPSP as a nice idea, it is a requirement here. Possibly reuse Hamilton shop as a compromise. Do agree that Historic SPARC rather than SPARC should review the project. This project brings a subdivision attitude to an infill project. The developer needs to break out of the mold of the subdivision — look at incorporating Hamilton Cabinet Shop to increase the value of the project. Be more fun and creative. I believe looking at the Tatum development nearby is a good benchmark and reflective of what is in this district. When the architecture is driven by 3 bedrooms and a loft, people will have 2 cars. Mixed use will help solve this problem. Look at the units with a more creative solution. Thought Ms. Hamilton was generous regarding the height of the buildings. You need to complement what already exists - more varied roofline, breaks in the building. Do not think a subdivision style cement sound wall is appropriate for this location. Don't know how to weigh in on the fire department issue. Did not know this was site was being considered. Committee Member Mills: Agree on the sound wall — need to come up with a better idea. The material does not work. The building needs to come up to an extreme level of architecture. Want more lofts rather than fewer, so that it is more in keeping with the neighborhood. I am concerned about the idea that Is` Street is supposed to be mixed use. Agree with Terry that there will be a lot of other Mixed Use in the area. You can reuse the Hamilton Cabinet Shop to get the retail into the project and save the building. Adaptive reuse is possible as evidenced by the Victory Chevrolet building and the ice house. Blending and using the Hamilton Cabinet Shop would make an unbelievable restaurant or an architectural office. Could save the floor and trusses. I wouldn't insist on it, however, the committee will. Reiterate that the architecture needs to be of the highest standards. 37 Committee Member Barrett: Need to put in the cobblestone curbs. 38 39 Committee Member Kosewic: I am in agreement about the sound wall. Needs to be a 40 different material. Okay with parking -if can't park will bike. Regarding the architecture 41 — need to lose the symmetry. It's one big apartment house, not individual units. Do 42 something to break up the roof. There is so much potential. This is a historic area, use 43 historic materials and more historic design. Petaluma was built when there was no 44 planning so you have a lot of variety. I like the blending and the mixing. You have two 45 or three plans types, however, basically they are all the same. Want it to look like it was 46 not all built at the sante time. The lofts are a good example of a mix of architecture. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SPARC Minutes September 9, 2004 Floor plans are unique, make the architecture unique also. Jane Hamilton: The CPSP requires commercial/retail on the ground floor. Vin Smith: The CPSP requires architectural treatment, however it does not require any specific land use anywhere on any parcel. You can have residential on the ground floor. Kose-,vic: Incorporate what has been built already into your plans. Cannot just look at this one building — needs to see the building and what is surrounding it. Need an understanding of what else has been approved in the CPSP. 3 10 ATTACHMENT 3 1 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2 MEMORANDUM 3 4 Coiaaiaait , Denelopnient Deparhnent, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 5 (707) 778-4301 Fac (707) 778-4498 E-mail: planning&Lpetalnn a. ca. as 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 DATE: January 27, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. IV TO: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee FROM: Kim Gordon, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Request for approval of site, architectural and landscaping plans to construct three buildings consisting of 48 condominiums at 401 Second Street, APNs 008-126- 003, 004, 005, 008, 010, 012 & 013, in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (File #03 -TSM -0212 -CR) RECOMMENDATIONS Staff requests that the Committee review the project and determine if the project is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Should the Committee determine that the project is consistent with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and be in a position to approve the project, staff has included draft findings and draft conditions of approval (See Attachments A and B). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Vin Smith, has submitted an application on behalf of Cobblestone Homes for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval of site, architectural and landscaping plans for 48 three bedroom condominiums to be located on a 1.45 acre site in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. The project includes three detached buildings. Each building would be located on a separate parcel. Building 1 would have frontage on Second Street and would consist of 9 units located on a 12,890 square foot parcel. Building 2 would have frontage on 15` 2"d and F Streets and would consist of 15 units located on a 16,580 square foot parcel. Building'3 would have frontage on I" and G Streets and would have 24 units on a 31,870 square foot parcel. The buildings would be 3 stories in height with lofts. The project provides one attached garage for each unit, for a total of 48 onsite parking spaces. Thirty on street parking spaces would be located along the project frontage. Access to the garages would be from two new alleys. One alley would be located behind Building 2 and would connect 1s` Street to 2"d Street. The second alley would have access from G Street and would be located between Buildings 1 and 3. This alley would end at the alley behind Building 2. The project includes the demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop located at 401 Second Street. Page 1 t SETTING 2 3 The project site is located in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. The project site includes the 4 block bounded by 151, ?"a F and G Streets, except for 110 G Street and 421 Second Street (See 5 Attaclunent C, Location Map). The F Street side of the project site is developed with the 6 Hamilton Cabinet Shop. The remainder of the site is vacant and either paved or covered in weeds 7 and grasses. The project site is located in an area that has a mix of uses, including single-family 8 residences, live/work units, industrial and commercial uses. 9 to BACKGROUND 11 12 The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee reviewed the proposed project on a 13 preliminary basis at the September 9, 2004 meeting (See Attachment D, SPARC Minutes 14 Excerpt). At the meeting, the Committee provided the following comments to the applicant: 15 • Articulation, roof line and units should be varied 16 • Difficult to see how this project reflects the district 17 • Project should complement the area is • Project and sound wall have a subdivision design 19 • Materials and design should be of the highest quality 20 • Materials and design should be more historic 21 • Hamilton Cabinet Shop should be incorporated into project 22 23 In response to the Committee's comments, the applicant revised the project in the following ways 24 (See Attachment E, Email from Dahlin Group and Attachment M, Full Size Plans, Elevations): 25 • On Buildings 2 and 3, the gable roof on the front elevation was replaced with a shed roof 26 element. 27 • Shed roof element was added to Buildings 1 and 3. 28 • The entries and patio wall were revised. 29 • Main gable end was removed from the side elevations and replaced with a shed roof. 30 31 STAFF ANALYSIS 32 33 Land Use Consistencv 34 The land use designation for the project site is Mixed Use (CPSP, Page 29, Land Use Map). This 35 land use allows a variety of uses, including residential, commercial office, retail and industrial. 36 The intent is to provide a mix of uses throughout the area. However, depending on the parcel and 37 its surroundings a vertical mix of uses should be provided whenever possible (CPSP, Page 28). 38 The project site is surrounded by a mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial. 39 Therefore, the all residential use of the project is consistent with intent to provide a mix of uses 40 throughout the area. 41 42 Central Petaluma SDeCifiC Plan SMART Code Consistencv 43 The project site is designated Urban Center (T-5) on the zoning map. Multifamily residential uses 44 are permitted uses in this zone and are allowed on the first floor in areas where Shopfronts are 45 not required (CPSP, SMART Code, Page 8). Therefore, the proposed residential use is a 46 permitted use on all floors. 47 U Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The following table provides a comparison of the project and the SMART Code requirements for development in the Urban Center Zone. Lot Area Lot Coverage Front Setback Side Setback Rear (except for alleys) Alley Setback Permitted Frontage Type Density Units/acre Principal Bldg Front. Secondary Bldg Front. Building Height Parking Location Parking Required Smart Code 2,000 sq ft min 80% max 0'-10' 0'-10' 5' min to main bldg 15' to center line of alley Terrace/Light Court, Stoop, Forecourt, Shopfront & Awning, Gallery, Arcade 60 75% min. Frontage 35% min Frontage 2 stories min 4 stories max 3rd layer if open parking 1 per dwelling unit Building 1 (9 Units) 12,890 sq ft 52.9% 2n' St. 5'& 8' 12' to door of second floor units Right Side 5' Left Side 10' N/A- alley 33' to center line Terrace/Light Court & Stoop 30.4 N/A 2"" St. 88% 3-4 stories N/A- attached garage parking 1 per dwelling unit Building 2 (15 Units) 16,580 sq fl 65% 1s' St. 3' & 5' 2"St. 3Y&5' F St. 4'& 7' 7' to door of second floor units Interior Side 21' & 15.5' to alley center line No rear property line 15.5' to center line (Interior Side P/L) Terrace/Light Court & Stoop Building 3 (24 Units) 31,870 sq fl 57.2% G St. 3' & 5' ls' St. 6'& 9' 13' to door of second floor units Interior Side 31' & 15.5' to alley center line N/A- alley 15.5' to center line Terrace/Light Court & Stoop 39.4 32.8 15' St. 80% 15' St. 97% 2"" St. 80% G St. 65% F St. 97% 3-4 stories 3-4 stories N/A- attached garage parking 1 per dwelling unit N/A- attached garage parking 1 per dwelling unit As indicated in the table above, the project is consistent with the Urban Center requirements for lot area, lot coverage, building frontage, building height, required number of parking spaces, parking location, density and frontage type. Page 3 I� 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Building Frontage The Thoroughfare Map identifies the 151 Street project frontage as a Principal Frontage. On a principal frontage, the minimum building frontage is 75% (CPSP, Section 5.10, Thoroughfare Standards Key Map & CPSP, Section 4. 1, Urban Standards Table). This requirement applies to Buildings 2 and 3 and both buildings are consistent with this requirement. The Thoroughfare Map identifies 2"d, F and G Streets as Secondary Frontage. On a secondary frontage the minimum building frontage is 35% (CPSP, Section 5.10, Thoroughfare Standards Key Map & CPSP, Section 4.1, Urban Standards Table). All three buildings are consistent with this requirement. Required Parking and Location of Parking Spaces The SMART Code requires one parking space for each dwelling unit, regardless of the number of bedrooms (CPSP, Section 4.1, Urban Standards Table). On street panting spaces located along the project's frontage may also be counted toward fulfilling the project's parking requirement (CPSP, Page 37, Section 6.10.010(B2)). Since the project proposes 48 condominiums, the project is required to provide 48 parking spaces. Each condominium has one private garage space. In addition, there would be 30 on street parking spaces located along the project's street frontage. The project provides a total of 78 parking spaces, which exceeds the parking required for the project. The SPARC Guidelines require parallel parking spaces to measure 22' long by 9' wide. The Specific Plan Street Section requires that the width of the parallel space to be 8' (CPSP, SMART Code, Page 32, Street Sections). All of the on street parking spaces are consistent with the 8' width. However, several parking stalls are only 20' long (See Attachment M, Civil Plans, Sheet 4). It appears that the on street parking can be revised without losing any parking spaces. Staff has included a draft condition that all on street parallel parking stalls, except end stalls, comply with the 22' length. Open parking is allowed only in designated layers (CPSP, Page 37, Section 6.10.020, & Page 70, Parking Layer Definition). The project provides parking in attached private garages, rather than open parking. Therefore, the location of the onsite parking appears to be consistent with the SMART Code. SMART Code Issues Since the Committee has been given the authority to interpret the SMART Code, staff requests that the Committee provide direction on the following SMART Code requirements and inconsistencies: Frontage Type The project provides two different types of frontage types for each building, the terrace/light court and stoop. These are permitted frontage types in the Urban Center district. However, the zoning map recommends a Shopfront & Awning, Arcade, or Gallery Frontage for the 151 Street project frontage (CPSP, Section 2.1, Zoning Map). The project does not include this type of project frontage on I" Street. Although this type of frontage is recommended rather than required, SPARC required the 151 Street frontage of the Basin Street Properties River Town Apartment Buildings and Water Front Buildings to provide this frontage type. Access to Parking The Specific Plan states that access to parking shall be from an alley or secondary frontage when possible and that the opening to the parking lot or garage shall not exceed two lanes in width Page 4 14— 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 (CPSP Page 40, 6.10.010(Al)). The project provides access to the private garages via two new alleys. One new alley runs through the project site from I" Street to 2"d Street. A second alley has access from G Street and ends behind Building 2 at the first alley. The alleys proposed by the applicant may not be consistent with the CPSP alley section (See Attaclurlent M, Plans and CPSP, SMART Code, Page 31, Alley Section). Note 6 states that alleys are to provide 5' wide sidewalks in the first and second layers for pedestrian access. Providing the sidewalks on both sides would eliminate the two garages on Parcel 3 closest to G Street and the 2 garages closest to I" and 2'd Streets on Parcel 2 and the landscaped areas provided on the opposite side of the alley. In addition, the alley section illustrates and notes driveway apron, landscaping between aprons or sidewalk on one side of the alley and a driveway apron or sidewalk on the opposite of the alley. Setbacks Building 1 is located 3' to 7' from the front property line (2'd Street) and the doorways to the upper units are located 12' from the front property line. The 12' setback to the entries is inconsistent with the front setback requirement of 0' to 10'. The side setbacks are 5' on the right side and 10' on the left side. The rear setback to the center line of the alley shared with Building 3 is 33 feet. The left side of the building is adjacent to an alley. The setback requirement for an alley is a minimum of 15' to the center line of the alley and Building I is setback 15.5' from the center line. Building 2 is located 3' and 5' from the front property lines (I" Street and 2"d Street). The building is setback 4' and 7' from the side property line on F Street. The doors to the upper units are located 7' from the F Street property line. These setbacks are consistent with the required front and side setbacks of 0' to 10'. Parcel 2 has two front property lines; and, therefore, no rear property line. Due to the alley, Building 2 is setback 21 feet from the interior side property line. This is consistent with the required minimum setback of 15' to the center line of an alley. However, this is inconsistent with the maximum side yard setback of 10'. Building 3 is located 3' and 5' from the front property line (G Street). The building is setback 6' and 9' from the side property line on 1" Street. The doors to the upper units are setback 13' from the 1" Street property line. The 13' setback to the entries is inconsistent with the front setback requirement of 0' to 10'. The building is setback 10' from the rear property line and 15.5 feet to the center line of the alley. Due to the alley, Building 3 is setback 31 feet from the interior side property line (adjacent to 110 G Street) and 15.5' from the center line of the alley. This is consistent with the required minimum setback of 15' to the center line of an alley. However, this is inconsistent with the maximum side yard setback of 10'. Site Access and Circulation Site circulation and maneuvering was reviewed by W -Trans as part of the traffic study (See Attachment K, W -Trans Traffic Study). In order for the average passenger vehicle to enter the driveway with one maneuver, the report indicates that the plans were revised to include the following: 1) an increase in the garage door width to 9' 2) redesign of the islands adjacent to the driveways and 3) an increase in the drive aisle width to 26' measured from the garage door to the opposite constraint. The plans being reviewed by the Committee include garage doors that are 8' wide and a backup distance of 23' feet for the garages for Building I. measured from the garage door to the curb of the island. Staff has included draft conditions to increase the width of the garage door to 9' and to modify the landscape island to provide the required backup distance. In Page 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 addition, the Fire Marshal has included a condition requiring review and approval of the radius and design of the landscape island by the Fire Marshal (See Attachment B, Draft Conditions of Approval). Landscaping. Fencing and Lighting The proposed street trees are included on the City's Approved Street Trees List. The spacing and tree wells are consistent with the planting recommendations for this species. The landscaping plan includes a 6' wood fence with 2' of lattice. The fence would be located along the property line separating the project site from 110 G Street and 421 2nd Street and appears to end at the back of the sidewalk. The Central Petaluma Specific Plan does not regulate fencing; therefore, fencing requirements default to the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires fencing located within the front setback to be a maximum height of 42". The front setback would be measured from the front property line to the front building wall. In addition, adequate site distance needs to be provided at the alley from G Street. Staff has included draft conditions of approval requiring the fencing location to be revised to comply with these requirements (See Attachment B, Draft Conditions of Approval). The applicant has not proposed any exterior lighting for the project. Staff requests that the Committee determine if the exterior lighting should be reviewed by the Committee or staff. Materials and Colors The materials for the buildings include metal siding, stucco, board and batten, and brick. The awnings and railings would be metal. The plans do not indicate the material for the windows or doors. However, the applicant has indicated that the windows would be vinyl with the grid on the interior of the glass. The applicant will provide a colors and materials board at the meeting. Signs/Architectural Features There is one arch type structure over the entry to each alley. The Central Petaluma Specific Plan does not address this type of feature and staff requests direction from the Committee. If the structure is considered a sign, the feature would be regulated by the Zoning Ordinance since the Specific Plan does not include sign regulations. In this case the feature would be considered a permanent tract sign and would be limited to 5' in height and 25 square feet in area. In addition, only one sign would be allowed for the project. If the Committee considers this feature an architectural feature or a feature that is integral to the building or building architecture, staff requests that the Committee provide direction as to how to apply this determination to this project and future projects in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Since the Committee has been given the authority to interpret and apply the SMART Code and Specific Plan, making such a determination for the feature proposed for this project would set a precedent for allowing similar features as part of future projects. The Committee could determine that part of the feature is a sign and part of the feature is architectural and/or integral to the building. No details of the structures have been submitted as part of the application materials. Central Petaluma Specific Plan Architectural Guidelines The CPSP includes Architectural Guidelines for each sub area within the Plan. The project site is located in the River Warehouse Area. The Guidelines describe the existing development Page 6 I& 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 patterns of the area and provide a recommended design approach (CPSP Appendix B, Page 14- 15). The block between I" and 2°d Streets is described as having a pattern of metal structures intermixed with brick, concrete block and wood commercial buildings, vacant land and single- family residences. The recormnended design approach for the area provides the following direction: • Existing architectural patterns should be preserved and used in developing new structures • Building heights would range from 2 to 3 stories • The pattern of metal buildings with simple rectangular forms and recurring gable roofs should be maintained • Adaptive reuse of existing strictures should be considered • Existing irregularity of the street connection should be maintained, with buildings being constructed to the street most of the time, but retain sufficient breaks in the line of buildings so that buildings appear as detached strictures and to allow the creation of side yards and entrances, interior courts and passages through to the river edge • Gable and shed roofs should predominate • Foundry Wharf provides an example of window and door openings • Hunt & Behrens and Dairyman's Feed provide an example of forms and shapes that could be used Petaluma Pedestrian and Bievele Advisory Committee (PPBAC) Recommendations In March 2000, the City Council adopted The Bicycle Plan and associated map as an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states that the City shall route development plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PPBAC), allowing consideration of bicycle/pedestrian issues. The PPBAC reviewed the proposed project and has specific recommendations. The full text of the PPBAC recommendations is included (See Attachment F, Full Text of PPBAC Recommendations). The PPBAC has recommended the following bike paths: 1) Class If path on I" Street 2) Class H path on F Street 3) Class H path on 2nd Street with undulations, traffic calming measures and no diagonal parking to replace the bike boulevard and 4) Class IH path on G Street. All of these paths are shown on the Bike Plan Map. However, the street sections adopted as part of the Specific Plan do not include these bike paths. The only bike paths included in the Specific Plan are located on D Street, Petaluma Blvd. North and South, and Caulfield Lane Extension. Since the Specific Plan street sections were adopted after the Bike Plan, the Specific Plan street sections supersede the bike paths shown on the Bike Plan Map. Therefore, staff has not included these paths as conditions of approval. The PPBAC has recommended that signs be installed that indicate that bikes are able to utilize the full width of the vehicle travel lane (See Attachment F, PPBAC Recommendations with Sign Example). The California Vehicle Code does allow bicycles to utilize the full lane width in specific circumstances, such as left turns and overtaking another bicycle or vehicle traveling in the same direction. The vehicle code does not allow the regular use of the full lane width by bicycles. If these signs are to be installed, they should be installed on a City wide basis pursuant to a new City policy and after appropriate review by the City rather than on a project by project Page 7 II I basis. Since the City has not established such a policy and the recommendation appears to 2 conflict with the vehicle code regulations, staff has not included providing these signs as a 3 condition of approval. 4 5 The PPBAC has included a recommendation that bike hooks be provided in each garage and bike 6 racks be provided outdoors for visitors. The project includes two bike racks on the sidewalk on 7 151 Street and one bike rack on the sidewalk on 2"d Street. The applicant is proposing ribbon 8 racks. The PPBAC has requested that these racks be Ribcage or Gauntlet racks. Staff has 9 included draft conditions for a bike hook to be provided in each garage and for the applicant to 10 propose an alternative bike rack design (See Attachment B, Draft Conditions of Approval). 11 12 Staff has included the standard PPBAC recommendations for downcast lighting, 13 herbicide/pesticide use, and directional signs as conditions of approval (See Attachment B, Draft 14 Conditions of Approval). 15 16 ENVIRONMENTAL'REVIEW 17 18 As part of the application materials, the applicant submitted an evaluation of the Hamilton 19 Cabinet Shop located at 401 2"d Street prepared by Clark and Associates Historical Consultants 20 (See Attachment H). The Clark evaluation determined that the Hamilton Cabinet Shop is not a 21 historic building. The City's historical consultant Carey and Company conducted a peer review 22 of the Clark and Associates evaluation (See Attachment I). The peer review also included 1) a 23 review of the possibility of the creation of a historic district in the Riverfront Warehouse area due 24 to the changes in the area since the adoption of the CPSP and 2) if the Hamilton Cabinet Shop 25 would be contributor to such a district. The Carey and Company report concluded that 1) the 26 Hamilton Cabinet Shop is not a historic building 2) a district may still be possible, however, it 27 would be much reduced in size and scope and 3) the Hamilton Cabinet Shop building is not 28 located close enough to the district's potential eastern boundary to merit inclusion within the 29 revised district boundaries. 30 31 A traffic study was prepared by W -Trans (See Attachment K). The traffic study concluded the 32 following: 1) the traffic that would be generated by the project is consistent with the levels of 33 traffic anticipated in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan EIR 2) would not result in a decrease in 34 the level of service at study intersections under existing conditions or future conditions and 3) 35 would not create any unanticipated circulation impacts. 36 37 A noise study prepared by Rosen, Goldberg, and Der was submitted as part of the application 38 (See Attachment J). The study indicates that the outdoor noise levels that the project would be 39 exposed to are consistent with those anticipated by the CPSP and analyzed in the CPSP EIR. 40 Staff has included the CPSP mitigation measures for noise as draft conditions of approval. Since 41 the project site is adjacent to residential uses, the noise study provided recommendations related 42 to construction noise. Staff has included these as draft conditions of approval (See Attachment B, 43 Draft Conditions of Approval). 44 45 The traffic study, noise study, historical evaluation and peer review indicate that the project is 46 within the scope of the impacts identified Central Petaluma Specific Plan EIR and did not 47 identify any new impacts that would be associated with the project. 48 Fol Page 8 1 Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental 2 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182, Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan, 3 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts residential projects that are in conformity with a 4 Specific Plan when an EIR has been prepared. Therefore, no further environmental review is 5 required. 6 7 PUBLIC NOTICE 8 9 On January 11, 2005, a notice of public hearing was sent to property owners and occupants 10 within 500 feet of the subject property. On January 19, 2005, a notice of public hearing was 11 published in the Argus Courier. At the writing of this staff report, three comments related to the 12 project had been received (See Attachment K). The email from Tim Tatum, 109 G Street, 13 expresses concern about the proposed asphalt shingle roof and recommends that Building 3 14 include a break in the building in order to be consistent with the CPSP Architectural Guidelines. 15 The letter from John and Hilary Clayton, 201 G Street, recommends that the project be revised to 16 comply with the direction SPARC provided at the preliminary review, including a decrease in 17 density, improved site lines, and higher quality design and materials. The email from Renee 18 Owen and Brian Foster, 508 2nd Street, expresses concerns related to traffic, safety related to an 19 increase in traffic, the project's density, compatibility of the project with the area, quality of the 20 design, the increase in demand for parking that is already limited in the area, and the preservation 21 of view corridors. Ms. Owen and Mr. Foster recommend that the project be limited to two stories 22 and the preservation of some open space within the project. 23 24 As discussed previously in the staff report, the project is consistent with the density allowed in 25 the Urban Center district, as well as the lot coverage and building frontage requirements. The 26 traffic associated with the project is consistent with the traffic levels anticipated in the Central 27 Petaluma Specific Plan and analyzed in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan EIR. Also, there is no 28 evidence that the project would create an unsafe condition related to traffic. Although the project 29 may increase the demand for parking, the parking provided exceeds the number of parking spaces 30 required for the project, and the project cannot be required to correct the existing neighborhood 31 condition of inadequate street parking. The remaining issues raised in the correspondence are 32 SPARC related issues. 33 34 DECISION TIMELINE 35 36 Tlus application was received by the Community Development Department on April 19, 2004, 37 The application was complete on December 30, 2004. Pursuant to the terms of the Permit 38 Streamlining Act, a decision must be made within 60 days of the project being deemed complete. 39 SPARC must render a decision on the project no later than February 28, 2005. The next regularly 40 scheduled SPARC hearing is February 10, 2005. The applicant may request a one-time extension 41 if additional time is needed to revise the project. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Page 9 11 ATTACHMENT 3 SPARC Minutes January 27, 2005 1 w0City of Petaluma, CA Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee �B6a i 3 Minutes 4 Excerpt 5 Regular Meeting January 27, 2005 6 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m. 7 City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Telephone: 707-778-4301 FAX: 707-778-4498 E -Mail: cdd@ci.petaluma.ca.us Web Page: http://www.ei.petaluma.ca.us The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages applicants or their representatives to be available at the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. Roll Call: Present: Teresa Barrett, Terry Kosewic, John Mills, Larry Reed Jack Rittenhouse* *Chairperson Staff: Irene Borba, Senior Planner Betsi Lewitter, Project Planner Kim Gordon, Associate Planner Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary Public hearing began at 6:05 p.m. III. 1sT STREET TOWNHOMES, 401 Second Street APN: 008-126-003, 004, 005, 008, 010, 012 & 013 File: 04 -TSM -0212 -CR Planner: Kim Gordon The applicant is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of a project to construct 48 condominiums at 401 Second Street within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Kim Gordon presented the staff report. .IVA SPARC Minutes January 27, 2005 1 Frank Denny: Presented a visual of the project. This will be a for sale project. 2 3 Justin Hansen, Dalin Group: Presented the architecture and the unit plans. 4 5 Public hearing opened: 6 7 Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Boulevard South: I am a neighbor and was part of 8 the Central Petaluma Specific Plan committee. Do not see that this complies. We are not 9 using this to our benefit. This project changes our historic fabric. Do not want the 10 Hamilton Cabinet Shop removed. The applicant ignored preliminary review comments, 11 except for shed roofs. As the SPARC Committee, you have the power to preserve the 12 Hamilton Cabinet Shop. Referred to the Architectural Guidelines in the CPSP, points to 13 scale of the buildings; CPSP on pg. 15 "envisions" building heights from 2 to 3 stories, 14 "retain sufficient breaks in the line of the buildings" and "re -use of existing structures 15 should be considered in any development." CPSP includes policies for adaptive reuse 16 and to preserve the fabric of the area. Ms. Brown also quoted from the Historic 17 Preservation Chapter and stated that these guidelines need to be used in conjunction with 18 _ the Smart Code. This project will dwarf Jane Hamilton's property on G Street. Do not 19 have to allow more than 2 stories. CPSP has 3 parts- text with policies, SMART Code 20 and architectural guidelines, which need to be used together. Asked the committee to 21 please take the power to get this project to work and honor what we already have. 77 23 Jane Hamilton, G Street: The project takes and does not give to the neighborhood. It is 24 not gracing the neighborhood. It does not improve the warehouse district. I do not think 25 it works, there is no place for children to play. There will be teenagers and they will have 26 cars. Applicant is asking for too much on the parcel. On I" Street it is supposed to be an 27 interactive pedestrian environment. If you just put up awning and stoops as an element, it 28 will not be interactive. Commercial space needs to be built, if that is not built in now, it 29 won't happen. The massive unbroken frontage on 151 Street needs to be broken up — does 30 not work at all. Need better sight lines. I suggest you keep Hamilton Cabinet shop and 31 open F Street. It is an important part of the warehouse district. What is coming has 32 nothing to do with what has been there. This is the first project in the CPSP. SPARC has 33 the ability to say what we need — it will set a precedent. This project is not good enough 34 to be first in the CPSP and pave the way. The Architectural Guidelines need to be 35 adhered to. It's architecturally confused — looks disjointed. The Bay tree on the side of 36 my house needs to be preserved- not sure whose property it is on. 37 38 Wayne Miller: It is important to work with the Architectural Guidelines in the CPSP. 39 This project is important and needs to be looked at in the context of the whole area. First 40 Street is a corridor to connect to the Foundry Wharf. The irregularity of the streetscape 41 should be retained — it is an important pattern. How do you do that in this project? 42 Articulation is too small, simplify the building. Building forms need to be articulated in 43 larger chunks. Looks like an apartment in the suburbs. It does not meet the spirit of the 44 area. Suggest the alley that cuts from 1st to 2nd street, zig zag so you have 2 or 3 45 buildings of smaller size. A simpler building may yield something more in context. This 46 is a maxed out site. There are no amenities except inside. The only outside amenity is a Oil SPARC Minutes January 27, 2005 1 balcony. Balconies would be more usable as a negative space. That would create a better 2 frontage on 15` Street. Second Street is a different environment — has a distinct character 3 from 151 Street. The project needs to respond to 2"d Street and not be identical on all 4 sides. Need to respond to the cottages and have a different character on each street. 5 6 Tamara Norman, Keller Street: I am happy that the units will be for sale. I would like to 7 see the adjacent properties next time to see the context of this project. The project is not 8 mixed use. The project only responded minimally to SPARC's comments. Only 9 enforceable rules from the CPSP were followed. I want the applicant to respond to the 10 guidelines of the CPSP and public spaces. Need to utilize opportunities of the site to 11 make it a stronger project for the community. Should salvage Hamilton Cabinet Shop or 12 duplicate the footprint. Expose the creels and make the creek public space. This would be 13 financially more successful. Asking the applicant to reconsider the design of the project. 14 15 Corrine Farez-Demil: Would like the Hamilton Cabinet Shop retained. Helps preserve 16 the feeling and character. Encourage adaptive reuse of the building. If materials are 17 reused, look for outdoor space to utilize. Massing of the roof is too dominant. Patios and 18 stoops too many different styles, too cumbersome. Too many materials, too busy. Make 19 more simple. The semicircular awnings, exact duplicate at 5012 nd street. Do not like the 20 signage going into the project. 21 22 Katherine Rinehart: I support the Committee's earlier recommendations. Disagree with 23 the Carey and Co. findings regarding the boundaries of the district, only looked at the 24 warehouse district. What makes the district great is the mixture of buildings and that is 25 what is important. Recommend future projects be reviewed by Historic and Cultural 26 Preservation Committee. Should this come back to the committee, townhomes need to be 27 looked at in context of the area, including the view from McNear Peninsula. 28 29 Linda Quinn, 503-2"d Street: I am the house next to Mr. Tatum's property. I am dwarfed 30 by his development and this is an example of what not to do. Want to keep the 31 neighborhood special. Want a variety of architecture and materials, not just metal. Want 32 the 151 Street side of the project to have commercial space. 33 34 Dianna Jensen, 2nd Street: Am disappointed that the City will allow this density and the 35 parking is not adequate. There is no place for children to play. No yard, no private space. 36 Do not believe it needs to be 4 stories and 48 units. 37 38 Rick Haupt: 200 H Street: All the houses in the neighborhood are about 1000 square 39 feet. Already parking is inadequate in the neighborhood. I would like to see something 40 that is more in keeping with the neighborhood. Should reduce the size of the units and the 41 height. Do something more historic. 42 43 Kate Tabun: Do not want to see vinyl windows, lack architectural integrity. The signage 44 on top of the architectural element is not appropriate. First street elevation is too 45 massive. Too many materials. Maybe have gone too far with the playful elements — too 46 busy, want it simplified. 3 app SPARC Minutes January 27, 2005 1 2 Joe Dumey: Reiterate about opening up F Street, could be a wonderful asset. The 3 archway over the alley is too much. Lighting was not talked about enough. 4 5 Brian Rawson, 1000 Mountain View: Glad the units are for sale and appreciate the visual 6 presentation. I would like a more eclectic mix in a different scale. Want more flat roofs. 7 I am intrigued about F Street. Want interior units more flexible for merchants. Vinyl 8 windows won't work. Would like to see less balcony — do as negative space. Like the 9 urban aspect of the project. 10 11 Public hearing closed: 12 13 Break at 7:30 p.m. 14 15 Resumed at 7:40: 16 17 Committee Comments: 18 19 Committee Member Reed: Plan has not changed much since the preliminary review. 20 Our comments and the public's comments were good regarding the relationship, context, 21 fabric, culture, patterns, and connections which all relate to a broader urban design. This 22 is the intention of the Specific Plan- relate to existing architecture, patterns, history and 23 culture of the area. I did not see any reference to context. Existing buildings have a north - 24 south orientation. Project has an east -west orientation. I see opportunities for open space 25 between the buildings. Street trees do not match what is going on in the neighborhood. 26 The building is the same all the way around — does not relate to character of each street. 27 The Hamilton Cabinet Shop is a reference to the scale on 2"a Street. Architecture is too 28 busy. Simplify to put in context with other streets. There is a struggle between the CPSP 29 and the smart code. Specific Plan is articulate regarding the building types on lst Street 30 and I do not see that happening here. Do not see any smaller or lower facades on this 31 plan. There are awnings on the opposite side of 15` Street, none here. 32 33 Committee Member Mills: Project reflects some of the values of the CPSP yet the 34 project is hated. I am trying to look for compromise. In this case it is pretty hard. The 35 architecture is too busy, too many things in one design — break the buildings up instead. 36 The long building needs to have at least one break in it, possibly eliminate an A unit to 37 provide site line and connection. Don't disagree with density. Units are possibly too 38 large- suburban house in an urban setting. Suggest 1 and 2 bedrooms, 900 to 1200 square 39 feet instead of what you have. If the units were smaller it would leave room for other 40 things. Do not know if you are right about your buyers. On First Street we are looking to 41 get mixed use. However, this is a mixed use area. I am okay with an all residential 42 project. I would not be opposed to commercial storefront on 1" Street.. Do not thunk the 43 Hamilton Cabinet Shop needs to be saved. Hope, however, you can use the materials. I 44 agree with the Historic Reports. 45 46 4 a3 SPARC Minutes January 27, 2005 1 Committee Member Barrett: Suggest that story poles be put in place before the next 2 SPARC meeting so we have a context in the neighborhood. The video was sight specific. 3 The property is not only subject to the Smart Code, it's subject to the CPSP as a whole. 4 There are standards and guidelines that need to be followed. The standards and 5 guidelines were ignored. What makes it worth while is the context of the whole plan. 6 Use the guidelines and the text of the CPSP. The SMART Code was used to maximize 7 the site. Regarding the project itself— main problem is the suburban nature of the project. 8 Only 1 of 7 items from the Committee were addressed. Need to make something that 9 works for the community. First Street needs to be addressed with store fronts and 10 awnings as opposed to stoops, this is the intent of the Plan. I believe that is essential. 11 Need to be designed to be adaptable for commercial use. The A units are not set up to 12 have a business — needs to be rethought. Stoops should not be divided in half — does not 13 have a community feeling — does not get the point. Wayne Miller brought up good points 14 about pulling the balconies back, makes more useable space, especially on I" and F 15 Streets. The building is too big and monotonous. The visual corridor is totally lost. 16 Alleys are really driveways. The 2nd Street side is too tall. 17 18 It's too overpowering, needs to be scaled down considerably. Board and batten is not 19 called out in the Specific Plan. CPSP is specific about materials — is too suburban. No 20 asphalt roof. The archway and with the name is too suburban, words need to go. Arches 21 could be a nice place for public art. Don't love or hate them, but they are just asking to 22 become a gated enclave. Referred to pg. 7 of staff report regarding the use of gable and 23 shed roofs and building heights would range from 2-3 stories. The project needs to be 24 feathered in, especially on 2"6 Street. Did not see any reference to context. I don't agree 25 with Carey and Company's evaluation about Hamilton Cabinet Shop Lack of outdoor 26 amenities needs to be addressed. Very stark. 27 28 Committee Member Kosewic: Can't have 3 bedrooms without expecting kids. Do not 29 agree with the size of the units, density is ok though. Believe the parking is fair game for 30 everyone. First Street streetscape — want to see some commercial frontage. Do not see 31 the need for a loft. Unique flow of floor space. Cookie cutter design gives you no 32 latitude in the architecture. The awnings are important, particularly on 2"d Street side 33 because of the sun and any west facing elevation. Live/work is not a requirement, it is an 34 opportunity. There are no outdoor areas — no place for kids. Consider closing off part of 35 alley and use as outdoor space. Do not think you are realistic about your market. 36 Developer is tatting their typical product and craniming it into a small space. Metal 37 siding should have metal windows, need wide trim since it is historic. Wood siding can 38 have vinyl windows. Need a level of detail to have some historic nature. 39 40 Chair Rittenhouse: Support the for sale units. You have done an excellent job 41 manipulating the Smart Code. Density is okay in concept. Colors are rich. Massing is 42 driven by block plan of unit type. Need to break the mass down, tear off ends, and 43 compose the structure into unit type. Need 2 and 3 story elements. End conditions do not 44 need to be where they are now. Potentially open through the middle. Look at different 45 ways to park, concrete slab, and raise imits up. It is an urban site and the roofline is very 46 suburban. Attempt to mix the materials of the area. Agree with Wayne Miller that the a�- 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 SPARC Minutes January 27, 2005 balconies should be negative space. Look at scale of buildings across the street. The project is counter productive to buildings across the street. There is too much going on with the building. Do not agree with a redwood fence — is not appropriate here. Applicant needs to take a look at the questions from staff. Overall concept of what the district is needs to be looked at again. Do not believe we have the right to demand the Hamilton Shop to stay, however, it would be nice if you could work it in. Vin Smith: It is clear what we need to do architecturally. Treat 15L Street different than 2nd Street. This is an urban site and that is why there is no open space in the project. There are 2 parks within 2 blocks. Intent of Specific Plan is to have urban solutions. We won't return with an open space concept or tot lot. We considered Ms. Norman's plan — is not consistent with the Specific Plan. Regarding the Hamilton Cabinet shop — we are proposing to remove it. We may make materials useable for other projects. Do not believe we are manipulating the Smart Code. Think we can address the massing of the buildings. Regarding sight lines — do not think it means a break to see through the project. Comment about alleys — referred to Committee member Barrett's comment. Do not know if that was the Committee's consensus. Understand what we need to do architecturally, massing, conditions of roofs, simplify. Committee asked about story poles before returning to SPARC. Vin Smith: Need to see the building contextually and show a massing study instead of story poles. Committee Member Barrett: Something to show mass instead of height. Committee Member Kosewic: Want to see a video from a pedestrian perspective. Committee Member Mills: Don't think story poles would show the massing of the building. Committee Member Barrett: Want to see all four sides. It was the consensus of the Committee that the applicant would provide sections through the project site, buildings, and adjacent properties in order to provide context for the project. Story poles were determined not to be feasible. M/S Rittenhouse/Barrett to continue to a date uncertain. 0 a5 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ATTACHMENT CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Cotamtuiio,DevelopmentDeparbnent, PlanningDhisioa, 11 English Street, Petaluma, Gl 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fac (707) 778-4498 E-mail. planningCadpetalnma.ca. its DATE: TO: FROM: March 24, 2005 Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Kim Gordon, Associate Planner AGENDA ITEM NO. II SUBJECT: Request for direction on the design of the site and architectural plans for the lst Street Townhomes at 401 Second Street, APNs 008-126-003, 004, 005, 008, 010, 012 & 013, in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (File 403 -TSM -0212 -CR) REQUEST The applicant is requesting that SPARC provide direction on the revised site and architectural plans for the I" Street Townhomes. The applicant is not requesting a decision on the project at this meeting. BACKGROUND At the January 27, 2005 meeting, SPARC reviewed the site, architectural, and landscaping plans for the 15L Street Townhomes project (See Attachment B, 1/27/2005 Reduced Plans). At that meeting SPARC provided the following continents on the project and continued the project to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to respond to the comments from the Committee (See Attachment A, SPARC Minutes Excerpt): 1. Reconsider the scale and context of each building. Each building should relate to the scale and context of their individual streetseape. 2. Provide 2 and 3 story elements 3. Simplify the architecture- too busy 4. Reduce the number of materials used 5. Consider a mix of materials from the area 6. Design balconies as negative space 7. Break up the building on I" Street 8. Provide shopfronts & awnings on I" Street 9. Provide a visual corridor through the 15t Street building 10. Design to be adaptable to a commercial or live/work use In response to Committee continent, the applicant has made the following modifications to the project (See Attachments C & D, Reduced and Full Size Plans): Page 1 FIA, 1 2 1. The project has been reduced from 48 units to 44 units 3 4 A. Lot 1 reduced from 9 to 7 units 5 B. Lot 2 reduced from 15 to 14 units 6 C. Lots 3 reduced from 24 to 23 units 7 8 2. Anew unit type, Unit D, has been provided. 9 3. The number of materials has been reduced. 10 4. Shopfronts have been provided on I" Street and F Street. 11 5. The lofts have been removed. 12 6. Two different building designs are provided for the project. One design for Buildings 2 (F 13 Street) and 3 (151 Street). A different design for Building 1 (2"d Street). 14 15 A colors and materials board will be provided at the meeting. 16 17 STAFF ANALYSIS 18 19 Since the applicant is seelcing direction from the Committee before preparing complete plans, 20 staff has not conducted any analysis of the revisions. 21 22 PUBLIC NOTICE 23 24 On March 9, 2005, a notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier and sent to 25 interested parties and property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property. 26 27 28 ATTACHMENTS 29 30 A. Minutes Excerpt from 1/27/2005 SPARC meeting 31 B. Reduced Plans from 1/27/2005 meeting 32 C. Reduced Plans I V x 17" date stamped March 10, 2005 33 D. Full Size Plans (SPARC members only) date stamped March 10, 2005 34 35 36 s:\sparcVnemos\1" Street Townliomes ;I Page 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ATTACHMENT 5 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Conuaanity Development Department, Plmcning Division, 11 English Street, Petalanue, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fiv<(707) 778-4498 E-mail: p1ftnWngaci.peta1nma.ca.its DATE: July 28, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. I TO: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee FROM: Kim Gordon, Associate Plaimll—� SUBJECT: Request for approval of site, architectural and landscaping plans to construct four buildings consisting of 44 condominiums at 401 Second Street, APNs 008-126- 003, 004, 005, 008, 010, 012 & 013, in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (File #04 -TSM -0212 -CR) RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Committee review the project and determine if the project is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Should the Committee determine that the project is consistent with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and be in a position to approve the project, staff has included draft findings and draft conditions of approval (See Attachments A and B). BACKGROUND On January 27, 2005, the Committee reviewed the formal application for the 1St Street Townhomes project, took public comment, and provided direction to the applicant (See Minutes Excerpt, Attachment C). The applicant revised the project in response to Committee and public comments and requested an informal review of the project by the Committee in order to receive Committee direction and comment on the revised project (No decision was requested by the applicant). On March 24, 2005, the Committee reviewed the revisions to the project that had been made since the January 27, 2005 and provided direction to the applicant (See www.eityofpetaluma.net).� The Committee agreed that the architecture for Buildings One and Two was much improved compared to the previous submittals and provided the following comments to the applicant: Buildinlr Two • Consider providing commercial at the comer of F and 2 a Streets Page 1 I Building Three 2 • Reduce the repetition 3 • Remove the stucco 4 • Go all the way with the industrial design- exposed supports, piping, equipment, etc. 5 • Incorporate sliding or rollup doors over the windows 6 • Make second floor barn doors operable 7 • Provide a break in the building 8 • Use R.O. Schilling and Hunt and Behrens as examples 9 10 Miscellaneous 11 • Incorporate the materials from Hamilton Cabinet Shop into the project 12 • Design units to be convertible to live/work or commercial 13 • Consider a mix of 2, 3, and 4 stories 14 • Simplify the wave pattern of the parking lot paving 15 • Provide more cross sections with the next submittal 16 • Like the catwalks 17 18 The applicant has revised the project in response to the Committee's comments (See Attachment 19 D, Project Narrative). The revisions include the following: 20 21 Buildings Three/Four 22 • Building 3 has been divided into two detached buildings (Buildings 3 and 4). Building 3 23 has seven units and Building 4 sixteen units. 24 • Common open space/plaza area has been provided between Buildings 3 and 4. 25 • More metal, gable roof elements and metal roofing material have been incorporated into 26 Building 4. 27 • Stucco has been removed from Building 4. 28 29 Miscellaneous 30 • Corner units have been designed to be convertible to live/work or commercial space by 31 relocating the kitchens to the second floor and the bedrooms to the first floor. 32 • Bike racks, benches, trash containers, and planters have been provided in the public right 33 of way. 34 • The pattern of the pavers has been simplified. 35 • Comer units have a four story element and a loft/office option. 36 37 STAFF ANALYSIS 38 39 The following table provides a comparison of the project and the SMART Code requirements for 40 development in the Urban Center Zone. As indicated in the table below, the project is consistent 41 with the Urban Center requirements for lot area, lot coverage, building height, required number 42 0£ parking spaces, parking location, and density. The project may not be consistent with the 43 following requirements: 1) required street side setback (151 Street) for Buildings 3 and 4 on Lot 3 44 2) providing a minimum of 75% building frontage for Lot 3 along the 151 Street frontage 3) 45 providing a permitted building frontage type on Building 2 (151 and 2"d Street), Building 3 (1" 46 Street), and Building 4 (G Street) (See discussion and table below). Staff requests that the 47 Committee determine if the project is consistent with each of these items. Page 2 ILI =1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lot Area Lot Coverage Front Setback Side Setback Rear (except for alleys) Alley Setback Permitted Frontage Type Density- units/net acre Principal Bldg Front. Secondary Bldg Front. Building Height Parking Location Parking Required Smart Code 2,000 sq ft min 80% max 0'-10' 0'-10' 5' min to main bldg 15' to center line of alley Terrace/Light Court, Stoop, Forecourt, Shopfront & Awning, Gallery, Arcade 75% min. Frontage 35% min Frontage 2 stories min 4 stories max 3rd layer if open parking 1 per dwelling unit Building 1 Lot 1 (9 Units) 10,232 61.8% 5' to 8' 3' to 5' NA 15' to rear and side alleys Forecourt/ Terrace 39.9 N/A 2nd Street 90.1% 3 stories N/A- attached garage parking 1 per dwelling unit Building 2 Lot 2 (15 Units) 15,719 78.4% 151 & 2nd St. 3' to 8' F Street 5' to 10' 01913 15' to side alley Plan Tvoe 1-3 Shopfront Plan Tvoe D Forecourt/ Terrace Comer Unit Stoop 46.7 15L Street 80.38% F Street 96.96% 2"d Street 80.38% 3 stories with 4 stories at end unit N/A -attached garage parking 1 per dwelling unit Buildings 3 & 4 Lot 3 (23 Units) 35,393 57.7% G Street 5' to Bldg 4 1s1 Street 5' to 13' See Setbacks Below NA +15' to rear and side alleys Plan Tvoe 1-3 Shopfront Plan TVDe D Forecourt/ Terrace Corner Unit Stoop 40.4 See Bldg Frontage Below G Street 63.5% 3 stories N/A- attached garage parking J 1 per dwelling unit Building Frontage The Thoroughfare Map identifies the 151 Street project frontage as a Principal Frontage. On a principal frontage, the minimum building frontage is 75% (CPSP, Section 5.10, Thoroughfare Standards Key Map & CPSP, Section 4.1, Urban Standards Table). This requirement applies to Buildings 2, 3, and 4. Building 2 is consistent with this requirement. Staff requests that the Committee detennine if Buildings 3 and 4 on Lot 3 comply with this requirement. When Page 3 WR I Landscaoine and Fencing 2 The proposed landscaping plan includes street trees, landscaping at the back of the buildings in 3 the alleys, in front of the buildings in the private patio areas, in the new plaza area between 4 Buildings 3 and 4, and between the project site and 110 G Street and 421 2"d Street. The 5 proposed street trees are included on the City's Approved Street Trees List. The spacing and tree 6 wells are consistent with the planting recommendations for this species. 7 8 The landscaping plan includes a 6' wood fence with 2' of lattice. The fence would be located 9 along the property line separating the project site from 110 G Street and 421 2"d Street and 10 appears to end 5' from the back of the sidewalk on G Street and 2"d Street. The Central Petaluma 11 Specific Plan does not regulate fencing; therefore, fencing requirements default to the Zoning 12 Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires fencing located within the front setback to be a 13 maximum height of 42". The front setback would be measured from the front property line to the 14 front building wall. In addition, adequate site distance needs to be provided at the alley from G 15 Street. Staff has included draft conditions of approval requiring the fencing location to be 16 revised to comply with these requirements (See Attachment B, Draft Conditions of Approval). 17 18 Details of the trash cans, benches, planters, bike racks, greenscreen trellis, and pavers were 19 submitted as part of the landscaping plans (See Attachment G, Sheet Ll). 20 21 Materials. Details. and Colors 22 The materials for the buildings have been simplified to include metal siding and stucco and have 23 been identified on the elevations for each building (See Attachment G, Architectural Plans, 24 Sheets A9, A14, A19 and A24). The garage doors, sliding doors, awnings, catwalks, and railings 25 would be metal (See Attachment G, Architectural Plans, Sheets A9, A14, A19 and A24). The 26 details for the awnings, decking and catwalks, address signs, exterior lighting, and doors and 27 windows have been included as part of the architectural drawings (See Attachment G, Sheets 28 A26-35). The applicant will provide a colors and materials board at the meeting. 29 30 Two cross sections were also submitted as requested by the Committee at the March 2005 31 meeting (See Attachment G, Sheet A25). One cross section extends from the Tatum project on G 32 Street through the project site to the commercial building on F Street. The second section extends 33 from the building on the corner of 2nd and G Street through the Hamilton residence and Building 34 4 to the Haake Building at 425 1" Street. 35 36 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 37 38 The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality 39 Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182, Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan, of the 40 CEQA Guidelines, which exempts residential projects that are in conformity with a Specific Plan 41 when an EIR has been prepared. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 42 43 PUBLIC NOTICE 44 45 On July 13, 2005, a notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier and sent to 46 property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property. At the writing of this 47 staff report, no comments have been received. 48 31 Page 5 1 measuring from the property line, several areas exceed the 10" building setback allowed, 2 reducing the building frontage to 63%. When measuring from the back of the sidewalk easement, 3 the building frontage is 86%. If the measurement is taken from the property line to the wall of 4 the patio area, the building frontage is also 86%. Staff requests that the Committee detenninc if 5 Lot 3 is consistent with the minimum percentage of building frontage required. 6 7 The Thoroughfare Map identifies 2"d, F and G Streets as Secondary Frontage. On a secondary 8 frontage the minimum building frontage is 35% (CPSP, Section 5.10, Thoroughfare Standards 9 Key Map & CPSP, Section 4.1, Urban Standards Table). Buildings 1, 2 and 4 are consistent to with this requirement. This requirement does not apply to Building 3. 11 12 Setbacks 13 Parts of Buildings 3 and 4 exceed the 10' maximum side setback when measuring from the 151 14 Street property line to the building wall at the back of the patio area. When measuring from the 15 back of the sidewalk easement to the building wall at the back of the patio area or from the 16 property line to the exterior wall of the patio area, the building setback complies with the setback 17 range (See Building Frontage Discussion Above). Staff requests that the Committee determine if 18 Buildings 3 and 4 comply with the setback requirement. 19 20 Frontage Type 21 The project provides three different types of frontage, the terrace/light court, shopfront, and 22 stoop. Buildings 2, 3 and 4 may not be consistent with the frontage type requirement. These 23 buildings present end or side conditions to the street rather than a required street frontage type. 24 However, Lot 2 has three street frontages (IS` end and F Streets) and Lot 3 has two street 25 frontages (15' and G Street). Staff requests that the Committee determine if the design is 26 consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan for frontage types. 27 28 Reunited Parking and Location of Parking Spaces 29 The revised plan continues to provide one parking space per unit, located in a private garage, as 30 required by the SMART Code (CPSP, Section 4.1, Urban Standards Table). Twenty-nine on 31 street parking spaces would be located along the project frontage. On street parking spaces 32 located along the project's frontage may also be counted toward fulfilling the project's parking 33 requirement (CPSP, Page 37, Section 6.10.010(B2)). Therefore, the project provides 73 on and 34 off street parking spaces, which exceeds the parking required for the project. 35 36 Open parking is allowed only in designated layers (CPSP, Page 37, Section 6.10.020, & Page 70, 37 Parking Layer Definition). The project provides parking in attached private garages, rather than 38 open parking. Therefore, the location of the onsite parking appears to be consistent with the 39 SMART Cade. 40 41 Site circulation acrd maneuvering was reviewed by W -Trans as pari of the traffic study. In order 42 for the average passenger vehicle to enter the driveway with one maneuver, the report indicates 43 that the garage door would need to be 9' wide. The width of the garage doors on the civil and 44 architectural plans is 8'. Staff has included a draft condition to increase the width of the garage 45 door to 9' 46 47 Landscapinu and Fencing 48 The proposed landscaping plan includes street trees, landscaping at the back of the buildings in Page 4 5a r 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 DECISION TIMELINE This application was received by the Community Development Department on April 19, 2004. The application was complete on December 30, 2004. Pursuant to the terms of the Permit Streamlining Act, a decision must be made within 60 days of the project being deemed complete. The applicant has already requested a one-time extension. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Site Plan and Architectural Review Findings B. Draft Site Plan and Architectural Conditions of Approval C. SPARC Minutes Excerpt from January 27, 2005 D. Narrative from Frank Denney date stamped July 13, 2005 E. Zoning Setback Exhibit date stamped July 14, 2005 F. Reduced Plans (Architectural, Site, Landscaping) date stamped July 13 and 15, 2005 G. Full Size Architectural, Site and Landscaping Plans (SPARC Members Only) date stamped July 13 and 15, 2005 Page 6 RM ATTACHMENT 6 ,, .T._ . . A CEQA Review and Evaluation for Significance, Cochrane Lumber Company Planing Mill Shed (Hamilton Mill and Cabinets), 401 Second Street, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California, Township 5N, Range 7W, within former Petaluma Rancho Assessor Parcel 008-126-013 Prepared for: Cobblestone Homes, Inc. 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Prepared by: Susan M. Clark, Architectural Historian Holly L. Hoods, Associate Historian Clark Historic Resource Consultants, Inc. 725 Monroe St. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (707)577-8393 August 2004 't. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRNP Status Code 8Z- Found ineligible for National Register. California Register or local designation through survev evaluation. Other Listings Central Petaluma Soecific Plan. adopted 200 3 Review Code 6Z Reviewer Carev and Comoanv Date 2001 Pagel of 12 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber Comoanv Planino Mill Shed P1. Other Identifier: Hamilton Mill and Cabinets *P2. Location: o Not for Publication In Unrestricted *a. County Sonoma and (P2c, Pte, and P2b or Ptd. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) (Unsectioned lands within Petaluma Rancho) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Petaluma Date 1953 (Dhotorevised 1968) T 5N ; R 7W ; _ 1f4 of _ 114 of Sec _; MDM B.M. c. Address 401 Second Street City Petaluma Zip 94952 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone _, T mEt _, mN e. lather Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Assessor's Parcel Number 008-126-013 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The Study Area is a level, treeless .03 -acre parcel that is located one block south of the Petaluma River, at the northeast corner of Second and F streets in central Petaluma, southern Sonoma County. The rectangular property measures 200' x 66,' and has a single wood -frame building on it that fronts Second Street. The building was built in 1922 to house the planing mill of the Cochrane Lumber Company, Since 1948, it has served as a cabinet manufacturing shop for two owners of Hamilton Mill and Cabinets. The property lies within the boundaries of the Riverfront Warehouse District, a potential (See Continuation Sheet, pg. 2) P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP8: 1-3 Storey commercial b(do.: HP9: Industrial bidq. *P4. Resources Present: ® Building o Structure to Object o Site ❑ District rd Element of District o Other P5b. Description of Photo: W and S elevations of former sianinamill shed. Photo viewtoward NE. April 2004. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources Historic o Prehistoric ❑ Both Built 1922, Der Tuomev. History of Sonoma County, California, vol. II, (1926). and Dec.1923 Sanborn map. *P7. Owner and Address: Jim Nelson 6807 Quail Brooks Ln. Pennorove. CA *P8. Recorded by: Susan M. Clark and Holiv L. Hoods Clark Historic Resource Consultants, Inc 725 Monroe Street Santa Rosa. CA 95404 � ..S.v�_G'M;atr. 5�..,.�3:Ti N�� - sE Jc �a,.2 P'"ziuY4, an. 'i3'i ,�. t�T`;'L .7: _ - � • ' "• *Attachments: ❑NONE © Location Map ® Continuation Sheet © Building, Structure, and Object Record oArchaeologicai Record ❑District Record ol-inear Feature Record °Milling Station Record oRock Art Record °Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record o Other (List): 3� CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. oPR 523A (vs State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 2 of 12 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber Comoanv Planino Mill Shed *Recorded bv: Susan M. Clark and Holly L. Hoods *Date Aucust 2004 ® Continuation ❑ Update *P3a. Description (Continued from pg. 1) local historic district, outlined in the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan, bounded by D Street to the north, McNear Hill to the south, the Petaluma River to the east and Petaluma Boulevard South to the west). The neighborhood is mixed-use in character, with roughly half of the buildings devoted to industrial functions. The Study Area block is bounded by F Street, Second Street, G Street and First Street; six of the nine parcels in the block are vacant. The predominant architectural style within this area could be best described as metal warehouse buildings. (Former) Planino Mill Shed The one -storey, wood -frame rectangular building measures 92'x 68,' and consists of two parallel rectangular volumes covered by a pair of medium -pitched gable roofs. Both roofs are covered with composition shingles. The building has board and batten siding, 10' walls, and an assortment of windows of varying sizes with simple wood surrounds. The west elevation is pierced by four vertical rectangular four -light windows and two horizontal rectangular two -light windows. The east elevation includes two vertical rectangular two -light windows, two vertical rectangular four -light windows and one horizontal rectangular two -light window. The former mill shed has paired sliding doors on the south elevation. A wooden and metal canopy, covered with corrugated metal, projects 8' from the south elevation. A rectangular wooden sign for "Hamilton Mill and Cabinets" is displayed atop the southwest edge of the canopy. The building is in fair condition, with portions of the ridge line along the west side of the building showing signs of sagging. Alterations The original mill shed is shown in photographs and on the 1923 Sanborn map as having a broad canopy that extended across the full width of the front (south elevation) of the building and extended shelter over the edge of the street. By 1949, this canopy had been replaced by a narrower canopy (8' x 52') which did not extend over the street. The County Assessor industrial building record for the property shows that the second canopy was altered again by 1965 when an office was created at the southwest (front) corner of the building. The full -width canopy was altered at its west end when 12 feet of it were removed to accommodate the office. 64' -24' Dirt -floor '9' Rdi8od .wood floor 16, CfCL' 't2' 20' 4'o i2: u Canopy C,,.. i Diagram and dimensions of 401 Second Street building, as depicted on the County Assessor industrial building record. 3� CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. DPR 523L (1195) State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION MRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 12 `Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber ComDanv Planinq Mill Shed 'Recorded by: Susan M. Clark and Hollv L. Hoods "Date August 2004 m Continuation ❑ Update South elevation of the former Cochrane Lumber Company planing mill shed. The building has been used as a cabinet shop by Hamilton Mill and Cabinets since 1948. View toward north, Susan Clark photo, April 2004. South and east elevations of subject building. View toward northwest, Susan Clark photo, April 2004. CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. q DPR 523L (1195) State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 12 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorded Cochrane Lumber ComDanv Planino Mill Shed *Recorded by: Susan M. Clark and Holiv L. Hoods *Date August 2004 ED Continuation 0 Update Cochrane Lumber Company planing mill shed and lumber yard at 401 Second Street, Petaluma. This 1920s photo was taken facing northwest, and shows the south and east elevations of the mill shed, now occupied by the Hamilton Cabinet shop. The woad -frame front canopy, the lumber yard and the trees that once flanked the building are no longer present in 2004. Two additional Cochrane Lumber Company buildings and a second lumber yard–now removed --were located across the street at 408 Second Street, forming an industrial complex that comprised half the block. WV CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. DPR 523L it 195) State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 12 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber Comoanv Planinq Mill Shed 'Recorded by: Susan M. Clark and Holiv L. Hoods *Date August 2004 0 Continuation 0 Update 1 +' S29 L25 N 14 t� I a LO Gi 2 NO. IL til TR 14T 6vt0.:• This December 1923 Sanborn map showed the subject building in place at 401 Second Street, functioning as a planing mill shed in a lumber yard. To the north and east of the mill shed were stacks of lumber, a network of driveways and an open lumber shed. The Cochrane Lumber Company's office, additional lumber yard, and a sash and door storage building were located across the street at 408 Second Street. 31 CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. DPR 523L (1195) - i S3. r---,� I P'i F'I a i� I ibi I I I m i I t I 1 I I I J 1 14T 6vt0.:• This December 1923 Sanborn map showed the subject building in place at 401 Second Street, functioning as a planing mill shed in a lumber yard. To the north and east of the mill shed were stacks of lumber, a network of driveways and an open lumber shed. The Cochrane Lumber Company's office, additional lumber yard, and a sash and door storage building were located across the street at 408 Second Street. 31 CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. DPR 523L (1195) State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 6 of 12 `Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber Comoanv Planino Mill Shed *Recorded by: Susan M. Clark and Hollv L. Hoods *Date Auaust 2004 ® Continuation 0 Update 2t 8. AL �.,' E e.UM6EP C eoi ilk i_{zl N � 0 ----------, 7T This September 1949 Sanborn map showed the subject building still in place at 401 Second Street, but it was no longer identified as a planing mill. By 1948, the building was being used by Bill Hamilton as Hamilton's Mill and Cabinets, identified here as "woodworking and storage." The building's original canopy that projected into the street had been replaced by a shorter (narrower) front canopy. To the north and east of the subject building was the same lumberyard configuration shown on the 1923 Sanborn map. The Cochrane Lumber Company interests were taken over by the Sterling Lumber Company in 1935. C e 0.9 C- L.�i Ci 35 n• pig � �y 1 C 675 h C COC%r17HN � II, L 2t 8. AL �.,' E e.UM6EP C eoi ilk i_{zl N � 0 ----------, 7T This September 1949 Sanborn map showed the subject building still in place at 401 Second Street, but it was no longer identified as a planing mill. By 1948, the building was being used by Bill Hamilton as Hamilton's Mill and Cabinets, identified here as "woodworking and storage." The building's original canopy that projected into the street had been replaced by a shorter (narrower) front canopy. To the north and east of the subject building was the same lumberyard configuration shown on the 1923 Sanborn map. The Cochrane Lumber Company interests were taken over by the Sterling Lumber Company in 1935. C y f h C COC%r17HN � II, CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. DPR 523L (1/95) 01 State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD *NRNP Status Code 6Z : Found ineliaible for National Reoister. California Reaister or local desionation throuah survev evaluation Page 7 of 12 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder Cochrane Lumber Comoanv Planino Mill Shed B1. Historic Name: same as above B2. Common Name: Hamilton Mill and Cabinets B3. Original Use: lumber comoanv Dlanina mill shed B4. Present Use: cabinet shoo *B5. Architectural Style: No stvle *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The mill shed was built in 1922. Sanborn maps, photographs and County Assessor records show several alterations to the fagade: the replacement of the front canopy and creation of a front office. The changes date to 1948 and approximately 1965. Two trees that flanked the building have been removed, as has the former lumber yard next door to the Study Area. Across the street, two former lumber company buildings and a lumber yard have also been removed. *B7. Moved? to No oYes ❑Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: No traces remain of the two additional lumber company buildings and two lumber yards that formed a half block industrial complex in the 1920s -1940s. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Themes Riverfront Warehouse District (Industrial and Commercial Development) Area Petaluma, Sonoma Countv Period of Significance 1922-1956 Property Type Lumber mill shed/cabinet shoo Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The one -storey wood -frame building at 401 Second Street was built in 1922 as a planing mill shed for the Cochrane Lumber Company. The company was founded in August 1922 by Werter W. Cochrane and his son Herbert M., who had previously established and sold a small sawmill in Willits. Before opening the lumber company in Petaluma, Werter Cochrane built a box factory in 1909, which he operated until 1921. Herbert lived with his parents and worked as a (See Continuation sheet, pg. 8) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6:1-3storevcommercial bldo'HP8:Industrial bldo. *B12. References: Sonoma County Assessor industrial building record and assessor's parcel map. Jim Nelson, property owner. April 2004 interview with Holly Hoods, Clark Historic Resource Consultants, Inc. (See Continuation sheet, pg. 11) B13. Remarks: The subject building at 401 Second Street is not currently listed in the National Register or the California Register, but it was listed in the inventory of potentially historic buildings in the Riverfront Warehouse area in the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Carey and Company, authors of the historic preservation chapter in the Specific Plan, identified the 1922 planing mill building as a c. 1941 wood shed and assigned the building a "67" ranking. "6Z" indicates that the property was found ineligible for the National Register ( i d" .l N orthe California Register or local designation through survey evaluation. *B14. Evaluator: Susan M. Clark and Hollv L. Hoods_ I A€ J Clark Historic Resource Consultants. Inc. 725 Monroe St. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 ....../ 1st sr. _ (707) 577-8393 *Date of Evaluation: Auaust 2004 (This space reserved for official comments.) F SI vI�V�� n rl St. '�"M 2nd St. L Petaluma Blvd. South , r CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. 4-1 State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 8 of 12 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber Comoanv Planino Mill Shed "Recorded lav: Susan M. Clark and Holly L. Hoods `Date Auoust 2004 @ Continuation ❑ Update B10. Significance (Continued from pg. 7) shipping clerk at a feed mill before opening the lumber company with his father. TR Y US COCHRANE COMPANY TELEPHONE 202 9ol.,Second St. Petaluma, Col. 1924 Advertisement in Polk's Petaluma City Directory. The 1923 Sanborn map (see pg. 5 of this evaluation) shows that the large Cochrane lumberyard had additional buildings and stacks of milled lumber on both sides of Second street. A profile of Warier Cochrane in Tuomey's History of Sonoma County described the Cochrane Lumber firm in 1926: Among Petaluma's essential industries is the targe lumberplant of which Werter W. Cochrane is one of the owners and supporters. On the 1" of August 1922, the Cochrane Lumber Company was organized by W.W. and H.M_ Cochrane... Their present plant covers about one and a half acres and has a frontage of two hundred feet on Second Street. The firm does general mill work and also handles Pabco paints, Yale hardware and Duro plaster board, carrying practically everything needed forthe construction of a home. The business is a great convenience to builders, who are able to purchase all of their supplies from one concern, and under the expert direction of the men at its head, the industry is enjoying a rapid growth. Necessary for the construction and development of a town, lumber companies were among Petaluma's oldest established industries. Petaluma's first lumber company was founded by Samuel J. Hopkins in 1852 at the comer of Main (Petaluma Blvd.) and B streets. By 1867, the town was big enough to support a second planing mill and lumber yard at 200 E. Washington Street, built by John Cavanagh. J.L. Camm and Edward Hedges established another lumberyard and planing mill in 1880. Camm and Hedges produced finished building material of all kinds and made a specialty of churns, butter molds, dairy fixtures and other useful items for Petaluma's dairy farmers and chicken ranchers. S. Rasmussen also opened the Centennial Planing Mill at First and D streets by 1884. At the turn of the 201' Century, bull teams hauled lumber down the coast from Gualala, and horse teams were used for local delivery. Industrial businesses flourished, particularly nearthe riverfront. A description of Petaluma's thriving industries in the 1897 Sonoma County Atlas included: the Carlson -Currier Silk Mill (the largest and most extensive plant of its kinds west of the Rocky Mountains), the Petaluma Incubator Factory, the Western Refrigerating Company, two planing mills, several wagon factory, a large boot and shoe factory and a pickle factory. By 1922, Cochrane Lumber Company joined Cavanagh Lumber Company, Dresbach Lumber Company, and Camm and Hedges to serve the growing city's construction needs. By the early 1930s, Petaluma featured four lumber yards, two of which had been in operation since the late 1800s. in 1935, the Sterling Lumber Company purchased most of the interests and property of the Cochrane Lumber Company from Herb Cochrane. Shortly afterward, in 1937, the Diamond Match Company bought out the Camm and Hedges lumber firm. H.M. Cochrane lived with his wife and family at 245 Keokuk, and continued to own and work out of the Study Area building as a roofer for the next decade. in 1948, Cochrane retired, and soon sold the remaining subject parcel at the corner of Second and F streets to William Hamilton to open a woodworking and cabinet shop. Hamilton was a self-taught cabinet maker who reportedly began his woodworking career building chicken coops. (See Continuation Sheet, pg. 9) r� �v� CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. DPR 523L (1195) State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FiRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 12 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber Comcanv Planino Mill Shed *Recorded tr : Susan M. Clark and Holiv L. Hoods *pate Auaust 2004 E Continuation o Update BID. Significance (Continued from pg. 8) Jim Nelson, the current property owner, worked for Hamilton for several years, and bought the business and building from him six years ago. Nelson continues to operate the company under the name "Hamilton Mill and Cabinets." He is one of 21 cabinet makers in Petaluma in 2004, according to the current directory listings. Reaulatory Context for Evaluation of Historical and Architectural Significance of Subject Prooerty The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that cultural resources be considered during the environmental review process. Section 15064.5(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act establishes the California Register of Historical Resources Criteria for Evaluation as the standards to be used for historical and architectural evaluation or properties to determine significance. According to the guidelines of the California Register Criteria for Evaluation, a building, structure or object is considered to be an historically significant resource if it is at least 50 years old, possesses integrity, and meets one or more of the following criteria: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or 2) Is associated with the productive lives of individuals significant in local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the united States; or 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to prehistory or history. (This is generally applied to archaeological sites.) The seven aspects of integrity to be considered in evaluating a potentially historic building are: location, setting, feeling, design, materials, workmanship and association. A property must retain sufficient integrity in its appearance to convey its important historical associations from its period of significance. Preserving significant historic resources in Petaluma is a key tenet of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, adopted bythe City of Petaluma in June 2003. The consulting firm, Carey and Company, was hired by the City of Petaluma in 2001 to conduct a survey of the existing conditions and historic features to make a basic (preliminary) determination of potential historically significant resources within the Specific Plan area. At that time, the architectural historians of Carey and Company did not perform site-specific research, and did not recognize the subject building at 401 Second Street as a 1922 planing mill shed. At the same time the Study Area building was identified as a c. 1941 "wood shed' and as such, assigned a ranking of 61 "ineligible for inclusion in the National Register, California Register or local listing" Carey and Company suggested that Petaluma might establish a locally -designated Riverfront Warehouse historic district, recognizing the concentration of industrial and agricultural resources–particularly warehouses–near the River with a unify I ng historic context. The proposed Riverfront Warehouse District was characterized as: mixed use in character with an almost equal amount of residential and industrial resources. Replacing earlier warehouses, the existing warehouses lining the bank of the Petaluma River were built in the early 20Century during the Petaluma poultry business boom. Access to the warehouses occurred on the riverside and from First Street. When the Petaluma and Santa Rosa Railroad Track was laid on First Street in 1929, the warehouse entrances oriented towards horse-drawn business transferred to rail -oriented operations. Several other industrial enterprises are scattered within the area. In keeping with other agriculturallndustrial resources of this type in Petaluma, the warehouses are gabled, corrugated metal with wood frame construction or masonry. Warehouses, manufacturing buildings and supporting uses such as the weighing station can be found along and immediately back from the Petaluma River. These properties form a complex of related uses that have their origins in the 1B00s, but which remain today. (See Continuation Sheet, pg. 10) CLARY HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. DPR 523L (1195) State of California — The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 10 of 12 `Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber Comoanv Planing Mill Shed 'Recorded bv: Susan M. Clark and Hollv Hoods `Date Aueust 2004 E Continuation ❑ Update B10. Significance (continued from pg. 8) Carey and Company listed the addresses of potentially contributing industrial/commercial historic resources in the proposed Riverfront Warehouse district. The buildings included: 200 First Street, 209 First Street, 219 First Street, 301 First Street, 317 First Street, 419 First Street, 425 First Street, 429-521 First Street, 223 Second Street, 519-521 Second Street and 200 G Street. Though located in the mixed-use riverfront neighborhood, the Study Area building at 401 Second Street was not found by Carey and Company to merit inclusion as a contributor to the potential Riverfront Warehouse district, distinguished by its continuity, setting, urban design features, and integrity. According to Petaluma Assistant Planner Kim Gordon in a July 2004 telephone interview with Clark Historic Resource Consultants, Inc., most of the buildings that were identified by Carey and Company as potential contributors to the proposed Riverfront Warehouse historic district were approved for demolition by the City of Petaluma when the Petaluma Theater District was recently approved. In August 2004, it appears that the City has opted to support the redevelopment of the riverfront over the preservation and establishment of an historic warehouse district next to the Petaluma River, In July 2004, corrugated metal warehouses at 209 First Street, 219 First Street and 301 First Street, dating from 1910, were removed. A 1930s metal warehouse at 319 First Street is being extensively remodeled. In 2004, it appears to be highly unlikely that a Riverfront Warehouse historic district will be established in Petaluma. Cobblestone Homes has applied for a tentative subdivision map for the First Street Townhouse Project, located at First and Second Streets between F and G streets, APNs 006-126-003, 004, 005, 008, 010, 012, and 013 within the planning area of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. The subject building is proposed to be demolished under a plan to develop multi -family housing units on the site. Since Carey and Company had previously rated the building as a 6Z, the Petaluma Community Development Department did not originally require a historical evaluation of the building as part of the environmental review priorto approving its demolition. On June 22, 2004, Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner, received a letter from local historian Katherine Rinehart indicating that the Hamilton Cabinet building may be historically significant, and should be evaluated by a qualified architectural historian. Since then, Clark Historic Resource Consultants, Inc. (CHRC) was hired to evaluate the subject building for historical and architectural significance. This evaluation is part of the environmental review required by the City of Petaluma (as per correspondence to Vin Smith by Kim Gordon, dated June 29, 2004), prior to approval of the proposed townhouse project. The enclosed documentation presents the results of the CHRC evaluation of historical and architectural significance of the Study Area building. Findinas and Recommendations: The subject building at 401 Second Street is not individually eligible for inclusion in the California Register, the National Register or local designation. The building has lost integrity of setting, feeling, design, materials, workmanship and association to convey its historical use as a planing mill shed within a large commercial lumber company during the 1920s and 1930s. It retains only its location. The front of the building was remodeled in the 1940s, and the setting has been greatly altered, as evinced by 1920s photographic and Sanborn map documentation. In 1922. the Cochrane Lumber Company formed an industrial complex that comprised half the block on Second Street -both sides -between F and G streets. in 2004, the single surviving altered planing mill building, without the lumberyards, driveways, or additional lumber company buildings, does not present the historical appearance of an early 20'" century commercial lumber company. The fact that the experienced architectural historians of Carey and Company did not recognize it as a 1920s planing mill by its appearance speaks volumes. They identified it as a circa 1941 wood shed. In her June 2004 letter to Kim Gordon, Katherine Rinehart referred to the subject building as "an early 201" century wood frame warehouse," but CHRC research found that the building has never actually been used as a warehouse. it has only been used as a planing mill shed and a cabinet shop. It does retain its 1948-1950s appearance -and association -as a cabinet shop, which is not a significant association under Criterion 1. The building is not associated with individuals significant in local, state or national history (Criterion 2). The Cochranes (and later, William Hamilton) were respected businessmen in Petaluma, buttheydo notmeetthe California Register's high threshold for significance. The building does not represent the work of a master craftsman or possess high artistic values under Criterion 3. (See Continuation Sheet, pg. 11) 1� CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. DPR 523L (1195) State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 11 of 12 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber Corri Planino Mill Shed 'Recorded bv: Susan M. Clark and Hollv Hoods *Date Auoust 2004 © Continuation ❑ Update B10. Significance, (continued from pg. 10) Nevertheless, Katherine Rinehart has requested that Cobblestone Homes be encouraged to adaptively reuse the Hamilton Cabinet Shop building and incorporate it into the development. CHRC likewise encourages the adaptive reuse of historic resources into a current project. However, in this case the building does not meet the criteria for qualifying as an historic resource, and a requirement to readapt a building simply because of its age would put undue burden on the project. B12. References: (Continued from pg. 7) Bird's Eye Map of Petaluma, 1871 and 1884. Carey and Company. Central Petaluma Specific Plan. 2003. Finley, Ernest Latimer. History of Sonoma County, California: 1937 Golden Gate Bridge Edition. (Press Democrat Publishing Co.: Santa Rosa, 1937). Gordon, Kim. Assistant Planner, City of Petaluma. Interview with Holly Hoods, Clark Historic Resource Consultants, Inc. Heig, Adair. History of Petaluma, a California River Town (Scottwall Associates: Petaluma, 1982). Munro -Frasier, J.P. Pen Pictures From the Garden of the World, Sonoma County, California. (Alley, Bowen and Co.: San Francisco, 1889). Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company. Telephone Directory of Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino Counties, 1937; 1947; 1951; 1954. Petaluma Argus -Courier. August 1955 Centennial Edition. "Building Materials." Petaluma Museum subject and historical photograph archives. Polk's Petaluma City Directory, 1924, 1939. Reynolds and Proctor_ Illustrated Atlas of Sonoma County, California. 1897. Rinehart, Katherine, Petaluma historian. Interview with Holly Hoods, Clark Historic Resource Consultants, Inc. Sanborn Map Company. Fire Insurance Maps of Petaluma, 1910, 1923, 1949. Sonoma County Library historical photograph index and subject index, "Lumber mills." Sonoma County Recorder's Office granteelgrantor index. Breadboard maps and block books. Sonoma Title Company. "Abstract of Title, Lots 43 and 44 in Petaluma. Described in deeds from Dora Nauert to Frederick A. Nauert," 1926. Thompson, Thomas H. Historical Atlas Map of Sonoma County, California. 1877. Tuomey, Honoria. "Werter W. Cochrane," History of Sonoma County, California. Vol. II. (Historical Record Co.: Los Angeles, 1926). United States Geological Survey. Petaluma, California Quadrangle. 1953 (photorevised 1968). United States Census, "Petaluma City," Sonoma County, California. 1920, 1930. t / CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. OPR 523L (1195) /�j State of California — The Resour_ s Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 12 of 12 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Cochrane Lumber COmDanv Planino Mill Shed *Map Name: Petaluma Quadranale *Scale: see scale bar below *Date of map: 1953 (Dhotorevised 1968) 38°1954", 1;'1 A L U Al A I MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 -4000 FEET Printed from TOPOI @1997 Wildflower Productions (www tono.com) USGS topographic map of the Study Area, 401 Second Street, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. CLARK HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. CAREY & CO INC. ARCHITECTURE October 28, 2004 Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner Community Development Department City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 ATTACHMENT Z RE: Peer Review of "A CEQA Review and Evaluation for Significance, Cochrane Lumber Company Planing Mill Shed (Hamilton Mill and Cabinets), 401 Second Street, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California, Township 5N, Range 7W, within former Petaluma Rancho Assessor Parcel 008.126.013" (Clark Historic Resource Consultants, August 2004) Dear Ms. Gordon: At your request, Carey & Co. has conducted a peer review of the historic resource evaluation report entitled, "A CEQA Review and Evaluation for Significance, Cochrane Lumber Company Planing Mill Shed (Hamilton Mill and Cabinets), 401 Second Street, Petaluma, Sonoma County, California, Township 5N, Range 7W, within former Petaluma Rancho Assessor Parcel 008-126-013." This report was written by Susan M. Clark and Holly L. Hoods of Clark Historic Resource Consultants and is dated August 2004. Hereafter this report will be referred to as the "Clark Report." Carey & Co. has undertaken a number of projects within the City of Petaluma. Most recently, these include the Central Petaluma Specific Plan & Environmental Impact Report, 6I1 Baker Street historic resource evaluation, 700 West Street historic resource evaluation, evaluations of properties owned by Basin Street Properties, Paula Lane Subdivision evaluation peer review, St. Vincent's Elementary School evaluation peer review, the Sweed Street historic building survey report, and 415 Upham Street evaluation peer review. This peer review was prepared by Sarah M. Dreller, architectural historian, a qualified historic preservation professional as defined by the United States Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. The project coordinator was Hisashi B. Sugaya, AICP, a qualified historic preservation professional as defined by the draft United States Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. Carey & Co.'s founder and president is historical architect Alice Ross Carey. As part of this undertaking you asked us to provide three separate opinions. The first concerns the Clark Report's conclusion that the subject property is not eligible for individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and also is not eligible for local historic designation. In response, it is our professional opinion that the Clark Report's evaluation contains some flaws, but its ultimate conclusion is valid. Carey & Co. believes that if the subject property were to be found historically significant for its association with important events and/or people and/or for its architectural distinction, alterations that have occurred to property's setting, feeling, design, and association would be found to have permanently compromised its integrity. These -f� Old Engine Cu. N" 2 460 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94108 415.773.0773 f.415-773.1773 Carey&Cn Inc. October 28, 2004 Peer Review of the Clark Reporr Page 2 modifications include the extensive truncation of the original front canopy, the construction of an office at the southwest comer, the removal of all of the original property's site features (lumber sheds, driveways, etc.) that gave the building its context, and the elimination of any association with the Cochrane family. Although we agree with the Clark Report's ultimate conclusion, we feel it is our responsibility to briefly describe the document's shortcomings as part of this peer review. First, the "Findings and Recommendations" section begins with a discussion of integrity and then evaluates the property for significance. According to National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NPS, 1997), integrity is defined as "the ability of a property to convey its significance" and, as a result, can only be assessed after historic significance has been established (p. 44-45). Since the Clark Report found the subject property to have no historical significance, the document provides itself with no basis on which integrity can be analyzed. Second, the Clark Report does not provide sufficient evidence to support its conclusion that the subject property is not historically significant under criterion 2, association with important individuals. Specifically, the Clark Report describes Wetter Cochrane as just one of the "respected businessmen" historically associated with the subject property (p. 10) but the profile of him quoted by the authors suggests that he played a direct role in the development of the construction industry in Petaluma by catering to all of builders' supply needs (p. 8). Since in our opinion the Clark Report's bibliography represents a thorough set of primary and secondary source materials, it is possible that the authors researched Cochrane and decided that he did not, in fact, have a significant impact on Petlauma's history. As presented in the document, however, the criterion 2 argument does not reflect a full investigation of Cochrane's life and work. This said, it is Carey & Co.'s opinion that even if the subject property had been found historically significance under criterion 2, the alterations that have occurred over time would have been found to have permanently compromised its integrity. Finally, it should be noted that the document's period of significance is indicated as 1922-1956 (p. 7). Because this period of significance ends within 50 years of the present, the subject property should have been evaluated according to the NRHP's and CRHR's considerations for properties less than 50 years old. This confusion could have been avoided by ending the period of significance before 1954. One valid option would have been 1922.1935, the years when the Clark Report says Cochrane owned the property and therefore would have been responsible for the property's welfare. The second opinion you asked us to provide concerns the Clark Report's assertion that "it appears to be highly unlikely that a Riverfront Warehouse historic district will be established in Petaluma" (p. 10). Since there are a number of political and economic factors that can influence the creation of a historic district, Carey & Cc is not able to comment on the likelihood that Petaluma will establish a Riverfront Warehouse historic district. However, it is our opinion that because a district is defined as a geographic area possessing "a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity" of associated resources (National Register Bulletin #15, P. 5), the removal or substantial alteration of four of the west half's seven original contributors represents a clear insult to the integrity of that side of the district. These changes do not appear to have impacted the density of contributing resources located toward the eastern half of the potential district. This is particularly apparent with the rail spur and the structures at 419, 425, 429, and 521 First Street, which together still convey the area's history as a warehouse/light industry zone. This suggests that a riverfront warehouse historic district may still be possible, albeit much reduced in size and scope. 910 Carey & Co. Inc Pcer Review of rhe Clark Report October 28, 2094 Page 3 The final opinion you asked us to provide concerns the subject property's ability to contribute to a historic district, if that district remains viable in light of the changes taking place in the area. As discussed above, it is Carey & Co.'s opinion that a riverfront warehouse historic district may still be viable if its boundaries are revised to include some or all of the contributors in the eastern half of the original district. However, it is also our opinion that the subject property is not located close enough to the potential district's eastern contributors to merit inclusion within the revised district boundaries. Using the current identified contributing resources as a guide, the revised district boundaries would be drawn along the west edge of 419 First Street, then across the street and south along the west edges of 110 and 200 G Street. Extending the boundaries of the revised potential district area all the way to the intersection of Second and F Streets in order to include the subject property would require the inclusion of 6-7 additional properties, all of which would be non -contributors. This would dilute the potential district's "concentration, linkage, or continuity" of associated resources, a key component of the definition of a district as discussed above. Theoretically it would be possible to manipulate the boundaries to include only the subject property and avoid the intervening non-contributing properties, however this practice is generally frowned upon by historic preservation professionals. We hope that this letter answers your questions about the Clark Report. Please be sure to contact us if you have any comments or additional questions. Respectfully, WRVJt*LP Sarah M. Dreller Architectural Historian Hisashi B. Sugaya, AICP Project Coordinator I ATTACHMENT 8 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PETALUMA DENYING THE APPEAL BY PATRICIA TUTTLE BROWN OF THE DECISION BY THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE 11T STREET TOWNHOMES PROJECT AT 401 SECOND STREET WHEREAS, on January 27, 2005 and July 28, 2005, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee of the City of Petaluma held public hearings to consider Cobblestone Homes application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the I" Street Townhomes project and associated site and frontage improvements at 401 Second Street, APNs 008-126-003, 004, 005, 008, 010, 012 & 013. WHEREAS, on July 28, 2005, after considering the public testimony and the application materials, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the project with conditions; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2005, the City Cleric received a letter of appeal from Patricia Tuttle Brown; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council held a noticed public hearing on September 19, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, based on the evidence and testimony presented for the record at the public hearing, hereby denies the appeal based on the following findings: 1. A historic evaluation of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop was prepared by Clark and Associates and a peer review of the evaluation was prepared by Carey and Company, the City's historic consultant. The Clark and Associates evaluation and the Carey and Company peer review concluded that the Hamilton Cabinet Shop is not a historically significant building. 2. The demolition of the Hamilton Cabinet Shop will not result in the loss of a potentially significant historic resource. 3. The Central Petaluma Specific Plan and SMART Code do not require that any specific building(s) be retained and/or adaptively reused. 4. The SPARC conditions of approval require the materials from the Hamilton Cabinet Shop be reused in the I" Street Townhomes project to the maximum extent practicable. N