HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4.A-Attch1 03/15/2004City of Petaluma
Community Development Department
RE; Proposed Stratford Place Project/ Gatti Property
To Whom It May Concern: -
1 -20 -04
On January 8th 2004 at the City of Petaluma SPARC meeting the above mentioned
project was denied by the Committ applicant, Mardel LLC. has subsequently been
notified b cit staff that in
y y order move forward to, the City council, an appeal of the
above mentioned decision must be filed' with the city clerks office and the Community
Development Department by January 22n' 2004.
Please consider this letter to be official notice of Mardel's appeal of the above mentioned
action.
Included with this letter please find a completed Development permit application, A
cost recovery fee application, responses to SPARC comments ( as taken from Draft
• Minutes ), a copy of the related staff report including responses to past meeting
comments and a check in theamount of $180.20.
As noted in the above mentioned , responses, the SPARC committee is in disagreement
with the Development plan in the Town-home portion of the project. Changes to this plan
would require revisions to the .approved tentative map and the loss of units. It is for this
reason that we respectfully appeal this action and ask thatthe matter be taken up with the
City Council.
Mardel LLC. will respond'.to the SPARC comments that do not require changes to the
approved tentative map a& noted in the response to SPARC continents. These revisions
will be included in the packet provided to the City Council for review regarding this
appeal.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions
regarding this appeal, please contact R.J. Wilson Mardel LLC. 925- 671 -7775.
R.J. ilson
Mardel LLC.
•
Attachment 1
25552 'S anwel) Dr,. ■ Suite 2M ■ C °onco'�:d CA 94520 ■ Tel 925.671 •7775 e: Fax 925 -671 •2277 ■ www.delccbuilders.com
"Response to SPARC comments ( 1 -8 -04 meeting)
Regarding Stratford Place / Gatti
Minutes page Line Number Comment
4 39 & 40 A.C. Prohibition on locating in yard to be added to
the'PUD Guidelines section 3.13.
Agreed.
4 40 & 41 `The garbage pad shown between townhouse units
5 41 & 42 is only big enough, for garbage can, but not yard waste
container and recycling container as well.
A revised detail will be drawn indicating possible
placement option for these containers. Further Delco will
contact the local waste service with regard to using
smaller containers for these, units understanding that the
full size containers may be under utilized.
4 44 & 45 Need an easement .for the end units- when leaving the
garage door ( man door ) you come to the common area.
Agreed. However.itis our.understanding that passage to
the common area would not require an easement.
5 5,6 & 7 Units 81, 58 and 57 of the town homes and 39 on single
farnily'homes abut 100 -year FEMA flood line or have it in
the front yard. Would :like disclosure for those units.
Agreed. A disclosure statement will be prepared and
submitted for staff review.
5 13 Add side yard space at bay window lots 3,5 and 7
Agreed The Development plan will be revised To add
space to the above mentioned side yards.
5 20 & 21 Where you changed the property line location between
plans 3 & 4 does that change the fence and need for
easements ?
Agreed. The Development plan will be revised to show
• the correct fencing arrangement. - Easements will be
5
5
6
required for the maintenance of the plan 4 garage wall.
28 Present 3 alternatives for the homeowner (regarding town
home landscaping )
Agreed. The landscape' plans will be revised to show
three landscape options., If needed this item could be
reviewed by the SPARC committee.
43' & 44 Applicant needs to address the corner units that
9&10 open to the common area.. 82, 81, 58, 57.
19 &20
Agreed Though some changes have been; made, further
enhancements will' be added to the cornerunits.
2, 3 & 8 Project has functional difficulties; guest parking does not
work. for middle units ;58 -81. Alleyway will be (full of
garbage cans.
Disagree.. The proposed plan was, created-and. Approved
utilizing the alley way concept. This Concept puts,the
greater emphasis on pedestrian uses by placing garages on
alleyways and a park area at the front of the homes., The
6' area between the. town home units will be used for
storage of the trash containers. Unlike'most. other
developments; on trash day the containers`will 'be set out in
thealley.area and wih not be placed in the front yard of
the home where visitors would view them.
The SPARC committee has taken issue with guest parking
and circution in the Townhome portion, ofthe' site.
Again its . h . ould be noted: that the current configuration
was created based on a more pedestrian use. Further
modifications to the approved site.plan would create a
more auto based ,design and result in the loss of units:
R
M
10 "'Juliet balcony "
45
Agree. Wefeel the '°Juliet balcony" is -a nice. Feature and
would like to leave it in.
11,12 Add detail to -meter door.
Agreed.- Elevations will be modified to show More detail
R
13,1.4,15,16,17 Landscape at-town homes. •
Agreed. Landscape plans will be revised.
6 42, 43 Follow City arborist's. direction on trees. Keep pear tree use
to minimum ( fire blight problem) , use just where space is
narrow.
Agreed.
6 43, 44 Question regarding property line through drive -way on plan
2& 4.
The property line at 2 & 4 extends over the driveway and
will require an easement as does the maintenance of the
plan 4 garage wall. This was done to accommodate the 3'
needed to allow windows on the plan 2 wall per building
Code.
• f
Agreed. The landscape plans will be revised to address
the comments as listed'on these lines in the minutes.
6
21, 22 ,33
Move balconies ( porches ) to street to allow 6+ foot depth.
Agreed. The front porch will be extended toward the street
to create a minimum 6' depth.
6
24,25
Do not bother - with cultured stone.
Agreed. Though we.feel that the cultured stone Products
are far superior to those used' in years Past, we will revise
the plans to show brick.
6
27,28
Line up windows at front per staff report ( plan 5 garage )
Agreed.
6
29,
Detail trellis in landscape' plans.
Agreed landscape plans will address.
6
29
Eliminate fence piece at.lot 8.
Agreed.
6
30,31
Landscape plan at houses needs to consider floor plan/
location of windows.
Agreed. Landscape plans will be revised.
6 42, 43 Follow City arborist's. direction on trees. Keep pear tree use
to minimum ( fire blight problem) , use just where space is
narrow.
Agreed.
6 43, 44 Question regarding property line through drive -way on plan
2& 4.
The property line at 2 & 4 extends over the driveway and
will require an easement as does the maintenance of the
plan 4 garage wall. This was done to accommodate the 3'
needed to allow windows on the plan 2 wall per building
Code.
F1
7
7
7
g, 9 Fencing on lots: 1,1 and 26 — looks as though it is corning •
into the middle of-the porch.
Agreed: The fencing plan will be revised.
16,26 Want to see .exterior lighting f xtures.
Agreed. New submittal will be provided
28, 29, 30, 32 PUD guidelines, page 4, last sentence says the Community
Development Director can revise Plans & elevations to
accommodate market Conditions.
Agreed. With regard to major changes, "the plan Should be
brought back to SPARC. However Minor revisions could
be left to the Community Development Director.
•
•
Draft S'PARC.Minutes January 8, 2004
•
•
1
2
1 City of Petaluma, CA
4 Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
X86 9.
3
4 Draft
5 Minutes
6 Regular Meeting January 8, 2004
7 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m.
8 City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA
9 Telephone: 707 - 778 -4301 E -Mail: cdd. @ci.petaluma.ca.us
10 FAX: 707- 778 -4498 Web Page: http : / /.www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
11
12
13 The Site Plan and Architectural' Review Committee encourages applicants or their
14 representatives to be availableat the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item
15 need be deferred to a later date due toga lack of pertinent information.
16
17 Roll Call: Present: Teresa Barrett, Janet Gracyk, Jack Rittenhouse*
18 Absent: Terry Kosewic
19
20
21 *Chairperson
22
23 Staff: Irene Borba Senior Planner
24 Jayni Allsep, Project Planner
25 Tiffany Robbe, Associate Planner
26 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
27
28
29 Approval of Minutes of'December 11, .2003 will be presented at the next meeting.
30 Committee Members" Report: 'Comm'ittee Member Barrett. presented information regarding
31 the Planners Conference in March. Materials will be sent to all coininitfee members with the
32 next packet.
33 Correspondence: Correspondence from Chris Lynch was presented at places for 3 of the
34 projects on today's agenda.
35 Public Comment: None -
36 Legal Resource Statement Was-noted on,the agenda.
37 Appeal Statement Was -noted on;the agenda
38
39 Public hearing began at 3 :00 p.m.
40
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1`0
1.1
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
Draft SPARC Minutes
• Land st Ian
• Lighting plan
• 'South eleva #ion and we evati
• Color analysis
. Change;, in trellis . erials on south e e
• Cornice v tion on south elevation
• I ate metal canopies around; corners
S Rittenhouse /Barrett to continue to January 22, 2004, 3 -0.
Public hearing, began at 5:00
OLD ;BUSINESS:
January 8, 2004
11. GATTI %STRATFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION, 710 Sonoma Mountain
Parkway
AP No: 13.7470 -079
File :, 03= S1'C= '0516 -:CR
Planner: Tiffany Rubbe
Applicant is requesting Site Plan and - Architectural Review Committee
consideration of site and architectural .plans for a proposal to con struct'Siratford
Place (Gatti Nursery) - a 46 unit single family and 46 unit townhouse :subdivision
on a 17 =acre parcel at 710 Sonotna Mountain Parkway east of the future Gatti
Park.
Continued from November 0, 2003.
Tiffany `Robbe presented the staff report.
Al Barrell Presented the changes to town homes, spacing between town homes -- is7 a 6'
minimum to allow. operable windows. Pg. A -1.7 - clarifies what is happening between
buildings. Presented changes to the roofline on the duplexes. Would use. plan A and C
for the corner °units as they are more arficulated%softer. - Will eliminate any `fake'
windows on the.gables, which have already been removed from the SFD.
Committee.M'etnber Barrett: The A.C. prohi „b:ition:on locating in the side yard shall be
added to P1JD Guidelines ection 3.13 (not 3.12). The :garbage pad shown between
townhouse °units:. is only big' enough for garbage can, but not the yard waste container and
recycling container as well.
Chair Rittenhouse: Need an easement for the end units when leaving the garage. door,
you come to the common area. Need to know what the applicant wants - is not on the.
drawings.
3
•
•
•
4
Draft SPARC Minutes
January 8, 2004
2 RJ Wilson: Would prefer to. have garage side doors on the end units, and have an
3 easement.
4
5 Committee Member Barrett: Units'8,1, 58 and 57 of the town homes and 39 on the single
6 family homes abut' 100- year.FEMA flood line or have itin the front yard —would like
7 disclosure for those units.
8
9 Al Barrell: Addressed changes to the single =family homes, lots 1 -8. Added trellis to side
10 entry garage 5A & a new roof gable to side entry garage 5B. Pg. 15 — porch would like it
11 to be 6 feet instead of'S if they C' an the extra foot at toward the front (lots 1, 3, 5, 7).
12
13 . R.J. Wilson: Can give more room to bay window side of plan 3, 5, & 7, if S`PARC wants.
14
1'5 Al Barrell: Lots 9 -46: All plans to `have enhanced elevations from both sides & rear,
16 instead of just street side but:carrying °.Windows, window trim, and material details
17 around. All shutters removed on ide unless there are shutters on the front. Then,
18 specified added details for each plan.
19
20 Chair Rittenhouse: Where;you changed the property line location between plans 3 & 4,
21 does that change the fence ,& the need for easements? Have an approved tentative map —
22 will the City allow change?
23
24 Dan Hughes, Engineer: Yes — City ok with have submitted changes for approval. Fence
25 & easement won't change.
26
27 Rick Stover, Landscape Architect: Felt it would be prudent. for homeowner to be
28 , involved in landscaping — possibly present 3 alternatives for the homeowner. Can use
29 trees from street tree list, maybe :Hornbeam. May use olive instead of podocarpus.
30
31 Committee Member Gracyk: ' Doesn't like columns like-on 6B. Retaining wall with the
32 fence — lots 1 -8. How do I know where keystone retaining wall and where redwood.
33
34 Dan Hughes: Is not defined on a, lot -by -lot basis. Retaining walls over 1 foot are
35 keystone & redwood whereless. Fence would be just behind (uphill) of keystone wall.
36
37 Public corrunent opened%closed.
38
39 Committee Comments Town homes:
40
41 Committee Member Barrett: I still have problems with the garbage, yard waste, etc. — do
42 not understand how 6 foot between units is setup. Need more definition for those spaces,
43 Applicant needs to addresst the corner units that open to common area. No effort 'has
44 been made to make the endvnits'.look any better, 82, 81, 58, 57 — a lot of visibility there.
45 Does not like shallow.Juliet balcony.
46
U
Draft SPARC:Minutes January 8, 2004
1
Chair Rittenhouse: Appreciate you have made some efforts. Project has functional
2
e parking does not work for:.rniddle units 5$: -8,1. Alleyway will, be full. of
difficulties; guest p g Y
3
garbage cans. Everything pointed out in previous meetings is still the same, ca_ruiot.
4
support the - project as it is — do not think the plan works. I am sorry it is attached to the
5
other part of the project.
6
7
Committee Member Gracyk: Expressed the same concerns: as Jack. Will be problems if
8
you,cannot loose'units. Alleyways are awful, there is too long of an expanse of
9
doors and asphalt, trash day will be awful.. Comer units facing the creek too plain.,
10
-Do not know where to,go from here. _Pm with the Rdiet balcony being shallow.,
11
Regarding the middle unit with the meter — possibly incorporate meter;into fence. Add
12
detail to door, as you can't hide it.
13
Landscape for"town homes: You have shade lots and sun lots and the plant palate is `the
14
same — this will` not work. There is; not much choice in the shady areas. Specifically
15
asked for lot pecific landscaping at the last meeting. Proposed trees are too large for 6=
16
foot wide area. In, the 2 -ft planting areas, plants selected (S -4) .like rockrose, will betoo .
17
large.. 'There are areas where S5 and S2, choices will not work. Needs a good going over.
18
.,
19
Committoe'Comments on SFD Units 1 through 8:
20
21
Committee Member Barrett: Has turiied out to be best part. Move balconies to street,to
22
allow 6+ foot depth.
23
24
Committee.Member Gracyk: Colununs to porches — want to see detail. Do not'bother
25
with cultured stone, it will cheapen project. You didn't bring stone sample as you said
26
you would. .'If units can be moved down since 8 has.large side yard to give more space to
27
bay windows might be nice, but.not sure it is necessary. Do line up windows at, front, per
28
staff report,(plan 5 side garage).
29
Landscape: Detail trellis in landscape plan: Eliminate fence piece on lot 8. Da not plant
30
large shrubs outside windows. Landscape plan at houses needs to consider floor
31
p_lan/location. of.windows.
32
33
Committee Member Barrett: Agree to eliminate cultured stone from columns.
34
3.5
Chair Rittenhouse: Agree with corrunents so far. Roofline, changes present, more interest
36
now. Agree with minimum of 5 feet to bay Agree to eliminaie piece of fence
37
on lag. Agree with Janet.regarding columns — need foundation and then column — do
38
not use cultured stone..
39
40
Committee Comments on Two - packs, lots 9 through.46:
41
42
Committee, Member Gracyk: Follow City,arborist's direction on trees. Keep pear'tree
43
use minimum (fire,blight a problem), use justwhere space is narrow. Why is property
44
line; through driveway on plans -2 &A - is the 3 feet setback enough to get windows? Do
45
not ; like shutters on side elevations even when there are shutters on the front (2A & 4A).
46
•
•
Draft SPARC Minutes
January 8, 2004
1 Conunittee Member Barrett: Wish you had switched the two- packs that face Norfolk.
2 Side view of plan l houses need.to be exceptional. Successful with Plan 1C, however A
3 and D are weak, B is good however window enhancements need to be fully extended. A
4 and D should not be plan ;1. on. the comers or need improving. Need disclosure on lot 39
5 that they are within the 100 -year flood 'line. Do not like the stone wrap around — need to
6 continue to chimney (213 & 4B).
8 Committee Member Gracyk: Fencing on lots 11 and 26 — looks as though it is coming
9 into the middle of the porch, fix that. Like plan 1 D best.
10
I 1 Chair Rittenhouse: Applicant has addressed the concerns from last meeting. Plan is are
12 ok. No shutters on side elevations (2A & 4A) — only on front elevations. Need good
13 quality materials and windows, finish them well.
14
15 Committee Member Gracyk :. Landscape, sheet L3 is fine. Want to see lot specific
16 (sunny vs. shady) landscape plan. \'Vain to see exterior lighting fixtures.
17
18 Chair Rittenhouse: Want to poll the committee regarding extra conditions or if there is
19 anything you wish to see again as items to be brought back?
20
21 Committee Member Gracyk: Landscape plan for the multi - family units. Problem with
22 sidewalks /grates on Belgrave — will not have enough room for planting trees. Like the
23 idea of letting townhouse - owners choose landscape plan,, but we,,need to see these plans.
24 Improve corner townhouse elevations. Want to see the porch lights'.
25
26 All: Agree the alley light fixture needs to be more consistent with architecture.
27
28 Chair Rittenhouse: PUD Guidelines page 4, last sentence says the Community
29 Development Director can revise plans &: elevations to aeconi riodate market conditions.
30 Are you comfortable with this or should it be done through SPARC instead?
31
32 Committee Member Gracyk & Barrett: It should come back to SPARC if it changes.
33
34 Chair Rittenhouse: Do not want to continue project if the applicant is not willing to make
35 further changes.
36
37 Committee Member Barrett: Believe the committee has reached consensus that the
38 single - family homes are ok, but the town homes are an issue and need substantial work.
39
40 Chair Rittenhouse: There are so many deficiencies with the townhouse side - I cannot
41 support the;project-. If the applicant is interested in revising it, would like to see it again,
42 if not, then we should vote.
43
44 Rick Rosenbaum,.Delco Builders: Have been working with the committee to come up
45 with a layout and a site plan that works well. This is a higher density project that will
46 have issues'that are not inherent with single - family homes. Looking for an action
l ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
.23
24
25
Draft SPARC Minutes
January 8, 2004
tonight. Willing to refine the,project details.' but not interested in coming.back with a site
plan redesign.
Chair Rittenhouse: Know the project, changed at Planning Commission & C.C. ,Don't
know.if the P.C. is correct body to nmke cominents.about architecture &access. I find
plan highly deficient. I would be happy to call for vote.
Committee.Member Barrett: Planning Conrnrrission.did not say this project was
wonderful - wanted problems solved it SPARC. There has not been thegive and take
you indicate.
.Rick Rosenbaum: Tried to address your concerns. Fi.erle to fine -tune issue "s such as
garbage collection, storage_ of garbage cams and access. Happy to redesign that "and tweak
it, but not here to redesign the townhouse layout or to reduce density. Happy to bring
back the landscaping,plan if it needs idditio.n -A attention, but want the Committee to act
tonight.
Chair Rittenhouse: Not challenging the density of the, project - challenging the way the
site'p'lan the circulatioll w�rl:, rind the guest; parking layout. No attempt
was made to improve corner units. I Live no problem W single - family homes.
M/S Rittenhouse /Barrett to deny the pros nitcd. 3 -0
Public hearing ended at 7:00 p.n1.
•
•