HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4.A-Attch2 03/15/2004-
SPARC Minutes ` November 13, 2003
I
a�AL� City of Petaluma, CA
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
2
3
Minutes
4
EXCERPT
5
Regular Meeting November 13, 2003
6
City Council Chambers 3 :00 p.m.
7
City Hall, 1 I 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 Iater'date,due to a'lack of pertinent, information.
15
16
17
Roll Call: Present: Teresa Barrett, Janet Gracyk, Jack Rittenhouse*
Absent: Terry'Kosewic
18
19
20
*Chairperson
21
22
Staff: Irene Borba, Senior "Planner
23
Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner
24
Tiffany.Robbe, Associate Planner
25
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
26
27
28
29
Public hearing began at 3:45.
30
31
PUBLIC HEARING:
32
33
II. GATTI /3TRATFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION, 71.0 Sonoma Mountain
34
Parkway
35
AP No: 137- 070 -079
36
File: 03- SPC- 051 -CR
37
Planner:. Tiffany.Robbe
38
39 Applicant is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
40 consideration of site and architectural plans for a proposal to construct Stratford
Attachment 2
SPARC Minutes
November 13, 2003
1 Place (Gatti. Nursery) — a 46 unit single family and 46' -unit townhouse subdivision
2 on a 17 -acre parcel at 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway east of the future Gatti
3 Park.
4
5 Matt Hudson, 765 Baywood Drive: Introduced the project and the °development team.
6 The team is in agreement with the staff report.
7
8 Rick Stover: .Presented the landscape plan.. Suggested crepe myrtles where 'the town
9 house . park meets the creek side path. Each lot will have 3 'plant palettes will, be left to
10 the contractor to decide which plants will go where.
11 r
12 Committee Member Barrett:. Photinia i& too small for street tree' and is not on -approved
13 street tree list. Concerned about the plastic material for bench; how long will bollaids
14 last? Prefer genuine. materials.
15
16 Rick Stover: Consistent with adjacent.urban separator treatment.
17
18 Committee Member Gracyk: Asked what SPARC should look at on the perimeter of the
19 townhouse park.
20
2:.1 Tiffany Robbe: Look at the landscaping at the perimeter particularly on the Capri Creek
22 side and the town home side.
23
24 Committee Member Gracyk: Asked for description on the landscaping- at the .Capri
25 Creek side?
26
27 Rick Stover: Would be used as a seating area.
28
29 Chair Rittenhouse: Entire streetscape. of alley has no landscaping?
30
31 Rick Stover: Not at this time.
32
33 Public, comment opened:
34
35 Sherri Dito, 1934 Buckingham Lane: Fence line next to the urban separator on - lot 8 —
36 :would like °it °to be the same height as my existing fence.
37
38 Public comment closed:
39
40 Committee comments on landscaping:
41
42 Committee _Memnber. Gracyk: Tree Advisory Committee will wanno review tree, choices:
43 Need to deal with the adobe clay. Ornamental cherry and photinia will not do well; .birch
44 has disease: Oleander will do ok there, but mix in good canopy width, street trees. Use
45 .other columnar trees in , narrow space. Passageway between duplexes use gravel —
46 gating will be7 a bigger problem than not. .Regarding ,the -park, would Want benches on the •
2 „
SPARC Minutes November 13, 2003
1.
inside of park as well as perimeter. Want to see that each lot has specific landscape
•
2
design - do not leave up to the contractor. They will not pay attention to the light for
3
plantings. Want yards to be as garden like.as possible. Do not want tall shrubs in front
4
of windows. Lot 1— take care with the shrub border on Yorkshire — do not want a hedge
5
all the way — fence should start at rear house comer ' "and continue to rear of yard.
6
Reconsider liquid amber — will not be very good later. Want the retaining wall (at lots 1-
7
8 fence) to be concrete or concrete block — wood is only a temporary solution. Agree
8
with Jack about matching the character of the urban separator. Look at locations of
9
planting along the creek and the groupings (no myrica under trees). Don't have a
10
problem with recycled plastic benches.
11
12
Committee Member Barrett: Agree with Janet - don't like oleander except with canopy
13
trees interspersed. For spaces between. .duplexes — gravel Is a good solution because it
14
may be an area of neglect. Don't think gating is a good idea. Lot 1 fence — agree should
15
go from back of house. Lot 8 —agree with Sheri Dito — ,should mimic height of her
16
existing fence. Do not like the use of recycled plastic benches — does not look like
17
quality. Timber bollards are ok — not my first choice though — lack quality. Want more
18
pride in the area and how it looks.
19
20
Chair Rittenhouse: Would. like to follow Corona Ely Plan, regarding material for benches.
21
Prefer cedar for fences instead of redwood. On a zipper lot property line — is there a
22
reciprocal maintenance agreement?
23
24
Matt Hudson: There will be reciprocal easements. "He who looks at.it maintains it"
25
26
Chair Rittenhouse: Six foot spaces would allow operable windows — need to be specific
27
about what is going on there: Regarding the urban ,separator — would like it to be
28
consistent with what is existing.
29
30
Dan Hughes: Electric panels, will be mounted on front side of townhomes except middle
31
unit in triplex — will be in front yard closet with 2 nd gate to closet that can't be locked.
32
33
Committee Member Gracyk: On garbage collection day =where will containers be?
34
35
Committee Member Barrett: Will serve SPARC if projects go to Tree Committee before
36
coming to SPARC.
37
38
Break 4:40
39
40
Resumed at 4 :45
41
42
Al Barell: Presented the architecture.
43
44
Chair Rittenhouse: Asked about units 37 and 40 — are these windows operable?
45
46
Dan Hughes: Unit on the property line has to be fire rated.
3
SPARC Minutes November 13, 2003
1
2 Committee ,Member Barrett: Units 36 and 46 — on property line — do they have to have 1-
3 hr fire, rating?
4
5 Chair. "Rittenhouse:: The front yards are larger than in the preliminary site plan. Can the
6 front yards be varied so that something, can happen in the alleyway_? Where will meters
7 go?
8
9 Dan. Hughes: On the end of each, unit.
10
11 Chair Rittenhouse: What will you do with triplexes?
12
13 Dan Hughes: Middle unit has a closet that will house meters — will be separated from the
14 main patio of the town.home.
15
16 Committee Member °Gracyk: Where will trash pickup be?
17
18 Al Barell! In the space between structures or 24t. space between garages on day of
19 collection. The>materials are follows:
20 a Horizontal siding= Hardiplank
21 M Comp. Shingles Presidential series (architectural)
22 Vertical siding = resawn plywood withresawn batten
23 Vinyl window = Philips or Mi'lgard
24 Window in gable is real window with. blackout board behind, no access; to it
25 Balcony = 30 inches deep (extending 6" beyond opposite unit)
26 Balcony railing match front yard fence /gate
27
28 RJ Wilson: Units that have 5 -ft. area away from property line will have full window
29 treatment. Unit with property..line directly on it will serve like a middle unit on the
30 triplexes (no windows). We have switched the configuration of the lots and that is not
31 shown.
32
33 Chair Rittenhouse: Need to address, property lines — would like to get the extra foot back:.
34
35 Public comment opened:
36
37 Public comment closed:
38
39 Committee Comments on Town Homes:
40
41 Chair Rittenhouse: Changes made have.. improved the project. Have strong concerns
42 about the town homes. From a site plan issue —.hope the .lots can be adjusted so there can
43 be windows on the ; interior units, Are you interested ``in adjusting the 5 feet? Do massing.
44 study — more successful is, the. grouping of 'three townhomes together. Gable :,and a hip
45 together looks disjointed _ does not look integrated. Massing with three together "works
46 much better — more successful. Balcony that is ,2 '/2 feet is not very useable. Create some
4
SPARC Minutes November 13, 2003
1 diversity in the alleyway. Will lose some front yard, however, that is ok. No way to get
2- into the back of unit. Offseting the units 4 or 5.' et would give you room for side garage
3 door. Twenty -four foot wide alley with no apron is problematic. Create an apron in the
4 alleyway. On floor plans of town homes — look at how end units function. A.l 7, plans 1
5 and 2 — can you get entry on the corner — access could come from the side street. Can
6 take away the one directional focus. Units could be looked at in a whole different way.
7 Hope that the property lines can be shifted to have windows on. both sides.
8
9 Committee Member Barrett: Agree with a _lot of what Jack has said. Agree that the
10 triplexes look better than the rduplexes.. Storage is a problem'with the middle units. Do
11 not like walls without windows — see no value in that. Trash pick up is a critical issue.
12 Suggestion to jog the units makes: sense even though front yards,rnay, be smaller. Do not
13 think corner lot side elevation is' sufficient. Concerned how units 1 through 11 will
14 access the townhouse park k. No diversity in the ,townhomes needs to be addressed.
15 Eliminate the false window in the townhouse roofs. Concerned about the signs as you
16 enter from Yorkshire or Casella Way. Mailboxes would be better placed near parking for
17 better traffic flow. Do not want mailboxes & signs together'to look cluttered. Adhere to
18 the use of real materials as called. out in Corona -Ely Specific Plan. Colors look ok.
19
20 Committee Member Gracyk: Agree- with comments so far. The biggest concern is the
21 arrangements of the units. Zero °lot line does not work, Trash pickup will be horrendous.
22 Windows on the sides of units are essential. Balconies need to be useable. Meter
23 configuration seems unworkable. Still have an opportunity to fix the configuration of the
24 units. Agree with no blindwindows (in roof). Adding shutters is not a workable solution
25 — does not make sense adding on the side when not on the front. Colors were
26 disappointing — are fairly drab. Want trees /landscaping in" the' parking strip.
27
28 Chair Rittenhouse: Agree that the enhanced elevation with shutter- does not make a
29 statement. Real issue on the townhomes is that there is too much density. One unit less
30 in each string would make such difference. Want a cut through for the whole project.
31
32 Committee Member Gracyk: Suggested individual block concrete pavers instead of
33 stamped concrete for the band°at the alleyway entry.
34
35 Committee Member Barrett: Agree with Janet.
36
37 Chair Rittenhouse: Can see!!arguments both ways. Concrete pavers are ok with me.
38
39 Public comment opened:
40
41 Public comment closed:
42
43 Committee Comments on 2 =story homes:
44
45 Committee Member Gracyk;, Look at lot line location between 41 and 42, switch to
• 46 garage side & add windows to plan 3 (all lots where plan 3" zippers with 4). Leave blank
5
SPARC Minutes November 13, 2003
1 wall on right side elevation — is exactly opposite, Plan 4 'living area. Look , at switching -
2 lots 38 and 39, with plan 2 garage to •side street may be an alternative: Wrapping
3 materials, for corner lots is good — adding shutter is not. Want to see detail for how stone
4 column meets the porch., Plan. 3, bedroom 2 would have an :opportunity for a window.
5 Plan 1 appropriate not to,hay.e windows on 2 -car ; garage. Plan 2',. 2" a floor plan there is
6 an opportunity to have a master: bathroom, window. Plan 4, would like 'a master. bathroom
7 window — could be frosted glass for privacy.
9 Cha_ir;Rittenhouse Agree with Janet regarding the bathrooms: Consider switching Plan
10 1 and Plan 2 and side entry garage alternative: Nice variation in materials. Plan 2
11 upgraded side is nice, though left side blank wall needs work. This is thei successful part
12 of the project.
13
14 Committee, ittee, Barrett: Concur with everything that has been said.. My concern 'is
15 design 3 wi th. thebig blank side. Blind windows ,in rafters need to be looked at. Improve
16 corner units, Do not agree with the cultured stone — is not a real material. Quoted from
17 Corona Ely Specific Plan. Switching the comer units per Jack's suggestion is a good
18 solution.
19
20 Committee Member Graeyk: Agree with Teresa regarding the cultured stone.
21
22 Suggested that, staff discuss this with the applicant.
23
24 Committee Comments on Lots 1 through 8.— single story homes: •
25
26 Chair Rittenhouse: Look at different kind of roof line, .especially for plan 5,. You; see an
27 extremely 'long, sloping roof line - shift the, half of the building" forward that could
28 improve your roof line & look at hip roof possibilities. Adding dormers do not serve a.
29 purpose — could be integrated, better and simplify the architecture. Elevation B works
30 better. ,Plan 6 — like the floor plan. Can you pull back half of house'to offset. roofline.
31 Front Elevation B on Plan 6 is quite successful, due to the garage door: Entire street `has
32 same width, - height and proportion. Agree with street side fence on lot 1 coming just to
33 back of house. Lot 8, screen side -entry garage with landscaping rather than extending
34 fence.
35
36 Comm ittee'+ Member Barrett: Use landscaping rather than a fence on lot 8. Have fewer
37 problems with these houses. I have the 'same issues regarding -the. stone and ,windows:
38 Want to see more effort in the full development of the houses. Work on enhancing side
39 elevations at corners and side entry garages. Houses within 300 feet of urban separator
40 have color�restrictions — use natural woods and earth °tone colors.
41
42 Committee Member Gracyk: Agree with comments made. Look for roofline` variation.
v
43 Plan •5j elevation B is the most successful. Front porches need to be at least' 6 feet deep:
44 Plan 6, elevation B, like the window treatment. Like the arrangement of the houses so
45 the living, room.. gets sun. :Lot 4 and Lot 8 try to create more room on the :left side
46 elevation so bay window ;is farther from property line. •
SPARC Minutes November 13, 2003
7
I
2
RJ Wilson: Concerned about maintaining driveway parking spaces with adjustment of
3
lots 38 and 39. Regarding the townhomes —will be our intent 'to move them around some
4
— it is possible to -make more 3 -unit buildings instead of 2 -unit buildings. Have a concern
5
about the area between the town homes — 5 -foot area. See people.,using that as possible
6
contention between neighbors. May possibly fennce off.
7
8
Chair Rittenhouse: Look at issues &propose your preference.
9
10
11
RJ Wilson: Can possibly create one central access area.
12
Dan Hughes: Lot 8 concerned about using trees instead of a fence (to screen garage), as
13
neighbor didn't want her view blocked.
14
15
Committee suggested a large shrub that would grow to six feet.
16
17
In summary, the committee majority requested the following modifications:
18
19
Landscape. Plan:
20
Landscape architect required to specify which plants to be planted where.
21
Placement shall emphasize variety between units - and the style shall be
22
gardenesque. No ornamental cherry, photi_riia, or birch trees. Reconsider liquid
23
amber. Canopy trees intermixed with oleander at CC Apartments. Gravel
24
between town homes. Look as species placement' at creek, like myrica under
25
trees.
26
Landscape plan shall show: lot 8 fence to be height of rear (Dito) fence, large
27
shrubs to screen Lot 8 garage from Urban Separator, and lot 1 street side fence
28
running from rear house corner to rear PL. Retaining walls at Lots 1 -8 shall
29
utilize concrete block or concrete (not wood).
30
6 After SPARC approval, street trees shall be subject to Tree committee review.
31
® No plastic bench.
32
® Consider cedar fencing (not redwood)
33
34
Townhouses:
3.5
® FIGURE OUT TOWNHOUSE WINDOW PROPOSAL.
36
® - If-duplexes remain, the'two units need to form an integrated structure.
37
® Consider offsetting units (4 to 5 feet) front to back. Could then get side door &
38
electrical panel at rear.
39
■ Reconsider trash pick up, mailbox placement, and electrical panel location (locate
40
at rear).
41
■ Fence /gate needs to correlate with unit architecture.
42
® Utilized deeper balconies
43
® Would love cross connection though town homes.
44
® Use individual concrete pavers, not stamped concrete.
0 45
46
■ Applicant should propose whether they prefer to fence or not (& how) the space
between structures.
7
SPARC Minutes November 13, 2003
1
2 SFD Lots 1 -8:
3 ■ Look at a di- fferent roofline. Consider shifting half of plan 6 forward: or back to
4 create a different roofline. Dormers of Elevation A are very long & not serving
5 any purpose. Considerhf ip roof on Elevation A.
6 ■ Improve garage, entry side of lots .4_ and 8.
7 ■ Plan 6 shall have minimum 6 -foot deep front porch and bay window at side
8 should not be so close to fence.
9
10 SFD,Lots 9 -46:
11 Consider having Plan 2s on corners and having garage access from street.
12 Where plans 3 & 4 zipper Tot, consider having the PI, abut the garage. of plan 4
13 rather than the living space of plan 3. And add windows to plan 3.
14 Eliminate shutters.
15 o Detail bottom of column ,& how the Stone meets the porch.
16, ■ Consider adding a window to the plan 3 bedroom 2 & a, frosted master bath
17 window to plan 4 and improving plan 2 left side blank wall' &° plan 3 right side
18 blank. wall.
19
20 All -:
21 ® Improve corner lot design, some well done (Plan 2) - continue on that line.
22 Shutters on side don't help.
23 Eliminate false windows wherever they exist (roofs).
24 ■ Use subdued colors within 300 feet of Urban Separator and consider 'less drab
25 colors at town homes.
26
27 M/S Rittenhouse/Barrett to continue to January 8, 2004. 3 -0
28
29
30
31
32 Adjournment: 6:56 p.m.
33
34
3 °5 SASparc\Minutes\Minutes03 \H 1303.doc
0
8
CITY "OF,PETALUVIA, CALIFORNIA
• MEMORANDUM'
Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -mail: planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us
DATE: November 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
TO: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
FROM: Tiffany Robbe, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of site and' architectural plans for , a .proposal to construct Stratford
Place (Gatti Nursery;) — a 46 unit single family ,and, 46 unit townhouse subdivision on
a 17 -acre parcel at; 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway east of the future Gatti Park
(APN 137 - 070 -079, Fi'le�03 -SPC- 0516 -CR)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff, recommends that the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approve the proposed
• PUD development plan,. building elevations, landscaping plan, and PUD development guidelines as
conditioned or modified, based on zthe attached draft findings and draft conditions of approval (see
Attachments 13 and (".)
BACKGROUND
This subdivision is part of a larger submittal, which included a rezoning to PUD, a tentative parcel
map, and a mitigated negative declaration. The Planning Commission heard the project on April 8th
and May 13` 2003, and at the later- date recommended 'that the City Council approve the project.
The Petaluma City Council heard the project on July 14 and August 4th 2003, and at the later date,
approved the entitlements re 9 nested. SPARC "saw `this project at a preliminary review hearing on
January 9t" of 2003 (see Attachment l=, Minutes Excerpt). Since the project was last seen by
SPARC,, the applicant has made a. number of changes based on the comments from the Preliminary
SPARC, Planning Commission, `and. City Council hearings. The project is now before SPARC for
approval of the:
1. PUD Development Plan
2. Building Elevations
3.' Landscaping Plana
4. PUD' Development Guidelines
• SITE HISTORY
For most of recorded history, this property has been a hay growing pasture. In 1980, Gatti Nursery
purchased an 80 -acre parcel, which included the subject site, and developed a commercial nursery
Page 1
operation in which ornamental plants, principally Azaleas, were propagated in greenhouses. In 1989,
the City Council adopted the Corona/Ely Specific Plan which covered, the 675 acres along the outer
edge of the City's northeast quadrant All of Gatti. Nursery was within the specific plan boundary.
The balance of the original 80 acres have been developed over the last nine years, with single- family
homes,, apartments, and a shopping_ center, pursuant. to the specific plan. Seven acres of the ori ginal
site were acquired by the City for a park.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The- 17.17 -acre site is located on the east side .of Sonoma Mountain Parkway, east of the City park
site. Access to the subdivision will be from Casella Way and Yorkshire Road. On the east side of
the parcel, thirty -five two -story and eight,one -story single- :family detached : homes are proposed on
lots ranging from 3,849 "to'9;013 square feet (average lot size is 4,400 square feet). Six house plans
are proposed and these range from 2 square feet to 2,612 square feet. Every has a two -car
garage and two parking spaces in 'the driveway, Twenty of 'the house plans fit together. in a "zipper
lot" ,configuration ('see Attachment.. G, Development Plan). On the west;side of the parcel 'forty -six
two -story attached` townhomes are proposed on lots ranging from 1,442 to. 1,815 square feet
(average lot 'size is 1,562 square .feet): The townhomes are attached in groups of two and three
units, forming. duplexes or triplexes. ThreeAuplex/triplex elevations are:proposed. Each townhouse
will be 1,524 square feet with a two -car garage accessed from an alleyway at the rear.
The project includes the following land. dedications to the City: 1) the western, 70-foot wide,. 1.1-
acre strip for incorporation into the adjacent city park, 2) approximately 70 feet from the centerline
of,the seasonal Capri (1.2- acres) for riparian habitat and a path, 3)- the 0'.4 -acre park in the •
townhousearea, and 4)�the eastern 4.4 acres of the parcel for incorporation into the urban separator.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Evolution. Since Preliminary SPARC
The project; was preliminarily reviewed by SPARC on January 9, 2003. SPARC provided a number
of recommendations to, the applicant (see Attachment E).. Some concerns regarded large .scale
modifications; and included'recommendations:,to:
■ Redesign the townhouse portion: of the site plan and the townhomes themselves with a focus
on providing more - private open space: per unit.
Since that time the project was reduced from 50 townhomes -and ,50 single-family homes to
46 of each unit, type. The townhouse area has;.been, redesigned. All of the' townhomes now
have larger private front yards; the average being about. 21 feet deep by 20 feet wide, .
whereas, early plans de picted. yards about 12 feet deep by 20 feet wide. A 71 by 253 foot
(0.4 -acre) park has been incorporated into the plan, thus providing the shared open space that
the Planning Commission was ,seeking. Half of the townhouses front directly onto this
shared' outdoor space-and another 11 units face the future Gatti Park.
■ Consider turning houses 21 -24 & 40 -43 toward -'the creek and losing two units from ,the
northeastern block.
While 'the lot numbers have changed, the eight single- family lots- across: from the creek have
been turned to face the creek_.
■ Provide at least one and not more than two bridges over the creek.
The Planning Commission and City Council conditioned the project to have one bridge at
Casella Way. This is shown on the Development Plan.. The design of the'brid'ge is provided
as attachment K and is subject to SPARC approval.
Page 2
® Continue the creek,side path to Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
The Planning Commission and City Council added this condition. This portion of the path
will be constructed by the applicant as specified by the Parks Department.
The remainder of SPARC's comments, mainly architectural in nature, can be reviewed in
attachment E.
Direction From Council
The City Council approval included several Conditions of Approval (see Attachment D) that relate
to SPARC's review of the Stratford Place/Gatti project. The conditions are as follows:
1. Prior to Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review, the plans shall be revised to
show 8 single -story detached homes abutting the Buckingham Lane residences. That lot
most in line with Road C (lot 4 or lot 5) and lot 8 shall be designed to utilize side entry
garages. Thus, the project shall consist of 46 single-family detached homes and 46
townhouse units.
The Development Plan reflects this change. The plan shows the Lot 8 garage facing the
Urban Separator which may be an unavoidable impact as the -house on Lot 8 cannot be
flipped (so that the garage ' faces the other way) as the 'Council sought to keep the house on
the Lot 8 lined up with the last house of the abutting subdivision. The proposed six -foot
fence with one foot of lattice should serve to largely screen the garage from the urban
separator.
• 2. Design and layout of ,the [townhouse] park shall be subject to the Recreation, Music, and
Parks Committee and SPARC approval. SPARC's review shall be limited to fencing and
perimeter landscaping.
Sheets L -1 and L -2 show the fencing and perimeter landscaping. The Recreation, Music,
and Parks Committee will review the interior of the park.
3. Prior to SPARC review, the .southeasterly eight parking spaces on the park side of Casella
Way shall be eliminated: This will result in fifteen 90- degree parking spaces on the park
side of Casella Way.
The Development Plan reflects this change. As a side note, the cul -de -sac at Casella Way
shall be moved 1 S feet away from the creek prior to Improvement Plan approval.
4. Prior to SPARC review, the plan shall be modified to show concrete pads four to five feet
wide from the existing in the Capri Creek Apartment's fenee.to the public street.
The Development Plan reflects this addition.
5. Prior to SPARC review the plan shall be modified to show an extension of the Class 1 creek
side path stubbed out to the SRJC property line, approximately in line with the intersection
of new public Roads C and D'[now labeled Churchill & Norfolk].
The stub out is shown,'however, prior to improvement plan approval the stub out will run in
a direction roughly parallel with the creek (rather than into the creek as currently shown).
• 11. SPARC shall review site plan design, building and accessory structure design, PUD
Guidelines, colors and materials, landscaping, fencing style and location, and lighting.
Page 3
Particular attention shall 'be paid to the design of the middle townhouse unit, houses 1 -8,
and to -all corner _homes and townhomes.
These items are all provided as attachments, except the colors and materials,,board and
lighting details which will be presented at the hearing. SPARC may wish to consider
moving-, townhomes 32 through 35 five feet toward the creek (but,still outside of the dashed
70 foot creek setback shown on the Development Plan) and reconfigure units 30 31 and 28
- 29 as duplexes, thus resulting in eight middle units rather than the current ten.
Additionally, SPARC may wish to consider requiring a modification to: the fencing,plan,(L1
& L2)7 so that those townhouses that own the five: feet between buildings, have 'this area
fenced into their front yards. Staff `has :added condition 6 requiring that the landscape plan
be modified to depict a landscaped area (which includes a tree) in the area between the
Casella Way cul -d'e. =sac, the creek side path, and. the emergency vehicle curb cut as. shown on
the Development Plan:
12. Pri&46 SPARC review the plans shall reflect elements (both on the: ground, plane and 3-
dimensional) that clearly delineates /differentiates the private alleys from the.public streets,
specifically Casella; Yorkshire, and, Road E.
Attachment K, Private Alley Exhibit, shows decorative paving and signage at all alley
entrances. Specifications on the decorative paving will be provided, at the, hearing.
13. Prior to SPARC review, the. plans shall depict a pedestrian /bicycle, bridge over Capri Creek
at Casella Way. Bridge specifications shall also be provided to SPARC The, exact location
of the bridge shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department and the Petaluma
administration of the SRJC.
The .Development. Plan shows the bridge .location and attachment. K shows a detail of the
proposed weathered steel bridge with wood deck. The Parks Director has reviewed and is
willing. to ; accept the proposed` bridge.
14. Prior to SPARC review, the plans shall depict a Class I path along the entire project (from
Sonoma Mountain Parkway to the urban. separator) adjacent to the creek Pursuant to the
Parks Department, .the; path shall be ,a minimum eight feet wide and constructed of concrete.
A bike rack shall be shown to the immediate south of and inline With the. existing. bus shelter:
The Development Plan shows the path continuing, but does not °show its :full extent. Sheet
Cl of the proposed linprovetnent Plari .(attachment J); show its full extent. This portion of
the path will be constructed by the applicant as specified by the Parks Department. The bike
rack, location is noted on sheet C1 and a detail is provided on sheet C23 (attachment J).
13. Prior to SPARC review, the plans shall show at least 3 six-foot long ,benches along the
urban separator. Specifications on the benches shall also be provided to SPARC.
Sheet L -1 shows three benches and sheet, L -3 provides their, specifications.
16. Prior to SPARC review, the plans shall show' the specifications and proposed location of a
sign along: Sonoma Mountain Parkway identifying,the creek path and the connection .to the
urban.separator path.
Improvement plan sheet C20 shows the location of the required sign,. The
p p q Plannng,Division
has specified that the sign read "Capri ' Creek Path connecting to Urban Separator ,Path ":
SPARC can charge staff with the review of the sign itself or require the detail to come back
to the Committee.
Page 4
17. Prior to SPARC review, an exterior lighting plan.shall be submitted. Said plan shall include
a detail of the types of all fixtures to, be installed for review and approval. All lighting shall
• be hooded and projeet-downward, providing a soft "wash " of light. No lighting on the site
shall create a direct glare into cyclist /pedestrian eyes.
The PUD Guidelines state that all of the public streets will be lit by the City standard cobra -
head streetlight #602 ,(see attachment K). Staff and the applicant have discussed lighting the
alleyways via low- wattage photosensitive residential -type- fixtures located garage -side (one
per unit) and condition of approval 8 has been added to specify this. This fixture will be
provided at the hearing., The Landscape Plan sheet LI depicts bollard lighting every 100 feet
along'the creek side path: Staff has added condition 7 requiring that a bollard light is placed
adjacent to the bridge and that low- wattage lighting provides 'a soft wash of light underneath
the bridge. Consistent with the urban separator treatment citywide, bollard lighting is not
proposed along the urban separator path. A front exterior light is only shown on single -
family home elevations C. 'Condition 8 has been added requiring that the front exterior
fixtures for the other house and townhouse plans be subject ,to staff review and approval.
42. A vehicle barrier shall he installed,between the public streets and parcel A [urban separator
& creek corridor. land]`. A. removable: vehicle shall'be installed at the access point to
the 12 foot meandering path. This vehicle barrier shall be subject to SPARC review and
approval.
Vehicle barriers are depicted .along the urban_ separator on sheet L -1 and specified on sheet
L -3. The barrier was chosen to match the bollard used,along the,adjacent urban separator at
the Heritage subdivision. -A ;barrier is not ,shown along the creek, but shall be (pursuant to
• p p approval. `The removable vehicle barrier is
the above condition) poor to im rovement plan ova
a r
depicted on Improvement °Plan shee.t,C20 and detailed on sheet,C22.
Direction from the Corona Ely'Specific Plan
In order to approve this project. SPARC. must find that it is compatibility with the Corona Ely
Specific Plan. Specifically, the CESP contains the following policies, which apply to this project.
Some policies are abbreviated for pertinence or succinctness. (The- entire plan is tavailable from the
Community Development. Department if desired.)
37. All individual structures shall. be designed to. be harmonious with the local setting and with
neighboring developments. Building designs shall reflect a high standard of architectural
quality and shall be :coordinated and unified through the use of complimentary, forms,.
materials, colors, and other architectural ,treatments.
38. All building surfaces in direct public view shall receive integrated design treatment. On
corner site, in particular, front facade treatments shall extend around the building corner
48. The number and,type of exterior materials should belimited in number.
49. Materials. shall' be genuine rather than simulated (e.g., real Spanish tile should be used
rather than concrete or plastic roof tiles that imitate Spanish tile), and shall be reflective of
materials used in surrounding development.
50. Color palettes shall be.complimentary and subdued, rather than competitive and garish.
57. Native and low- maintenance plant species shall be emphasized.
• 60. All planted areas shall have automated irrigation systems.
61. The landscaping specifications shall provide for street trees along all street frontages.
96. The Street Landscape Plan shall specify planting, irrigation„ pedestrian [space], street
lighting, and mailbox details.
Page 5
99. Street luminaries shall be. of a high quality design which contribute to the special quality
and character pf the neighborhood':day or night.
100. To avoid monotonous repetition,. ,residential development plans shall : emphasize variation in
building massing, setbacks and height..
122.. The City.shall.require that sthe development plan submittal for properties abutting the urban
separator:.include a landscape plan and related specif cations for the transitional. area along
thisurban /rural edge.
126. Homes'wi'thin: 300 feet of the urban separator shall use natural woods or be. painted, in earth
tones to minimize the, contrast, between ; urban and_: rural environments.
130. Residential development which abuts. the Caph` Creek open space corridor shall include a
detailed landscaping plan for the creek corridor.
Direction from the General Plan
The Petaluma General Plan requires that SPARC find that 10 %o.of the housing units are; significantly
different from the, remaining units in architectural. style:
The Role of SPARC
In approving the Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map, the City Council established
the layout of `the site plan. SPARC should now, ,review the Development Plan ;regarding building
and amenity placement. Additionally, SPARC is charged with reviewing unit .architecture,
landscaping (front yard, urban separator, creek corridor . and portions, .of" the : townhouse park),
details, and colors and materials. Lastly, while the City Council approved the .PUD Guidelines in
concept, their content:•is subject review. Recently staff and the applicant have worked to
clarify the proposed PUD Guidelines and to ensure that required topics are covered (especially with
regard to -what sort of additions /decks %covered patios - would ,be 'allowed in the future): The.revised
Guidelines are included as attachment F.
PUBLIC NOTICE.
The project was, noticed in the Argus Courier on 'October 29, 2003 and notices were mailed to
property owners and occupants within five hundred feet of the subject property. The .action
was taken before the Planning Commission and City Council hearings of this project:, At the writing
of this staff report, staff has not received any cotnmen_ is concerning the proposed project.
ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW
Pursuant to the: requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study
of potential: environmental impacts prepared. Part the City.Council action at its August 4th
meeting was the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, no further environmental
review `is required.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Draft Site Plan and Architectural Review Findings
C. Draft, Site Plan and Architectural Review Conditions, of Approval •
D. Ordinance No. 2160 Adopting a Rezoning to Planned Unit District,.Resolution No.. 2003 -159
N.C.S. Adopting the, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Resolution No. 2003 -160 N.C.S.
Page 6
Adopting the PUD Development Guidelines, and Resolution No. 2003 -158 N.C.S. Adopting a
Mitigated Negative Declaration
'10 E. SPARC Minutes Excerpt from January 9, 2003 (Preliminary Review meeting)
F. PUD Development Guidelines
G. Development Plan dated October 20 2003 - full and l 1x17 (SPARC members only)
H. House /Townhouse Architecture Plans dated October 20, 2003 - full and 11x17 (SPARC
members only)
I. Landscape Plan dated October 2.7, 2003 - full and l l x 17 (SPARC members only)
J. Improvement Plan sheets C1, C20, and C23 dated October 2003 — 11X17 (SPARC members
only)
K. Bridge Detail, Private Alley Exhibit, Streetlight, and Context. Plan (SPARC members only)
s:\sparc\reports\GatfiSubSPC
40
•
Page 7