Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Bill 4.A-Attch3 03/15/2004
SPARC Minutes January 8, 2004 • 2 a �AL° q City of ,Petaluma,, CA Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee lase 3 4 Minutes 5 Excerpt 7 Regular Meeting January 8, 2004 8 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m. 9 City Hall, 11 English Street. Petaluma, CA 10 Telephone: 707 - 7784301 E- Mail: cdd @ci.petaluma.ca.us 11 FAX: 707 - 778 -4498 Web Page: http:Hwww.ci.petaluma.ca.us 12 13 14 The Site Plan and Architectural: Review Committee. encourages applicants or their 15 representatives to be available at the meeting to answer questions �so.that no agenda item • 16 need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. 17 18 Roll Call: Present: Teresa Barrett, Janet Gracyk, Jack Rittenhouse* 19 Absent: Terry Kosewic 20 21 22 *Chairperson 23 24 Staff: Irene Borba, Senior Planner 25 Jayni Allsep, Project Planner 26 Tiffany °Robbe, Associ ate .Planner 27 . Anne Windsor,, Administrative Secretary 28 29 30 31 Public hearing began at 3:00 p.m. 32 33 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE BUSINESS: 34 OLD'BUSINESS: 35 36 I1. GATTI/STRATFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION, 710 Sonoma Mountain 37 Parkway • 38 AP No: 137- 070 -079 39 File: 03- SPC- 0516 -CR Attachment 3 SPARC Minutes January 8, 2004 1 Planner: Tiffany Robbe 2 3 Applicant is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review .Committee 4 consideration of site and architectural plans for a proposal to construct Stratford 5 Place (Gatti Nursery) -- a 46 .unit single family and 46 unit townhouse subdivision 6 on a 1'7 -acre parcel at 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway east of the future Gatti 7 Park. 8 9 Continued from November 13,_ 2003. 10 11 Tiffany.Robbe presented the staff "report. 12 13 Al Bait ell: Presented the.changes to town homes, spacing between town homes — is a 6' 14 minimum to. allow operable windows. Pg. A -17 — "clarifies what is happening between 15 buildings. Presented changes to the roofline on the duplexes. Would use A and E 16 for.-the comer units as they are more articulated/softer. Will eliminate any `fake' 17 windows on the gables; which have already been - removed from the SFD. 1.8 19 Committee Member Barrett: The A.C. prohibition on locating in the side vard'shall be 20 added: to PUD Guidelines! section 3.13 (not 3.11). The garbage pad shown between 2 1 townhouse, units, is "only big' enough for garbage, can, but.not the yard waste. container and 22 recycling container as well. 23 24 ChairRittenhouse: Need an easement for the end units — when leaving>the garage door, 25 you come to the common area. Need to know what the applicant wants — is not on the 26 drawings. 27 28 RJ Wilson: Would prefer to, have garage side doors on the end .units and have an 29 easement. 30 31 Committee Member.Barrett: Units 8`1, 58 and 57 ofthe town homes and 39 on the single 32 family.homes abut 100 -year FEMA flood line or have it in the front yard.— would -'like 33 disclosure units. 34 35 Al Barren: Addressed changes to the'single- family homes, lots 1 -8. Added trellis to side 36 entry garage 5A & a new`roof gable to side entry +garage,5B. Pg. 15 — porch would like' it 37 to be 6 feet'instead, -of 5 if they can add the extra foot at toward the front (lots 1, 3, 5, 7). 38 39 R.J. Wilson: Can give more room to bay window side of plan 3, 5, & 7, if SPARC wants. 40 41 Al Barrell: Lots 9 -46:• All - plans to.have enhanced elevations from both, sides & rear, 42 instead. of just street side but carrying windows, window trim, and material details 43 around. All shutters removed on side unless there are shutters on the front. Then, 44 specified added details for each plan. 45 SPARC Minutes January 8, 2004 1 Chair Rittenhouse; Where you changed the property line location between plans 3 & 4, 2 does that change the fence & the need for easements? Have an approved tentative map — 3 will the City allow change? 4 5 Dan Hughes, Engineer;; Yes — City ok with have submitted changes, for approval. Fence 6 & easement won't change. 8 Rick Stover, Landscape Architect: Felt.it would be prudent for homeowner to be 9 involved in landscaping — possibly present 3 alternatives for the homeowner. Can use 10 trees from street tree list, maybe Hornbeam:. May use olive instead of podocarpus. 11 12 Committee Member Gracyk' Doesn',t .like columns like on 6B. Retaining wall with the 13 fence — lots 1 -8. How do I know where keystone retaining wall and where redwood. 14 15 Dar! Hughes: Is not defined n a lot -by -lot basis. Retaining walls over 1 foot are 16 keystone & redwood where less. Fence would be" ust behind (uphill) of keystone wall. 17 18 Public comment opened/closed. 19 20 Committee Comments Town homes: 21 22 Committee Member Barrett:. I still have problems with the garbage, yard waste, etc. — do • 23 not understand how 6 foot between units is Need more definition for those spaces. 24 Applicant needs to address the corner units that open to common area. No effort has 25 been made to make the end units look any better, 82 81, 58, 57 — a lot of visibility there. 26 Does not like shallow Juliet balcony. 27 28 Chair Rittenhouse: Appreciate you have made some efforts. Project has functional 29 difficulties; guest parking does not work for°middle units 58 -81. Alleyway will be full of 30 garbage cans. Everything pointed out in previous meetings is still the same, cannot 31 support the project as I it 'is —do not think the plan works. I am sorry it is attached to the 32 other part of the project. 33 34 Committee Member Gracyk: Expressed the same concerns as Jack. Will be problems if 35 . you cannot loose units. Alleyways are awful, there is too long of an expanse of garage 36 doors and asphalt, trash day will be awful. Corner units facing the creek are too plain. 37 Do not know where, to go from here., I'm ok with the Juliet balcony being shallow. 38 Regarding the middle unit; with the meter — possibly - incorporate meter into fence. Add 39 detail to door, as you can't hide it. 40 Landscape for town;homes: You have shade lots and sun lots and the plant palate is the 41 same — this will not work. There is not much choice in the shady areas. Specifically 42 asked for lot specific landscaping.atthe last meeting. Proposed trees are too large for 6- 43 foot wide area. In the 2 -ft ptanting areas, plants selected (S -4) like rockrose will be too 44 large. There are areas Where S5 and S2 choices will not work. Needs a good going over. 45 46 Committee. Comments on S1FD,, Units 1 through 8: 3 SPARC Minutes January 8, 2004 1 Committee Member Barrett :, Has turned out to'be best part. Move balconies to street to 2 allow 6+ foot depth. • 3 4 Committee Member Gracyk: Columns to porches — want to see detail. Do not, bother 5 with cultured stone, it will cheapen project. You didn't bring stone sample as you said 6 you would. If units can be moved down since has large side yard Ito ,give more space to 7 bay windows might be nice, but not sure it is necessary. Do line up windows at front per 8 staff report (plan 5' side garage). 9 Landscape: Detail trellis in landscape plan. Eliminate fence piece on_ , lot, $, -Do, not plant 10 large shrubs outside windows. Landscape plan at houses needs` to consider floor 11 plan/location of windows. Have the same`§un / shade problems as the townhomes. 12 13 Committee Member Barrett :. Agree: to eliminate cultured stone from columns. 14 15 Chair. Rittenhouse: Agree with comments, so far. Roofline changes present snore interest 16 now. Agree withminimum of 5 feet to bay windows. Agree to- eliminate piece of fence 17 on jot 8, Agree with Janet regarding columns — need foundation and then column — do 18 not use cultured stone. 19 20 Committee Comments on Two - packs, lots 9 through 46,• 21 22 Committee Member Gracyk: Follow City arborist's direction on trees. Keep pear tree' 23 use to minimum ,(fire blight a problem),, use just where space is :narrow. Why is property 24 line through driveway on plans 2 & 4 - is the 3 feet setback enough to get windows? Do • 25 not like shutters on side, elevations even when there are shutters on`the front (2A & 4A). 26 27 Committee Member Barrett: Wish you ha&switched the two -packs that face Norfolk. 28 Side view of plan 1 houses need to be exceptional. _ .Successful with ;Plan 1 C, however A 29 and D ;are weak, B. is ,good however window enhancements need to be fully extended. A 30 and D ;should;not be plan 1 on the corners or need improving. Need disclosure on lot 39 3'1 that they Ate within the 1.00 -year flood line. 'Do not like the stone wrap around — need to 32 continue to chimney & 413'). 33 34 Committee Member Gracyk: Fencing on lots 11 and 26 — looks asAhough it is coming 35 into the middle of 'the porch, fix that. Like plan 1D best. 36 37 Chair Rittenhouse: Applicant has .addressed the concerns .from last,meeting. Plan 1 s are 38 ok. No shutters onside .elevations (2A ,& 4A) — only on front elevations. Need good'. 39 qualify-materials and windows, finish them well. 40 41 Committee Member Gracyk; Landscape, sheet U is fine. Want to see .lot specific. 42 (sunny vs. shady) landscape plan. Want to see exterior lighting fixtures. 43 44 Chair Rittenhouse: Want to poll the committee regarding extra:conditions or if there is, 45 anything you wish to see again , as items to be brought back? • 4 SPARC Minutes January 8, 2004 1 Committee Member Gracyk: Landscape plan for the multi= family units. Problem with • 2 sidewalks /grates on Belgraye — will not have enough room for planting trees and ADA 3 compliant sidewalks. Like the idea of letting townhouse- owners choose landscape plan, 4 but we need to see these plans. Improve corner townhouse elevations. Want to see the 5 porch lights. 6 7 All: Agree the alley light fixture needs,to be more consistent with architecture. 9 Chair. Rittenhouse: PUD'Guidelines page 4, last sentence says the Community 10 Development Director can revise plans .& elevations to accommodate market conditions. 11 Are you comfortable with this or should it be done through SPARC instead? 12 13 Committee Member Gracyk & Barrett: It should come back to SPARC if it changes. 14 15 Chair Rittenhouse: Do -not want to continue project if the applicant is not willing to make 16 further changes. 17 18 Committee Member Barrett: Believe the committee has reached consensus that the 19 single - family homes are •ok, but the town homes are an issue and need substantial work. 20 21 Chair Rittenhouse: There. are so many deficiencies with the townhouse side - I cannot 22 support the project. If the. applicant is interested in revising it, would like to see it again, 23 if not, then we should vote. 24 25 Rick Rosenbaum, Delco Builders: Have been working with the committee to come up 26 with a layout and a site plan that works well. This is a.higher density project that will 27 have issues that are not:inherent with single- family homes. Looking for an action 28 tonight. Willing to refine the project details, but not interested! incoming back with a site 29 plan redesign. 30 31 Chair Rittenhouse: Know the project changed at Planning Commission. & C.C. Don't 32 know if the P.C. is correct "body to make comments about architecture & access. I find 33 plan highly deficient. I would be happy to call for a vote. 34 35 Committee Member Barrett Planning Commission did not say this project was 36 wonderful - wanted - problems solved at SPARC. There has not been the give and take 37 you indicate. 38 39 Rick Rosenbaum: Tried. to address your concerns. Here to fine -tune issues such as 40 garbage collection, storage of garbage cans and access. Happy to redesign that and tweak 41 it, but not here to redesign the townhouse layout or to reduce density. Happy to bring 42 back the landscaping plan if it needs additional attention, but want the Committee to act 43 tonight. 44 SPARC Minutes January 8, 2004 1 Chair Rittenhouse.: Not challenging the density of the project - challenging the way the 2 site plan functions,.how.the circulation works, and the guest - parking layout. No attempt • 3 was made to improve corner units. Have no problem with single_ family homes., 4 5 ''M%S Rittenhouse /Barrett to deny the project as:presented. 3 -0 6 7 Public hearing ended at 7:00 pm. 8 9 • • 6 Verbatim Januar y 8, 2004 SPARC Minutes for that portion of Item II: GAI'TI /STRATFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION from line 40 page 7 to line 20 page 8 of the Draft Minutes Chair Rittenhouse: I see so many .problems with the town homes. I could reiterate these problems, however, 'it's redundant from the last meeting. I believe there are so many deficiencies that need to be addressed that in it's current configuration I cannot support it. If the applicant is interested in revising it to any degree, I would like to see it again. If not I would rather take a vote than continue it. Rick Rosenbaum, Delco 'Builders: We have been working on the project for a number of years and were probably at SPARC a year and half to two years ago. With the input of SPARC we have redesigned the °town house portion at least. 3 times, maybe 4. We received favorable comments at the Planning Commission and City Council and received. a tentative map some time ago.' . I 'think the project is much improved with the, direction of this committee. I find the comments a little surprising this late in. the game. We have been working diligently with 'the committee to come up With ,a layout and a site plan that works well for everyone. Knowing that this is a higher density project, you will have issues that are not inherent with single- family homes, we all `know "that. There will be issues with garbage and parking that you would not have with a single- family, lower density project. I think you have to take that into consideration and people that- buy,here understand that this is ® not a single - family home, it is a way for them to get into the real estate market. Most of the time these are first time buyers and so they are accepting of conditions than perhaps you and I who live in a single- family home: So, we would like. the committee to act on the project tonight. We are not interested in coming back with a site plan redesign. We are here to refine some of the details of the project and we look forward to`the committee's comments on the details, but we are looking -.for an action on the entire project due to the length of the processing and the fact that we do have an approved tentative map. Chair Rittenhouse: I have been on the committee for 2 % years and I don't recall seeing this project except for one preliminary review that came here prior to going to the Planning Commission. I did not see a whole lot ,of change from our plans when it went to Planning Commission. I know it changed several times at Planning Commission. itself and I know that the tentative map was pushed and rolled and redesigned at the Planning Commission level', specifically in the town homes. We never had a chance to comment on that. I don't know if the Planning Commission is -the correct body °to make comments about architecture, access and these type of issues or whether the land use was enough for them. I will say respectfully that I did not -have a chance to comment on the plan you put in front of us until it came to formal SPARC and I have commented on it at formal SPARC and I find it highly deficient. I would be happy to call for a vote for you tonight. Committee Member Barrett: I am on the Planning Commission as well as its representative to SPARC, and Planning 'Commission did not jump over this project saying it was wonderful. What we did was approve it saying that we wanted the problems with the ® density and the access taken care; of at SPARC. SPARC has brought back to you several times questions of access to the interior- part of the project that have not been acted on ever and we are consistently not getting issues addressed. I agree with Jack that there has not • been the give and take you seem to think there has been. Rick Rosenbaum: I find that very surprising because frankly we have tried to address issues ;ideritifi'ed, perhaps you don't :agree with the way we have addressed. them, but I believe we have tried to address them. The reason we.are here is to try and fine -tune -some of the issues. such. as garbage collection, storage of garbage cans and access. , We have made an attempt to do that, perhaps 'it is not an attempt that you find satisfactory: We ,are happy to redesign that and tweak it, but we are not here to redesign the layout of the town house portion of the;project. We are not here looking -at density issues; those are: not issues'before this committee today, The issues are design and appearance of the project: If you want to address those issues, we are happy,to do that., If you are going to address density 'issues' then we ask that, you act on the project and we will move on. .I think we did address some of SPARC's initial, comments. I was at the meeting. when SPARC talked about , how the proj ect relates to the proposed spark, how the project will relate, to the creek, how the project needs . some green space, how the project is deficient ,of yard space and we have addressed. -all of those comments. We : have redesigned the project several times so that= the houses look, onto the creek,, we 'introduced a private park in the project which was not part of'the'project. It is. now a public park. We added some yard space to the town homes so we did address some of those comments that-the committee - brought up initially. I agree it was' not brought .back to you, it acted 'upon by the Planning Commission and I believe there were several :site plan changes at that time at the direction of' the Planning Commission it was not brought back to you until now. I would agree with that_ point. I believe the Planning Commission • was supportive. of'the project ultimately not initially, and we redesigned it, 2'. or '3 tirnes''to meet some of the concerns of the. Plan Commission. I do stand corrected, however ,Lit is our perception of the situation.. We are here to fine tune this project and would L be; happy. to have comments to that, regard and would be happy to bring back the landscaping plan_ if -you. find that °it needs some additional attention, but we would like the Committee `to act on the majority of the Chair Rittenhouse: ,I :am not challenging.. the density of the .project, I am challenging :the way the site plan functions as a whole: 1. am challenging the, way the circulation, on the site works, how the guest parking is laid. out. All of the functional .issues, it is not just about getting to trash cans, Jt's about getting from A to , B, it's about finding a. unit, it's about parking as a guest. There are deficiencies in the site. plan that was approved.-, That is my opinion. There are . ,deficiencies in the way the .ends of the buildings were- detailed there is no attempt to make , a corner unit that is different than anything, else. There is attention to the end of the buildings other than to put a hip roof 'on. it. I just don't think there is good quality neighborhood design in the town home portion. Does anyonet wish: to address minor design issues as requested or should we take a vote? I want .it clear that. I do not have a problem with the single- family homes and, their sitting and layout. The only reason 'I am voting the way I am•i ofthe town home °portion of the, project. M/S Rittenhouse /Barrett to denythe°project as presented. 3 -0 CITY OF PETALUMA., CALIFORNIA • 'MEMORANDUM Community Development Department,,.Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E- mail:. planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us DATE: January 8, 2004 TO: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee FROM: Tiffany - Robbe,. Associate,'Planner AGENDA ITEM NO. H SUBJECT: Consideration 'of site and 'architectural plans fora proposal to construct Stratford Place (Gatti Nursery) a 46 unit single family`and 146, unit "townhouse subdivision on a 17 -acre parcel at '710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway east of the :future Gatti Park (APN .137- 070 -079, File 03 -SPC- 0516 -CR). This item was continued from the 11/13/03 SPARC;meeting. RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends that the Site Plan. and ,Architectural.. Review C ommittee approve the proposed PUD development plan, building elevations, landscaping plan, :and PUD development guidelines as conditioned or modified, based on the attached draft ftndings and draft conditions of approval (see Attachments A and B) 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 4` h ' 2003, and at the later date, approved 'the entitlements requested. SPARC first formally reviewed, the project November 13 at which time -they continued the project io::give the applicant time to to their. comments (see Except Minutes attachment C). The project is before SPARC for approval of the: 1. PUD Development' Plan 2. Building Elevations 3. Landscaping Plan. 4. PUD Development Guidelines PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' The 17.17 -acre site isr.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. Six Page 1 house:,plans are proposed and these range from 2,075 to 2 square feet. Every plan,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. F; Development.Plaft). On the west side of the parcel forty -six • two -story attached _townhomes are proposed, The townhomes are attached, in groups: of two and three units, forming, duplexes or triplexes._ Each townhouse will be 1,524 to 1,544 square. feet with a two -car garage accessed from an alleyway'at the rear. SPARC DIRECTION Following are the items, which SPARC, at the November meeting, asked the -applicant °to modify or address. The Delco Builders' response is shown in italic. Where staff needed to respond further to an item, those comments follow and are shown in plain text. LANDSCAPE PLAN ■ Landscape architect shall be required to specify which, plants are planted' where. Placement shall. ,emphasize variety between. units . and the :style; shall be gardenesque: No ornamental cherry, photinia, or, birch trees. Reconsider .lquidamber.. Canopy trees intermixed with .oleander at Capri 'Creek Apartments (west side of Belgrave). Gravel between `townhomes. Look as species placement at creek, like in ica under trees. ® Planting composition and exact species selection will promote a gardenesque character for the residences; plant palettes providing -this selection will be designated for the units on the construction drawings which will also provide irrigation system designs. The plant list eliminated species ( Photinia, Pr"unud, Birch,, and Liquidamber) as requested by SPAAC. We have now intermixed large broadleaf evergreen can trees with the oleander shrubs along the .CC Apartments. Gravel shall be specified ofic the construction' plans •a.s the ground plane treatment between the townhouse clusters. Species placement at the creek-and urban separator have been re- evaluated to remove size and proximity conflicts. All but one of the proposed street trees ;ate on the City's List of ApprOved Street Trees The Podocarpus /Fern Tree proposed along Capri Creek Apartments is not on the List, nor does ,the City's arborist recommend it, due to 'its susceptibility to cold snaps. Additionally, staff is concerned that the street trees proposed do not .always have the minimum planter width required by the List. Thel City:.arborist will. allow the use of the Chinese Pistache with a minimum of a 4- foot planter width, . but cannot allow•its use on Yorkshire adjacent to Capri Creek Apartments, where the planter strip is only '3 feet wide. Also 'the Planetree requires a 6 -foot planter width, where 'Primrose. Drive only has a planter` width of 4'/2 feet. Conversely, 'Churchill Drive has .a 6 -foot planter strip and depicts: a- Pear tree, which only requires a 3 -foot width. Condition of Approval 6a has been added requiring street trees to be compatible with the List or approved by City arborist and to 'provide canopy, where possible. Staff is also concerned that the landscape plan does not include, any information. regarding townhouse yard landscaping. H[`owever,, does ,differentiate. a, 10 -foot deep patio area with the remainder (`1 to 9%2 feet deep) as landscape area. Neither the material of the patio nor the landscaping is specified. Corona Ely. 'Specific Plan requires front yards to be landscaped, so Condition of ,Approval 6b has been added 'requiring that lot specific . landscaping is provided for both the • townhouse and single family front yards prior to improvement plan. approval. Page 2 Landscape plan shall show: lot S fence to be height of rear (Dito) fence, 'large shrubs to screen • lot 8 garage `from Urban Separator, and lot l street side fence running from rear house corner to rear PL. Retaining walls at lots 1 -8 shall utilize concrete block or concrete (not wood).. ® We have coordinated with the adjacent' homeowner (Dito) to provide new fence heights at lot 8 that matches the existing fence height at the Dito residence. We have also extended the fence along the urban separator edge of lot 8 to a distance equal to that of the garage architecture of lot 8. Included in the fence screen element we will provide large shrubs to supplement the screening` of the unit on the lot (note that shrubs' will not exceed height of new fence). This fence section may be eliminated should the Committee feel that the planting will provide enough screening. Retaining walls exceeding l ' in height have been changed to masonry (Keystone type walls). Conditions 6c 'and' 7b requires that the 'Improvement Plans include a depiction of this retaining wall and eliminate the fence in front of the Lot 8 garage. No plastic bench. © The benches specified along the creek and the urban separator shall be wood, not plastic. The bench is shown on sheet L -3. Consider cedar fencing (not.redwood). We have considered cedar material for the fencing, however feel that redwood will keep an improved appearance longer along these fence conditions. TOWNHOUSES ■ FIGURE OUT TOWNHOUSE WINDOW PROPOSAL. ® By making adjustments to the overall layout, it is possible to get all units to comply with a 3' setback (6' between buildings). However it will not be possible to address the staff comments relating to changing certain buildings to duplexes due to lack of space. These adjustments will be made to the development plan. The Building Code has an exemption from the 3 -foot setback rule where the structure abuts a "public way ". Lots 58 and 8'1, which abut the public creek corridor can utilize this exception as can those lots abutting the private alley as, by way of an easement, the alley will provide' public pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency vehicle ;access. If duplexes remain, the two units need to form an integrated structure. The duet rooflines have been modified to address this comment. ■ Consider offsetting, units (4 to 5 feet) front to back. Could then. get side door & electrical panel at rear. ® To address this comment the plans have been modified, adjusting the center units forward on the lots by 3'. This revision.has allowed for a small driveway which helps with.turning movements in the ally area and provides a space for a trash receptacle on trash day. Additionally, the proposal now shows doors from the garage to the side yard of most end units. Staff has added Condition of Approval 8a requiring side doors from all • garages abutting the 6-foot assess easement. Reconsider trash pick up, mailbox placement, and electrical panel location (locate at rear). Page 3 • Regarding trash pick -up, the end units will be provided with a trash receptacle storage area at the side yard area between buildings. On trash day these receptacles, will be set out in the alley, way in a designated area between the driveway / garage area. The area • will be designated,by stripe painting on the,pavemew. The center units will' be modified in two ways (1) The garage will. be deepened. by Z' to accommodate the storage of trash receptacles. (2) The units will be offset forward on the lot providing a small driveway area (approx 3 ) that can be used for placement of receptacles on trash day. • Regarding mailbox locations, the units facing the park will be provided -with a gang box located at the park/ visitor parking area on Belgrave Drive. The units facing out onto Casella and Yorkshire will be provided with two and three gang boxes. at the street between units. • Regarding utility box locations, for the end units a recessedmeter.closet will be provided at the side of the building. For the center units a small separate utility area will be created using a portion 'the. front porch: area. This area will be separate from the porch area and have a separate entrance for meter reading. Condition of Approval 6d has been added requiring that the Improvement Plan be modified to show a shared mailbox structure for each duplex/triplex on lots 47 -57 and 82 -92 and two "gang" mailbox structures for the units on. each side of the townhouse park. Staff is concerned that the extension of the middle unit's meter, closet roof to the townhouse and use of a property line wall increases the massing :and impact of this closet. SPARC might also want to: consider a condition to ensure the closet is kept to a minimum height and that the closet door is compatible. Fence/gate needs to correlate with unit architecture. ® The. fences have been, modified to match "the balconies. Utilize deeper balconies. ® The balconies have;been deepened to 4'. Would love cross connection though townhomes. ■ In reviewing the area between the townhome units, it was determined that the best use of these areas would be to provide a sideyard / utility ar..ea for the end unit owners. This side yard area would'provide for trash receptacle storage and access from front yard areas to alleyways for movement of gardening and other materials. The area would be closed off with'.fencing that would be setback enough to provide a planter.area at the -front and back of the affected units. This change would also address the need for planting in the alley area. The space will be provided with low growing ground cover and stepping stones: ■ Use individual concrete pavers, -not stamped concrete. ® We are willing to do which ever" the city prefers. Condition of Approval 7c has been added to require concrete pavers at. the alleyway entries. ■ Applicant should propose whether they prefer to fence or not (& how) the space between structures. • e Addressed in "cross connection" item. above. Page 4 SFD LOTS 1 -8 ® Look at a different. roofline. Consider shifting half of plan 6 forward or back to create a different roofline. Dormers of Elevation A are very long & not serving any purpose. Consider hip roof on Elevation A. ' ® Long dormers have been eliminated from: elevation A. Elevation B has been modified by bull- nosing the side gable ends and applying a different Siding type above the spring line. These changes were done in order to reduce the large wall section of the side elevation. Improve garage entry side of lots 4 and 8. ® Changing the roofline and adding the different siding type has greatly enhanced the garage entry elevation. Plan 6 shall have a minimum 6 -foot deep front porch and the bay window on the side should not be so close to the fencer ® Bay windows have °been provided with a minimum of 5 " to property line. The Plan 6 porch is only five feet to the outside dimension: Condition 8b has been added requiring, a six -foot depth. The bay window in question is on Lots 3, 5, and 7, as Lot 1 faces the corner. Should SPARC desire, lot lines 2/3 and 4/5 could . be moved 2 and 3 feet west to provide a 7 fo,ot:setback ` fronn: bay 3 an daneight foot setback from bay 5. Lot line ' 7/8 and house 7 could be moved three feet east to provide an 8 -foot setback from bay 7. • SFD LOTS 9 -46 Consider having Plan 2 onthe corners and having garage access from 'side street. ® The original intent of the plan one and two was. toremove hide, or backset the garages in order to avoid "garageWoor architecture' We fe'e'l thafmaking this change would again make the garage door a more prominent feature in the overall streetscape. Respectfully we ask that the Committee reconsider this change. Where plans 3 & 4 are arranged,in a,zipper lot con-figuration, consider having the property line abut the garage of plan 4 rather than .the. living space of plan 3. And add windows to plan 3. ® This change will be shown on the development plan. Also windows have been added to the plan 3. In making this: modification the master bathroom window added to Plan 4 must be removed. This is required with Condition 8c. Eliminate shutters. ® Shutters have been eliminated where they are not part of the front elevation architecture. The Applicant has stated that they are willing to eliminate the shutters on the street sides of';Plans IA, IC, 1D, 2C, 2D, 3A, 313, 3D, 4C, and 4D which do not have shutters on, the front elevation. Condition 8d has been added to ensure this. This leaves Plans 2A .and 4A, which propose shutters on both the front and street side elevations. These. shutters are proportioned so that they would cover the window if • they were operable; however, on the side elevation their placement seems to be haphazard rather than to represent any pattern or hierarchy. Page 5 Detail bottom of column & how the stone meets the porch. • Per The City .of Petaluma Building Department the stonework may be brought to within 4" of grade dirt and 2' at concrete, areas such as porches. We intend to bring the dirt e u high as possible in order to minimize the a between stonework and grad pas g p gap grade. _ g Consider adding a window to bedroom; 2 of plan, 3 & a frosted master bath window to plan 4 and improving plan 2's left side blank wall & plan. 3's right side blank wall'. • The Property line has been adjusted to the garage wall on the plan 4 thus .eliminating the opportunity for a window at the master bath area, however this modification! has.allowed for additional windows at the plan 3.. Windows were added to Bedrooms 2'. and 3 and the bathroom of'.Plan 3. A window was added to the master'bath window of plan 4; however, the shift of the property line between zippered plan 3's and 4s requires that this window be removed. Windows were added to the blank wall of the plan 2 elevations, but not to the floor plan. Conditions of Approval 8c aid e require these. modifications. ALL ■ Improve corner lot design, some well. done '(Plan 2) continue on that line. Shutters on side don't help: • Shutters (shown) are to be. removed and a d fferent siding type wilt be placed above the spring line: at the second floor on elevation. A, plan I (as shown on elevation B). Also eave returns will be.added to elevation A. Plan 1A, 1C, 1D, 2C, 2D 3A, 3B, 3D, 4C-, and 4D still show shutters' on the street . side elevation even though the front' elevation does not have shutters. The applicant proposes to : remove. these and to :add cave returns to the street aide of Plans 1 A, and 3A. Plans 1C .and 3C; .do not consistently depict upgraded windows, Plans 2C, 3B, 4C do not wrap the horizontal siding, around to the. upgraded -right side elevation (though it is shown on the left .of 2C and 4C): These :modifications have been required by Conditions of Approval 8d, f, and g. However, only Plans 1 and 6 of the single family occupy corner locations, so SPARC may wish to focus on these plans., No improved corner elevations have been provided for the townhouses. Condition of approval 8h :requires that enhanced corn er elevations be provided for lots 1, 1,1_, 12, 23, 24,_ 35,, 36, and 46, subject to staff review and approval. Eliminate false windows wherever they exist (roofs). • False dormers have been eliminated However they are proposed on all front gabled townhouses. ■ Use subdued colors within 30.0 feet of Urban Separator and consider less drab colors at townhomes. • Color boards have been modified. ADDITIONAL ITEMS SPARC asked staff to speak with the applicant regarding, their proposal to: use cultured stone on the homes. The developer expressed their desire to provide. the Committee with samples of the proposed cultured stone, as they feel that -it is of higher quality than earlier products. If SPARC is Page 6 comfortable that the cultured stone presented is a quality material, then allowing its use is consistent with CESP policies. SPARC may wish to consider requiring the two sets of windows on the front elevations of plans 5A & B with side entry garages to line up horizontally. Corner lots 57, 70, and 82 now have front yards that are only 13'/? feet deep. With the two -foot planter strip between the sidewalk and front fence.and with the fence itself, this leaves a fenced yard area 1.1 to 11 %2 feet deep. Ah other units have front yards that, are 16 '/z to 21' /2 feet (with a fenced yard area 14 to 19 % feet deep;). In a continuing effort to increase the yard space available to the residents and to reduce pavement,. SPARC may wish to discuss with the applicant whether lot 70 can match the similar lot 69 with a 16'/2 foot front setback and whether it is possible to push lots 57 and 82 back 1 to 2 feet. Attachment E shows the proposed garage -side lighting fixture that will light the townhouse alley (see Condition 9). The applicant has provided two variations, on the same fixture and two color options for SPARC's review. SPARC may require that the necessary landscape detail (such as specific townhouse and single - family front yard landscaping) be subject. to staff review and approval (as per Condition 6b) or may require that the landscaping plan return to SPARC for final approval (prior to Improvement Plan approval). • Lastly, while the City Council.approved the PUD Guidelines in concept, their content is subject to SPARC review. 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). Upon reviewing the typical lot site plans where air conditioning unit are often shown obstructing the side yards (see plans 2, 4, and 6), staff recommends that Section,3.13 be modified so that the first sentence of Prohibited Uses 2 reads "Mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units, except to the rear of the house or side of the townhouse yard." Condition of approval 10 recommends this modification. The Guidelines are included as Attachment D. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Site Plan and Architectural Review Findings B. Draft Site Plan and,Architectural Review Conditions of Approval C. SPARC Minutes Excerpt,'from November 13, 2003 D. PUD DevelopmentiGuidelines E. Alley light; fixtures ( SPARC members only) F. Development.Pl'an dated December 29, 2003 - full and I Ix 17 ( SPARC members only) G. House /Townhouse Architecture Plans dated December 12, 2003 - full and 11 x 17 ( SPARC members only) H. Landscape Plan dated December 15, 2003 - full and 11 x 17 ( SPARC members only) • s: \spare \reports \Gatti SubSPC2 Page 7 1 ATTACHMENT A 2 3 SITE PLAN.,AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS 4 Stratford .Place /Gatti Subdivision 5 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway behind Gatti Park 6 APN 137= 070 -079 7 Project File No. 03SPCO516CR 8 9 1. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee , (.SPARC), authorizes the proposed 10 construction of 46 detached single family, 'residences and 46 townhomes with the 11 associated' roadways, landscaping, paths, utilities and approximately 7 acres to 12 the City for park, creek corridor; and/or urban separator purposes. 13 14 2. The project, as conditioned, will conform to the intent, goals and policies of the Petaluma 15. General Plan. 16 17 3. The project, as - conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental -to the public 18 welfare of the, community because it will be operated in conformance with Performance 19 Standards specified in the'Uniform Building Code and the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 20 21 4. The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative 'Declaration at its meeting of August 4, 22 2003 and all mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study are herein incorporated. 23 24 5. The plan for the proposed development is compatible with the area and the PUD 25 Development Guidelines will ensure that the proposed development and uses are 26 compatible. 21 28 6. The proposed structures and site plan, as conditioned, conform to the requirements' of Site 29 Plan and Architecture Review Standards for Review of Applications 26 -40:6 A) ,of the 30 Zoning "Ordinance as: 31 32 a. Quality materials are used appropriately and, the units within, the project are in 33 harmony and proportion to the each other and to the surrounding 34 35 b. The architectural style Ofthe units is appropriate for the project and compatible With 36 other structures in the immediate neighborhood; 37 38 c. The siting of the new structures is comparable to the siting of other'structures in the 39 immediate neighborhood; 40 41 d. 'The; bulk, height; and color .of`the new structures is comparable':'to the bulk, height; 42 and color of other' structures'n'the immediate neighborhood;_ 43 44 ee The landscaping is in. keeping with the character and design of`the :site and the 45 surrounding area; and 46 • 47 f. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, pedestrian ways, and adequate parking 48 have been designed to promote safety and convenience. 49 Page 1 ATTACHMENT B 2 • 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4 Str.;atford Place /Gatti Subdivision 5 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway behind Gatti Park 6 APN 137 -070 -079 7 Project File No. 03SPCO516CR 8 9 1. All mitigation measures and .findings adopted in conjunction with approval of the 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution 2003 -158: N.C.S.) for the Stratford 11 Place /Gatti subdivision project are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of 12 project approval. 13 14 2. All conditions /findings adopted in conjunction with Ordinance No. 2'160 approving the 15 Rezoning to Planned Unit District for the Stratford Place /Gatti subdivision project are 16 herein incorporated byreference as conditions of project approval. 17 18 3. All conditions /findings adopted in conjunction with Resolution 2003 -159 N.C.S. 19 approving a 92 -lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map are herein incorporated by 20 reference as conditions lof project approval. 21 22 4. All conditions /findings :adopted in conjunction with Resolution 2003 -160 N.C.S. 23 approving the Planned Unit District Development Guidelines for the Washington Creek 4 Village subdivision project are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project 5 approval. 26 27 5. The plans submitted for building, permit review shall be in substantial conformance with 28 those plans dated December 12, 15, and 29, 2003 .(on file in the Petaluma Community 29 Development Department, Planning Division) except as'modified by the following 30 conditions. 31 32 6. Prior to Improvement; Plan approval, the landscape plan shall be modified to depict 33 a) Street trees .:which are compatible with the List . of Approved Street Trees or 34 approved by the City- arbonst and which provide a -tree canopy where possible, 35 b) Lot specific front yard landscaping for lots 1 -92 subject to staff review and 36 approval, 37 c) The lot 8 urban separator side fence extending no further than the end of its 38 driveway, but rather fence - height shrubs planted just within the property line to 39 screen the garage from, the urban separator, 40 d) A shared mailbox structure for each duplex /triplex on lots 47 -57 and 82 -92 and a 41 group mailbox structure for units 58 -69 and one for units 70 -81 located at°the top of 42 the townhouse park; 43 e) Bollards along the creek adjacent to lot 82, and 44 0 Landscaping (which includes an appropriate tree) in the area between the Casella 45 Way cul -de- sack the creek side path, and the emergency vehicle curb cut as shown 47 on the Development 'Plan. 48 Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7. Prior to Improvement Plan approval, a) A bollard light shall be depicted adjacent to the bridge and low - wattage lighting shall be :depicted to cast a soft wash of light underneath the bridge without creating a glare, b) A keystone• type; masonry. retaining wall ,shall be depicted for all retaining walls exceeding 1 foot in height, and c) The Private Alley Exhibit shall be incorporated and depict concrete pavers (not stamped concrete) at the alleyway entries. 8:; ,Prior to.issuance of any unit orrnasterbuildingpermit, a), Side doors shall be depicted from all townhouse garages abutting the 6 foot assess easement, b) The Plan 6 porch shall be six -feet deep; c) The side garage and master bathroom windows- on Plan 4 shall be eliminated as they sit on the property line d) The shutters shall be eliminated from the street sides of Plans l A; 1 C, 1 D, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B, 3D, 4C, and 4D, e): Ensure that all windows ahown on the elevation of Plan' 2 (at the garage) ,are shown on the floor plan, Upgraded windows .shall be consistently shown on the street. side elevation, .including Plans 1 C and 3C, ,g) Horizontal siding shown on. the front elevation shall be' wrapped, around to the upgraded street side of all elevations, including of Plans 2C, 3B, 4C, and h) Enhanced, comer elevations ishall be provided for lots 47, 57, 58, 69, 70, 81, 82, and 92 and shall be subject to staff review and approval. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 9 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Prior to issuance of any townhouse building permit, the SPARC approved low- wattage photosensitive residential - type, fixture, shall be shown garage -side .on all rear townhouse elevations and the electrical sheet shall show this fixture to be a part. of each unit's system, but without a switch. Prior to issuance of a building permit:. for anylowinhouse or house other than elevation C, the front exterior fixtures shall be reviewed, and approved by staff. Prior to _issuance of 'a building permit, all exterior light fixtures shall be. shown to be downcast and provide a soft. "wash" of light against the wall and shall conform to City Performance Standards. No ;lighting shall produce a direct glare. 10. Prior to issuance of any unit 'or master building permit, the PUD..Guidelines Section 3.12 shall be modified so that -the first sentence of Prohibited Uses 2 reads '" Mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units, except , to the rear: of the house or side of the townhouse yard." Standard.SPARC Conditions 'Of Approval: • 42 43 11.. The site shall be kept .cleared' at all times of all garbage and debris. 44 45 1.2. At no time shall future activities exceed Performance Standards specif;ed.in.the`Uniforml 46 Building Code,.'Section 22-3QL of the Petaluma Zoning,,Ordinance (d`ust, odor, etc:), and 47 the 1987' City of Petaluma General Plan. • 48 Page 10 1 � 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 • 13. External downspouts shall be painted to match background- building colors. Scuppers without drainage pipes may not be installed because of probable staining of walls (overflow scuppers are excepted). 14. All trees shall be a minimum fifteen - gallon size (i.e. trunk diameter of at least 3 /4 inch measured one foot above the ground) unless otherwise specified (e.g.: 24" box or specimen size) and doubae staked; all shrubs shall' be five- gallon size. All landscaped areas not improved with lawn shall' be. protected with two-inch deep bark mulch as a temporarymeasure until the ground cover. is established, 15. All planted areas, shall be served by a City approved automatic underground irrigation system. 16. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate,, 'pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to: insure , continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials. Page 11