HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 3.AB-Minutes 05/17/2004Draft SPARC Minutes, April 22, 2004
a �AL� City of Petaluma, CA
Site Plan' and Architectural Review Committee
2
3
Draft
4
Excerpt
5
Minutes
6
Regular Meeting April 22, 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.cl.petaluma.ca.us
11
12
13
The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages" applicants or their
14
representatives to. like available at the meeting'to answer questions so that no agenda item
15
need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information.
16
w,o 17
Roll Call Present: Teresa Barrett, Janet Gracyk, Terry - Kosewic, Mary Schearer,
18
Jack Rittenhouse*
19
20
*Chairperson
21
22
Staff: Irene Borba Senior Planner
23
Tiffany Robbe, Associate Planner
24
Phil Boyle, Associate.Planner.
25
Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner
26
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
27
28
29
Approval of'Minutes: Minutes of April !8, 2004 were approved as amended, M/S
30
Barrett%Gracyk, 4 -0, Kosewic abstained.
31
Committee Members' Report:
32
Correspondence None
3 3
Public Comment: None.
34
Legal: Resource.Statement Was noted on the agenda.
35
Appeal Statement :'Was noted on the -agenda
36
37
38
39
Public Bearing begarvat- 00
40
Draft SPARC Minutes April 22, 2004
2 SITE PLAN AND ARCIIITECTURAL REVIEW CONIMI.TTEE BUSINESS:
3 OEb 'BUSINESS:
4
5 I. GATTI /STRATFORD PLACE' SUBDIVISION, 710 Sonoma Mountain
6 Parkway
7 AP No: 137 - 070 -079
8 File: 04- SPC-- 0191 =CR
9 Planner: Tiffany Rolbe
10
11 The City .Council is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
12 consideration of the''revised townhouse portion,o'f the site plan and the applicant is
13 requesting SPARC consideration of the landscape plan for the single- family
14 portion of Stratford Place (Gatti Nursery) at 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway east
15 of the future Gatti'Park.
16
17 Mary Shearer recused herself from this item since she had '-no background information
18 and was not on the Committee, for the prior hearings.
19
20 Tiffany Robbe presented the staff report.
21
22 R.J. Wilson, Delco Builders: Thanked the committee for all of their: input. Delco agrees
23 with the staff report and looks forward to finalizing the plan.
24
25 Public comment opened' /,.closed:,
26
27 Committee Member .Kosew c: Not concerned about 7' %2 ft. on the front yard, would be
28 easy to have property line follow FEMA line. The 104eef is important, however, you
29 could then combine or rearrange your duplexes a.l4d'e. You would end up with triplexes
30 being, lots 30, 31 and 32, but 39 could move to 40' and 41 could. move. to 4.2, etc. Then 45
31 and 46 could move over that 10 ft. and you would end up with 1 triplex and more
32 duplexes. I think that would :solve more issues than just trying to rearrange the 1 triplex
33 and add the 7/2 fee,
' and end up with a SFD on lot 46.
t
34
35 Architecture is fine for what you are doing. Do not want to see a color palette that is
36 limited to °.2. or 3 colors Can do so much with color - use imagination on colors:
37
38 Committee 'Member Gtacyk: Commended the applicant for sticking with this and
39 maki
g changes. Commend our` Chair as well for working with you. It will be a much
40 more appealing place for, residents. Agree to move 46 over and push .front yard into the
41 FEMA line and getting .another passageway through the town homes.. Suggest pathways
42 line up with private pak to give you fine of sight to creek. Need to see the final lighting
43 plan. Incorporate ' signage 'between units 34 and 35 and 43 and 44 and the end units as
44 well. Sidewalk side entrances are good choices — add them to 13 and 1.5. No comments
45 in particular on architecture. _ Glad to see lights above side doors. here there are 4 ft
46 planters for Pistas W
he trees is not sufficient — need 6 ft. planters. Choices red maple,
47 Zelkova, European;Hackherry Red Horsechestnut (from street tree list). Olive trees are
4
n .
Draft SPARC Minutes April 22, 2004
L
ok. Where crepe myrtles are proposed they should only be on sunny side, Japanese
2
Maple will work on shady side (very °narrow form)..
.3'
4
Committee Member Barrett: Echo what Committee Member Gracyk said regarding trees
i'
5
on the Single Family Homes — needs'to be conditioned.
6
7
Chair Rittenhouse: Asked for clarification, staff report says all the trees are on the street
8
tree list and consistent — is that incorrect.
9
10
Tiffany Robbe: No, it is not incorrect. Do not see a Crepe Myrtle on SFD side and we
11
are only looking at that today. Pistache in City' guidelines does say 6 ft.,. however, I
12
have spoken with Ed. Anchordoguy and he is fine with it at 4 ft. Olive tree is in town
13
home portion. Believe in the single- family portion they are either consistent with the
14
guidelines or the City arborist.
15
16
Committee Member Barrett: Corona -Ely Specific Plan has color guidelines. Is that
17
correct?
.,
18
19
Tiffany Robbe: Only for the first 300 ft. from the urban separator it talks about
20
neutral /natural colors.
21
22
Committee Member Barrett: Neutral/natural sounds fine — there is a lot you can do with
23
that. I like the site plan much better;.'however, # 13, 14 and 15 if they were flipped so
24
front is on Belgrave and garage is underneath it would be more useful - it seems
25
awkward. Side entrances are' a .good idea — can_ work for 13 and 15, however, not 14.
26
Town homes facing Corona Creek makes the livability much better. Fencing will be very
27
important — want to see whatAhat will look like. Agree with staff to give 10 more feet
28
and the chair can address how Ghat will work. When landsc aping comes back, need to see
29
mailboxes and lighting. as well. Site plan works better for getting people to take garbage
30
cans to either Belgruve or Private Alley C for people who live on Private Alley B or A.
" .
31
People on Bachelor and Cody"tourt`here on the west side have to do that — would like it
32
to be a condition of approval.
33
34
Chair Rittenhouse: Thanked the applicant. Believe the project has benefited from the
35
new layout. Believe suggestion by staff of moving buildings over 1.0 feet and distributing
36
through `the, interior. along the creek is a good idea, extending front yard of lot 46 in the
37
FEMA line :'and unifying the fence line along the creek would be useful. There are many
38
different ways to group the duplexes and triplexes. I think reorganizing units 30 -46 to
39
line up two '127,16, ft pedestrian paths with the walkways next to jownhouse park and
40
creating a stronger access there b'' putting two duplexes on either end and' three triplexes
41
in the center would be better: I will give you my diagram to look at and consider. Would
42
like other commit, m
tee embers to weigh in on this. Want, to verify :side entry conditions.
43
End units that have shaded pathways — are they the units with,`side doors? Could 12, 13
44
and 15 have that 'Wider path between 36 and 37 and 39' and 40, may have an
45
opportunity to have side, entry;, wouldn't have to pop out 4% feet. Center the decorative
46
alley pavement with pathways. Want to see proposed lighting with landscape and
3
1
.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Draft.SPARC Minutes
directional signs.
April 22, 2004
Architecture: Believe some fun colors would be good here. .Request the applicant use
hip roof instead of gable:roof on "the`units at the end of a row to reduce massing.
Committee Merriber Gracyk = Want to. have a path centered on the sidewalks around the
private park. Hip roof `at corner is. good. Don't hesitate to come back with. revised
colors— could be very rich even in natural colors.
R.J. Wilson: Condition re: garbage = may be difficult for homeowners.
Chair Rittenhouse: Homeowners will figure it out. Not necessary to condition project.
Committee agreed with the Chair regarding garbage.
Chair Rittenhouse: Confirmed that the applicant will bring back the lighting and
landscape plan.
Conditions /Issues:
• Hip roof (instead of gable) at end of building rows.
• Side entry on units 12,.13 and i5.
• Align some. large paths with the private park.
• Possibly more side entries.
Committee Member Barrett: Possibly not l ave'pathways from creek side to alley C align
with park, as would'increase visibility of a private park.
M/S Rittenhouse /Gracyk to I) Accept the townhouse site plan asamended: Move lot 46
over to FEMA line, redistribute`extra 10 feet between other units; extend front yard of lot
46 b%2 feet into FEMA area; attempt to get 2 primary pedestrian paths aligned with
sidewalks on either side of private park; triplexes no more than 1 unit away from
pedestrian pathway; include as many side entries as possible .require on lots 12, 13, 15
and attempt on 36, 37, 39 and 40 ;,-use hip roof at end units, instead of gable; decorative
paving in alleys' lined up with paths, Lighting &_ way- finding signage will return with
townhouse landscaping. 2) Approve single- family (phase 1) landscaping plan 4 -0,
Shearerxecused'.
Public hearing ended at 4:00
,, 4