HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 11.A 02/03/2003CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
FEB 0 3 2003
AGENDA BILL
Agenda Title Appeal by Summertree Development, Inc. of the
Meeting Date: February 3, 2003
Decision by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee to
include Condition of Approval 47 requiring, wood windows in the
Baker Ranch subdivision located at Corona and Ely Roads.
Department
Director
Contact Perso
Phone Number
Community
Mike Moor
Laura Lafler, .
Development
Project Planner
Cost of Proposal N/A
Account Number N/A
Amount Budgeted N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item
1. Location Map
2. Letter of appeal dated October 2, 2002,
3. Minutes Excerpt from the August 8, 200.2, Site Plan and Architectural Committee meeting
4, Minutes Excerpt from the September 12, 2002, Site Plan and Architectural Committee meeting
5. Minutes Excerpt from the September 26, 2002, Site Plan and Architectural Committee meeting
6. Draft Resolution Denying the.Appeal and Upholding SPARC's application of Condition of Approval #7
Requiring Wood Windows in the Baker Ranch Project
Summary Statement The applicant, Summertree Development,_ Inc. has appealed the Site Plan and
Architectural Review Committee's (SPARC) Condition of Approval # 7, which requires wood windows in
the Baker Ranch subdivision.
.
Council Priority THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY TO, ONE OR
MORE OF THE 2001 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 21, 2001.
Priority(s): N/A
Recommended City Council Action /Suggested Motion Uphold the Site Plan and Architectural Review
Committee's decision and deny the appeal subject to the findings in the attached draft resolution.
Reviewed by- Finance Director:
Reviewed, by City Attorney
Date:
A rov d • it Mana er:
Date:
r ate:
Today's Date !
Revision # and Date Revised:
File Code:
#
January 13, 2003
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
- FEBRUARY 3, 2003
AGENDA REPORT .
FOR
SUMMERTREE DEVELOPMENT'S APPEAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW'COMMITTEE'S CONDITIONREQUIRING
WOOD WINDOWS AT BAKER RANCH SUBDIVISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant, Summertree Development, Inc., has appealed the
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee's, ( SPARC) application of Condition of
Approval #7, which requires wood windows in the Baker Ranch subdivision.
2. BACKGROUND Baker Ranch is an approved 10 -lot subdivision at. the southeast corner of
Corona and Ely Roads. The prezoning. and subdivis'i'on obtained a positive Planning
Commission re comrnendation'on November 13, 200.1, City Council approval on February
4, 2002, and Site Plan and.Architectural Review approval on September 26, 2002. The
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee's approval `included Condition of Approval
#7, which reads as follows:
"Prior to submitting applications for building permits, the applicant shall submit
preliminary plans for design development that shall include the following for
review and approval by'Community Development
® Provide specifications for wood windows on submitted plans."
The developer appealed this Condition of Approval on October 2, 2002.
The Zoning Ordinance Section 26 -406 describes the role of SPARC to include:
Any controls ' to achieve
0 A satisfctory quality of design in the, individual. building and its site,
o Appropriateness ofthe building to its intended use, and
® Harmony of the development with its surroundings.
Satisfactory design quality: and harmony will involve among other things:
1. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of
the overall , design. "[bold added]
This statement gives SPARC the responsibility to ensure'that new developments utilize the
highest quality materials. At the September 26, 2002 hearing, the meeting minutes
(Attachment 5,, page 2) reflect SPARC's intent for wood windows in the proposed Baker
Ranch, homes. Therefore, the record shows that the Committee was concerned with the
"appropriate use of quality materials" when they voted to include Condition of Approval
#7.
The applicant, in his appeal letter dated October 2, 2002 (Attachment 2), believes that
"vinyl windows are virtually identical in appearance to wood windows and defy even
expert observers to distinguish them from wood from even a few feet away... ". The
applicant considers it "arbitrary and clearly outside" SPARC's authority "to exclude the
use of this most energy efficient, modern and' popular of window types... The applicant
considers vinyl to be "...superior in quality to wood...due to their ease of operation
(seldom stick) and comparatively low maintenance requirements."
Thee applicant considers the condition to be outside the authority of SPARC to decide. He
cites the zoning. ordinance that requires SPARC review to achieve a `harmony of.the
development with its surroundings'. "Windows in the Corona. -Ely part of Petaluma are,
with few exceptions, vinyl windows, not wood. Harmonious designs would be those - that
fit in with those nearby."
.Finally, the 'applicant considers SPARC's "effective prohibition. of vinyl windows" to
conflict with the ability of the Petaluma ,Building Department inspectors; to enforce the
Uniform Building Code. He states that.the UBC -has no restriction on using vinyl windows
and' that restricting an "otherwise acceptable building material(s)" undermines the function
of the UBC.. "The Code exists to guide and protect municipalities, designers, builders and
the general citizenry as to acceptable building design and materials."
While .individual members of the SPARC committee had discussed the possible
environmental affects of PVC at previous hearings, the rationale in applying condition 47
to the Baker Ranch project , clearly was related-to the desire for the new residences to be
detailed with high quality building materials.
This appeal, as well as the associated appeal by Cobblestone Homes for Washington Creek
Village, raises issues regarding the mission of SPARC and their ability to have continued
discretion over the architectural review process in Petaluma.
If the Council is sympathetic to the appellant in their effort to gain relief from the this
limitation on window materials, one could argue that SPARC would be limited in their
discretion over any building material, including siding, roofing and paint. If the Council
supports this appeal staff would seek direction from_ the Council on exactly what
limitations would be placed 'on the :architectural, review process. Staff would also request
that Council consider this a.formal policy on window materials that would be applicable to
all projects that have already been similarly: conditioned and to any future project subject to
SPARC review and approval.
3
3. ALTERNATIVES
a. Deny the appeal and uphold SPARC's Condition of Approval #7 regarding the a
requirement for wood windows.
b. Grant the appeal and eliminate SPARC's Condition of Approval #7. If this option is
chosen, staff seeks direction from the City Council on
• The limits of SPARC regarding building material issues and
• A policy regarding the applicability of similar window conditions of approval on
previously approved and future projects.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS No negative financial impacts to the City would result from
denying or granting, the appeal. The City collected the standard appeal fee of $170.00.
This money is used for mailing copies of the notice to interested parties regarding the
proposed project. This money does not cover staff :time to prepare and review the staff
report. Approximately 20 hours of staff time at a cost of $1,000.00 has been expended to
date on this appeal. This amount will be recovered from the appellant pursuant to the
City's currently adopted fee schedule.
5. CONCLUSION The application of Condition of Approval #7 appears to be consistent with
the role of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee as outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance Section 26 -406, which requires that the Committee ensure the appropriate use
of quality materials.
X
COMPLETION: N/A
7. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the City
Council uphold SPARC's decision and deny the appeal based on the findings in the
attached resolution.
M
Summertree. Development, Inc.
Attention: Bill -Dick
P.O: Box 287
Fiilton, 95439
orvs�= Mm UE--
I
II i ' I /
\ \ v
I
I
I
a
l/ less
II I� +II
LOCATION MAP
I
11 II 1939 -\I 9a9\
8261 94
11 I 1 18 121 937
1818 933
PROJECT SITE 81a 929
II II ' j IBtO 9'291
II II ( id911 �
i`
h
I�
J ROAD
470
I
.1
598
9 In n o �c
m mr
1 771
1
r
711
1729
- �
1
1742 J
f 70 I
1725 722 1 ' 2 l ' 17
172.1 �'� 1,
r 7Y71P 1717
7 a
�^ 1713 �I
'
I711 ,1 17'
0
•
1710
17131 1 1709 117
709
f
1708 705 1"I
70` a
17702 � 1.701 � �(
--
1714
_1993
1
.1701
LIORO . - E _
I 597
II m I
498 1 K,�7�.1'I
470
I
.1
r
'
468
r� 1_
150 10 1037
.428
tS
6
U
400'
15 1
501
c
a
SONWfA
NOUNTAN PARKWAY
---
Q
—�_
PcTTACH,MEfVT
1
—_
October, 2, 2002
Honorable Clark Thompson, Mayor And Members of the City Council
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
RE: The Baker Ranch:
Appeal of SPARC Condition of Approval
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
Please consider this, letter to constitute a formal appeal of that certain condition of the
conditional project approv al" your' Site Planning and. Architectural Review
Committee(SPARC),approved on September 26, 2002, which effectively prohibits
the Baker Ranch Subdivision from using vinyl frame windows in its design and
construction by specifically requiring the use of wood windows SPARC chose to couch
this requirement as a specification rather than a prohibition in order to camouflage its true
intent which is the elimination of vinyl window use in virtually all projects brought
before it. The condition was worded differently than other recent subdivision approvals
in an attempt to "require" rather than "prohibit" and'thus mask its arbitrary intent.
In reviewing the applicable Petaluma City ordinances that relate to the purview of
SPARC, it seems abundantly clear that aesthetic issues constitute the Committee's
primary domain. Since vinyl windows are virtually identical in appearance to wood
windows and defy even expert observers to distinguish them from wood from even a few
feet away, it is simply arbitrary and clearly outside the Committee's charge to exclude
the use of this most energy efficient, modern and popular of window types at Baker
Ranch.
The Committee has :attempted to use comparative quality as the basis for requiring wood
windows in' lieu of vinyl'but vinyl windows are, in fact, superior in quality to wood. This
is due to their ease of operation (seldom stick) and comparatively low maintenance
requirements. Wood windows must be painted periodically and are more subject to
damage, especially if the removable wood grids favored by SPARC are used. These
grids are extremely breakable and almost impossible to repair and must be removed to
wash the windows.
ATTAC H M E f V T 2
P.O. Box 287 ® Fulton, CA 95439 ® Office /Fax: (707) 545 -2930 e email: billd@sonic.net
Simply stated we appeal this condition of our SPARC -approval on the grounds that it is
not a matter for SPARC to :decide In the city zoning ordinance, Secs. 26 -401 and 26 -406
are very definitive in directing SPARC review to achieve a "harmony of the
ment with its surroundings". Windows in the Corona-Ely p art of Petaluma are,
with few exceptions; vinyl windows, not wood. Harmonious designs would be those that
fit in with those nearby. The criteria establishing ;SPARC's jurisdiction are, for the most
part, centered on the evaluation of appearance and architectural compatibility within a "
project's surrounding neighborhood. We appeal to you to compel SPARC to follow thiss
mandate.
SPARC's .effective prohibition of vinyl windows at Baker Ranch is also in conflict with
the authorityrepresented by the Petaluma Building Department, its trained inspectors and
their enforcement of the Uniform Building Code. The UBC has no restriction on the use
of vinyl, windows. Restricting otherwise acceptable building materials such as vinyl
- windows would undermine an important function of the UBC. The Code exists to guide
and protect'municipalities, designers, builders and the general citizenry as to acceptable
building design and materials. Once again, SPARC treads outside its realm in
disqualifying the best quality building components that. have little or no impact on
appearance and, in fact, are used in most of the finest Homes in East Petaluma and
elsewhere;
We respectfully request, that the Council, find that the SPARC condition that effectively
prohibits the use of fullyvinyl windows by requiring windows is inappropriate +and
direct :that it be removed it .from : SPARC" S Conditional Approval of Baker Ranch. As .a
winner, of SPARC .awards for project design in past. years, we look forward to creating
another fine looking quality neighborhood that Petalurnans will find attractive and well
designed.
rely,..
I Dick
President
SPARC Minutes August 8, 2002
LU City of Petaluma, CA
Site Plan and_. Architectural Review Committee
I85$
1
2 M i`n.utes
3 EXCERPT
4 Regular Meeting August 8, 2002
5 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m.
6 City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA
7 Telephone: 707- 778 -4301 E -Mail: plahninggci.petaltuna.ca.us
8 FAX: 707 - 778 -4498 Web Page: http://www.cl.petaluma.ca.us
9
10
11 The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages .applicants or their
12 representatives to be available , at the meeting to answer questions :so that no agenda item
13 need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information.
14
15
16 Roll Call: Present: Chris Lynch, Janet Gracyk, Linda Mathies, Jack Rittenhouse
17 Absent: Teresa Barrett
18 Staff: George White; Planning Manager
19 Laura Lafler, Project Planner
20 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
21 *Chairperson
22
23
24
25 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE BUSINESS:
26 OLD BUSINESS;
27 PUBLIC HEARING:
28
29 I. WATERFORD ASSOCIATES — BAKER LLC, 945 Front Street, Novato,
30 CA 94945
31 AP No: 137- 070 -09
32 File: ANX0l001,.T.SM01001, PRZ01002, SPCO1023
33 Planner: Laura Lafler
34
35 Applicant is requesting site plan and architectural approval for aproposal to
36 construct ten new homes' in an approved subdivision.
37
38 Laura Lafler presented the staff report.
39
/kTTACHMEN 3
SPARC Minutes August 8, 2002
1 Ben Smith, Waterford Associates, introduced the design team.
2
3 Shawn Faber, Architect: Presented the architecture for the project.
4
5 Phil Abey, Landscape Architect: Presented the, landscape plan.
6
7 Janet Grayck: Suggested additional planting island between the two trees in the cul de
8 sac parking area. Suggested that the landscape plan show the location of the 3:1 oak
9 replacement.
10
11 Bonnie Diefendorf, Carlonzom & Associates: Addressed the sight distance letter sent
12 with the packet.
13
14 Public hearing opened:
15
16 Doug Weisenpfluh, Kensington: Asked,about density for Rl -6500 and Corona.Ely
17 specific plan.
18
19 Kristi Plum, Stonehenge Way: Find it difficult to believe that all the trees are diseased.
20 Would like the committee to try harder to preserve the oak trees. Would like oaks
21 replaced with oaks and not red buds. Think more effort. should be made to preserve the
22 trees.
23
24 Jim Roeders: Waterford has been good about trying to incorporate project into the
25 surroundings.. Concern that new trees along hi's property line might block the open space
26 and views to the west.
27
28 Pat, 1802 Hartford Lane: Have concerns about the materials blending with existing
29 neighborhood.
30
31 Don Phillips, 1831 Hartford Lane: Asked about, walkway in the back of the property.
32 Patricia Tuttle Brown: Think the path along Corona Road will be an amenity. Will need
33 an outlet from the path back onto Corona Road. Future easement to the.school, would
34 like landscaping and a bench and a curb cut at the end of cul de sac off Ely Road.
35
3`6 Hank Plum, 1721 Stonehenge Way: All of the houses iii: the neighborhood have tile
37 roofs. Perhaps reconsider roof material. Are lots 1 and:2 ,going to stay as large lots — are
38 there restricts that these remain rural properties ?� In approximate area near Riesling built
39 "granny units'! — will this be permissible in this development? On the east side natural
40 trees are a gem — this area was a floodplain. Neighbors are very interested in retaining
41 the oaks, if not would'like them replaced with comparable trees. Would like to recreate
42 the seed banks. Property is below grade — is the builder doing something to retain the
43 water? Detention type system needs to be considered here.
44
45 George White: Addressed Mr. Plum's questions.
46
2
SPARC Minutes August 8, 2002
1 Public hearing closed:
2
3 Committee comments:
4
5 . Committee Member Lynch: From a site plan point of view, understand that it is
6 production housing, however, the plans: don't make sense in the way they are oriented to
7 the sun. Houses are opposite of what you would rationalize. Quality of life is impacted
8 by how these houses are laid out: Driving' in the, neighborhood, you see a lot of garage
9 doors, which is duplicating existing .houses: Houses should be two stories with detached
10 garages. Given the size of the lots, this can be provided. By going to two stories you can
11 have more outdoor amenities. The drive_ way ends up beingAhe walkway to the house and
12 that is not good. Would like the houses closer to the street. Do, not see anything rural
13 about these styles — can understand the dilemma of trying to fit into the surrounding area
14 — think you should defer to the rural, farm like vernacular. Design the houses to fit into
15 the open space. Think having a place where you can.have a granny unit is a benefit.
16 Don't put shutters on, stone needs to be reevaluated, simplify roofline. Don't have a
17 problem with the comp roof. Path on Corona Road — use road oyle (decomposed
18 granite). House on the comer of Hartman Lane does not relate to the corner at all.
19 Should pull back fence and have wrap around porch design. as corner lots. Agree with the
20 curb cut at the cul de sac. Like sycamores as street trees. Where will the oaks be that are
21 replacing the ones to be removed? If there was some way to save at least two trees on lot
22 4 think it would be beneficial and pass on the liability_ to the�new owners.
23
24 Committee Member Mathies: With the size of lots garages do not need to be prominent.'
25 When I think of rural, I think of simple lines and the garage in the back. Would like to
26 see the architecture more along the rural lines. Does not need to: be a similar style of the
27 existing neighborhood. Would prefer. aluminum over vinyl windows. Would like a
28 minimum of 12 new oak trees or even more. Like adding the landscaping in'the center of
29 the cul de sac. Like the idea of the pocket park, and the cul de sac — do not need to go to
30 the extent of lighting maybe ,l or 2 ,benches.
31
32 Committee Member Gracyk: Think the number of trees in the rear could be reduced for
33 view purposes. The two trees near Ely are decaying are going to deteriorate faster
34 since there is development. Agree that we need to be responsible and remove all four
35 trees. Need four trees that are. a 60, inch box, and 8 could. be 24 inch box — need to be
36 carefully selected with good structure. Recommend that acorns be planted from the trees
37 on the site:— could work with the school children. There-.Is an opportunity for a new oak
38 at the end of the cul de sac. There are opportunities in lots 1 and 2 and along the road
39 edge. Need to allow space for roots if in the parking strip area. Sycamore is a good
40 choice, or pistache. Would like a more detailed planting plan, would like more variety
41 and perennials. Make efforts to reduce water usage. Be careful about public .utility
42 easements and the tree plantings. Be consistent with the street tree list = allow rooting
43 room for street trees. Like °the suggestion that there be an exit to Corona Road from the
44 bike path. Pull path back from the existing tree on the corner of Ely and Corona. Rural
45 architecture is the way to go — will solve a lot of the other problems. Do not need tile
46 roof with a rural architectural theme.
SPARC Minutes August 8, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Committee Member Rittenhouse: Concur with what,the other committee members. See
this as an opportunity to do a different type of architecture. Still have opportunities to
modify the architecture. Design.the houses for solar access. Houses,are essentially
boxes — can be broken up. Architecture does very little to address the feathering stated in
the General. Plan — needs to be rethought. Front porch 1cari encroach into front setback.
Do not like cultured stone — not think it fits. Agreei that bike /ped path need"§ to go
back to Corona Road. Pocket park since it's on private property may be problematic.
Defer to Janet on the oak trees. Bring large trees in to replace what was there. Do not
think the developer should just do the minimum.
Gloria Eckton, 938 Kensington Place: Will there be only one way out of the
development onto to Ely? Think-there will be a traffic and safety hazard. Agreeto save
the oaks ifpo.ssible.
M/S Lynch/Grayck to continue to September 12, 2002.
All in favor:
Committee Member Gracyk: Yes
Committee Member Barrett: Absent
Committee Member Rittenhouse: Yes
Committee Member Lynch: Yes
Committee Member Mathies: Yes
Adjournment; 5:01
S ASparc \Minutes \080802.doc
4
SPARC Minutes September 12, 2002
2A
.�
City of Petaluma, CA
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
Z85$
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Min utes
EXCERPT
Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Telephone: 707 - 778 - 430'1
FAX: 707 - 778 -4498
September 12, 2002
3:00 p.m.
Petaluma, CA
E -Mail: planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page: http: //www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages applicants or their
representatives to be available at the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item
need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information.
Roll Call: Present Teresa Barrett, Chris Lynch, Janet Gracyk, Jack Rittenhouse*
Absent: Linda.Mathies
*Chairperson
Staff: George White, Planning Manager
Irene Borba, Senior Planner
Laura Lafler, Project Planner
Tiffany Robbe Assistant Planner
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
SITE. PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE BUSINESS:
OLD BUSINESS;
PUBLIC HEARING:
I. BAKER RANCH, 619 Ely Road
AP No: 137- 070 -09
File: 'ANX01001,.TSM01001, PR201002, SPCO1;623
Planner: 'Laura Lafler
Applicant is requesting,site plan and architectural approval for a proposal to
construct homes in an approved subdivision.
1 ATTACHMENT 4
SPARC Minutes September 12, 2002
1
2 Note: This item is continued from August 8, 2002.
3
4 Laura Lafler presented the staff report.
5
.6 Ben Smith, Waterford Associates: Introduced the team.
7
8 Chris Craiker; Craiker Architects: Presented the site,plan and architectural changes to the
9 project as well as: the color board and materials.
10
11 Phil'Abey, Landscape Architect: Presented the landscaping plan for the project.
12
13 Ben Smith, Waterford Associates: Addressed the letter from Bonnie Defendorf
14 reviewing the proposal to provide a crossing over the roadside drainage channel along.
15 Corona Road.
16
17 Bill. Dick: Discussed danger of losing the Walnut trees if roadside drainage is widened.
18 Discussed - material of pathway. Looked 'into tara pave (road oyle). Have coneerns about
19 the material being durable.
20
2.1 John Meserve, Consulting Arborist: Suggested using oak,seedlings — will provide a
22 specific program for new trees. Thinks it will be more successful overall.
23
24 Bonnie Diefendorf, Carlenzoli & Associates: Referred to her letter in the packet
25 regarding the proposal to provide a crossing over the roadside drainage channel along
26 Corona Road.
27
28 Public hearing opened:
29
30 Patricia Tuttle Brown, PBAC Like the bench and cul de sac being included. Wanted to
31 know if a bridge was an option — did not hear Bonnie's presentation. Would like the path.
32 to go to the fence in hopes that there will be future negotiations with the school district.
33 Possiblyput a bench at the end of the path:
34
35 Committee Member Barrett: Asked PBAC if they wanted to weigh in on materials for
36 path.
37
38 Patricia.Tuttle'Brown: Likes the Lynch Creek Trail at Lucchesi Park.
39
40 Public he_ aring closed:
41
42 Committee Member Gracyk: Like the solar access, the skylights, and porches. Can you
43 switch lot 4. Like that Ely side is more interesting. Problems with plan 2 — riot farm like
44 vernacular except the roofline. Appreciate the landscaping alternatives. Would rather
45 see planting in the hammer head. Would still like two large, oaks as part of project.
46 Would.lke to provide homeowner.information on how to maintain trees. Like 5'
2
S'PARC Minutes September 12, 2002
1 planting strips. Can you alter how houses are sitting on the lots? Brought brochure from
2 houses designed in Sonoma in a farm like vernacular. Would like to see the road oyle
3 material for path. Like the acorn and seedling planting plan, the 2 large oaks and the new
4 plant selection.
5
6 Committee Member Barrett: Like the architecture in general. Thanked the applicant and
7 engineer for work on the culvert. Like the idea ofabench at end of the bike path. Like
8 the road oyle product for the path —adds to rural aspects. Agree with, Janet about larger
9 oaks to start with.— like the seedlings' also.
10
11 Committee Member Lynch: Appreciates the efforts make -for porches, sidewalk to house
12 from street, solar efforts. ,Asking for rural farmhouse vernacular like simple roof forms.
13 Architecture needs to be rethought. Suggested coming back withainagery. Single, larger
14 home is more crucial to being farm house'vernacular — will look as if it's in the middle of
15 the field. Path will need to end at fence. Want road oyle is all weather and rural look.
16 Go with other color rather than gray. Agree with Janet regarding the oak trees. Want a
17 condition crafted to make sure seedlings are not mowed down.
18
19 Committee Member Rittenhouse: Want to echo a lot of comments. Have addressed
20 some of the solar issues, sidewalk. Lots on Hartman should come as fat forward as
21 possible. Next level of feathering could maybe be staggered to eliminate the boxy look.
22 Some very contemporary elements like rooflines. Think we should abandon bridge idea
23 and have path end at the school fence. Would like the path to be granite (something soft).
24 Need to formulate a condition regarding the oak seedlings.
25
26 Chris Craiker, Craiker Architects: Asked for more clarity from the Committee.
27
28 Committee Member Barrett: More simplicity in the facade and architectural style.
29
30 Committee Member Lynch: Houses are way to busy in terms of detail.
31
32 Bill Dick: Addressed the committee about their comments — tried very hard to meet the
33 committee's direction in the design of the homes. Asked for more detailed .direction from
34 the committee.
35
36 Committee Member Rittenhouse: Exterior massing and details are not rural vernacular.
37
38 Committee Member Lynch: Vertical asymmetry happening which makes it less simple.
39
40 Agreement from committee:
41 ® Provide a condition to insure protection of seedlings to be, planted on individual lots.
42 e Locate porches closer to street on Hartman.
43 e Stagger homes rather'than presenting a formal "front" to the street.
44 e Simplify rooflines and facade of homes.
45
46 Committee Member, Ritter house: Simplification of what you already have.
3
SPARC Minutes
1 `
2 MIS Barrett /Lynch to continue to September 26, 2002.
3
4 All in favor:
5 Committee Member Gracyk: Yes
6 Committee Member Rittenhouse: Yes
7, Committee Member Barrett: Yes
8 Committee Member Lynch: Yes
9
10
11
12 Adjournment: 7 :00 p.m.
13
14
15 SASparc\Minutes \091202.doc
September 12, 2002
4
SPARC Minutes September 26, 2002
w L Cit of Re
�A U y taluma, .CA
a , . g
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
X85$
1 '
2. Minutes
3 EXCERPT
4 Regular Meeting September 26, 2002
5 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m.
6 City Hall, l l English Street Petaluma, CA
7 Telephone: 707,778 -4301 E- Mail: . planninggei.petaluma.ca.us
8 FAX: 707- 778 -4498 Web Page: http:.% /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
9
10
11 The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages applicants or their
12 representatives to be available at the meeting to answer questions °so that no agenda item
13 need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent 'information.
14
15
16 Roll Call: Present:_ Teresa Barrett, Chris Lynch, Janet Gracyk, Linda
17 Mathies, Jack Rittenhouse*
18
19 *Chairperson
20
21 Staff: George White,.Planning Manager
22 Irene Borba, Senior Planner
23 Laura.Lafler,,Project Planner
24 Betsi Lewitter; 'Project Planner
25 Phil Boyle, Assistant Planner
26 Anne Windsor„ Administrative Secretary
27
28
29 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITE R COMMITTEE BUSINESS:
30 OLD BUSINESS;
31 PUBLIC HEARING:
32
33 Public hearing began @ 3 :15 p.m.
34
35 I. BAKERRANCH; 619 Ely Road
36 AP No 137- 070 -09.
37 File: ANX01001, TSM01001, PRZ01002, SPCO1023'
38 Planner:. Laura Lafler
39
ATTACHMENT 5
1
SPARC Minutes September 26, 2002
1 Applicant is requesting site plan and architectural approval for a proposal to
2 construct ten new homes in an approved subdivision.
3
4 Note: This item is continued from. September 12, 20.02.
5
6 Laura Lafler presented the staff report.
7
8 Ben Smith, Waterford Associates: Introduced Doug' Gawoski from Craiker Architects.
9
10 Doug Gawoski, Architect: Presented the architectural changes to the project.
11
12 Discussion regarding. windows took place. .
13
14 Bill Dick: Window preference is vinyl. Great deal of effort put into the redesign of the
15 houses. Addressedlhe committee re: tree replacement ratio. Clarified that 300 seedlings
16 will be planted and there will be a 3 to 1 replacement. of oaks — the only 'issue is size.
17
18 Pulbic hearing opened
19
20 Patricia Tuttle Brown: Went to the site —path will be very nice. Wanted to clarify if'
2.1 there would be a bench at the end of the path. .
22
23 Public hearing- closed.
24
25 Committee Member Mathies: Think'plan is much improved. Would like to condition
26 wood windows. OK with seedling program and 3 to 1 replacement with a little smaller
27 tree.
28.
29 Comn ttee Member Lynch: 100% better — not traditional but rural. Like% the simplicity
30 of this vernacular. Some plans with 3 -car ,garages-- still essentially boxes. Get rid of 1
31 of the-3 ;garage'doors and snake a man door — better visual as you approach from,the
32 street. Think.columns coming down to the porch.with out details at the bottom — keep
33 simple. Don't have a problem with proposal for trees. Want to see rear elevations.
34
35 Committee Member Barrett: Architecture is better — concur on conditioning wood
36 windows. Have tree committee look at seedling plan that will be presented to the
37 homeowners..
38 -
39 Committee Member Gracyk: Architecture tremendously improved. Enlarge the glass in
40 the door. Asked applicant to. clarify, the porch — on certain plans it does not look
41 accessible. Have concerns about panels above the baywindows. Agree with wood
42 windows. Legitimate concern - re; garage doors. Applicant's arborist should do the
43 seedling protection plan. Think should still have some big box trees and less seedlings —
44 just one big box tree would be fine.
45
46 Committee Member Rittenhouse: ' Project is more rural vernacular — thanked the
2
SPARC Minutes September 26, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
applicant. Like the addition of the seedlings — don't think'a large specimen tree is
necessary. Is brickwork necessary? 'The garage doors could be simplified or understated.
Agree with wood windows and bench at end of bike path. Want porches to be useable,
French doors would bed preferable to a sliding glass; door. Suggested committee member
weigh in on large house.
Committee Member Lynch: Large house is still too simple on the rear elevation — little
more attention needs to be paid to all rear elevations. Work on the bay window on the
house on corner — would rather see the plan with the wrap around porch at the corner.
Agree with Committee Member Gracyk's comment regarding the doors. Think you can
lose the porte- couchere completely.
Committee Member Gracyk: Outside lights too contemporary.
Committee Member Mathies: Agree the rear elevation of large home needs some
detailing.
Committee Member Rittenhouse: Agree rear elevation of large home needs work.
Committee Member Gracyk: Suggested project arborst chose the specimen of trees.
Issues to be reviewed by staff:
• All four exterior elevations
• Rear of large home
• Seedling protec "tion'plan to be presented to staff and the Tree Advisory
Committee
• Light fixtures.
• Front doors and garage doors
• Wood windows (grids not inside the glass — both sides of exterior glass)
• Bay window on corner lot
• Bench at end of bike path
M/S Barrett /Lynch to approve'the project per the findings and amended conditions.
All in favor:
Committee Member Gracyk:
Yes
Committee Membef Barrett:
Yes
Committee Member Rittenhouse:
Yes
Committee Member Lynch:
Yes
Committee member Mathies:
Yes
3
SPARC Minutes
September 26, 2002
1
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
2
FINDINGS:
3
Baker Ranch Subdivision
4
Southeast Corner of Corona Road and Ely Road
5
APN 137= 070 -09
6
Project File No(s). SPCO1023
7
- -
8
1,.
The Site Plan and Architectural Review ,Committee authorizes the proposed
9
construction of a ten unit detached single family residential subdivision with
10
associated roadways, paths, and utilities.
11
12
2.
The project as conditioned, will conform to the intent, goals, and policies of the
13
Petaluma General Plan and the Corona/Ely Specific Plan. The General Plan
14
contains objectives and ;policies which encourages the orderly and harmonious
15
development of Petaluma to insure a choice of housing types and locations to all
16
persons regardless of sex, cultural origin, age, marital status, or physical
17
handicaps.
18
19
3.
The project as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detri mental to the
20
public welfare of the community because it will be operated in conformance, with
21
Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code, the Petaluma.
22
Zoning Ordinance and the 1987 City of Petaluma General Plan.
23
.
24
4.
The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration at its meeting of
25
February 4, 20.02 and all mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study are
26
herein incorporated.
27
28
5.
That the plan for the proposed development is compatible with the area.
29
30
31
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
32
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
33
Baker Ranch Subdivision
34
Southeast Corner of Corona Road and Ely Road
35
APN 137- 070 -09
36
Project File No(s). 'SPC01023
37
38
Planning Rep artment
39
40
1.
All mitigation measures and findings, ad'opted'in conjunction with approval of the
41
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution- 2002 -020 N.C.S.) Tor :the Baker
42
Ranch Subdivision project are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of
43
project approval.
44
4
SPARC'."Minutes September 26, 2002
1 2.. All conditions /findings adopted in conjunction with Ordinance, 2128 N.C.S.
2 prezoning the subject property to R1 -6500, are .herein incorporated by reference
3 as conditions of project approval.
4
5 3. All conditions /findings adopted in conjunction with Resolution 2002 -021 N.C.S.
6 adopting a Tentative 1Vla . for the Baker Ranch Subdivision are herein
7 incorporated by reference, as conditions of approval.
9 4. Prior to issuance of 80 % of the Certificates of Occupancy for the residential units,
10 the work approved J6r the public paths along Corona and Ely Roads shall be
11 completed and approved by the Community Development Department.
12
13 5. Oaks on Lot 4' identified as Tree #1 and Tree #2 shall be' removed consistent with
14 recommendations of the City and applicant''s arborists, The trees represent a
15 potential hazard with liability due to their deteriorating condition. Native
16 replacement trees shall -be planted at a 3:1 ratio. The location of said trees, to be at
17 the discretion of the project landscape designer, shall be indicated on the final
18 landscape plan submitted prior to issuance of any buildingp.en - nit.
19
20 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall resolve the sight
21 distance issue on Hartman Lane by one or both of the following methods:
22
23 o Contact the owner of Lot 44 Graystone Creek to get permission to replace
24 with open fencing the last 10 feet of the rear yard ,fence to the point where
25 the privacy fencing begins and/or
26
27 a. Flip the intended home on Lot 7 to move the driveway farther away from
28 the obstructing fence on _Lot 44 of the Graystone Creek subdivision. With
29 this change the sight distance would be 55 feet for pedestrians, 125 feet for
30 bicycles, and 175 feet for vehicles.
31
32 7. Prior to submitting applications for building permits, the. applicant shall submit
33 preliminary plans for design development that shall' include the following for
34 review and approval by Community Development staff.
35
36 ® Provide four exterior elevations for each proposed residential plan.
37 ® Re"vise.plan for large residence on Lot I Plan to show more variation and
38 interest in rear elevation.
39 o Submit language regarding the seedling protection plan that shall be
40 given to each homeowner who buys property with oak seedling mitigation
41 plantings: Plan shall be reviewed by the Tree.Advisory Committee.
42 ® Replace proposed exterior light fixtures with a design that is more in
43 keeping with proposed architecture.
44 ® Redesign front doors to simplify and be in keeping with rural vernacular
45 of other portions of the proposed homes.
5
SPARC Minutes
September. 26, 2002
1
o Redesign side entry garage to offset or recess one of three parking spaces,
2
so that appearance is.not a "wall" of garage doors.
3
o Redesign corner residence on Lot.11 to present a more inviting.side
4
elevation to the street, such as wrapping porch around the side.
5
S Simplify design of bay windows on Plan 1.
6
e Simplify design of proposed columns, at front of homes.
7
O Provide solar tubes as shown in previous plans.
8
® Provide a bench at the eastern end of the path following Corona.Road that.
9
will end at the school property.
10
o Provide 24 -inch box trees as shown in landscape plans, with trees to be
11
selected by a certified arborist.
12
® Provide specifications for wood windows on submitted plans.
13
14
15
Standard SPARC Conditions Of Approval:
16
17
8.
Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning 'Ordinance and
18
Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor).
19
20
9.
The site shall be kept cleared at all times of all garbage and debris. No outdoor
21
storage shall be permitted.
22
23
10.
At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified
24
in the Uniform Building Code; Section'22 -3;01 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance,
25
and the 1987 City of Petaluma General Plan.
26
27
11.
External downspouts shall be painted to match background - building colors.
28
Scuppers without drainage pipes may not` be installed because of "probable staining
29
of walls (overflow scuppers are excepted).
30
31
12.
Should any archeologieal/historical remains be .encountered during grading,- work
32
shall be halted temporarily land a, qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to
33
evaluate the artifacts and to recommend further action.
34'
35
13.
All trees shall be a minimum fifteen - gallon size (i.e. trunk diameter of at least 3/4
36
inch measured one foot above the ground) unless otherwise specified (e.g.: 24"
37
box or specimen size) and double staked; all shrubs shall be five- gallon size. All
38
landscaped areas not improved. with lawn shall be protected with two -inch deep
39
bark mulch as a temporary measure -until the ground cover is established.
40
41
14.
All plant material shall -be served by a City approved automatic underground
42
irrigation system.
43
44
15.
All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water
45
Agency's Design Criteria.
46
6
SPARC Minutes September 26, 2002
1 16. All work within they public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the
2 Division of Public Works.
3
4 17. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance
5 shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris
6 and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be
7 replaced with other plant. materials to insure continued compliance with
8 applicable landscaping requirements. .Required irrigation systems shall be fully
9 maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and
10 replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas,
11 and health and'vitality of landscape materials.
12
13 18. All street trees and other plant materials within the public' right -of -way shall be
14 subject to inspection" by the project landscape architect or designer prior to
15 installation and by City staff prior to acceptance by the City, for conformance
16 with the approved quality specifications.
17
18 19. All tree stakes and ties shall be removed within one year following installation or
19 as soon as trees are able to stand erect without ,support.
20
21 20. A master landscape plan of the street frontage areas shall be provided, to staff
22 approval, prior to issuance of a-building permit. The landscape plan shall include
23 street trees with planting, design and species to staff approval: Landscape shall be
24 installed to City standards prior to issuance of Certificate of. Occupancy.
25 21. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near public streets or
26 walkways as needed, subject to staff review and approval.
27 22. Public utility access and easement locations and ,widths shall be subject to
28 approval by PG &E, Pacific Bell, SCWA, all other applicable utility and. service
29 companies and the City Engineer and shall be shown on the plans submitted with
30 the building permit.
31 23. Underground utilities such as water meters and sewer laterals shall be placed
32 under paving or as close :as possible to private driveways, to avoid conflict with
33 street tree planting locations within the street right -of -way. Transformer vaults,
34 fire hydrants and light standards shall be located in a manner which allows
35 reasonable: implementation of the approved street tree planting plan for the project
36 without compromising public safety.
37 -
38 24. A separate water meter shall be provided for landscape irrigation systems or as
39 required by "staff.
40 25. Any future color schemes that vary from those approved shall be subject to staff
41 or SPARC review.
7
SPARC Minutes
September 26, 2002
1 26. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and
2 approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a .soft "wash" of light
3 against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no
4 direct' glare, no poles in excess of 20 feet height) and shall compliment building
5 architecture.
6 27. Temporary protective fencing.shall be erected 5', outside the drip line of all trees
7 to be preserved/protected and all trees (on neighboring property) in proximity to
8 construction. activities. The fencing ,shall be a minimum of 5' in height, and shall
9 be secured with in- ground posts subject to staff inspection prior to grading permit
10 issuance and any grading /construction activity.
11
12 28. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its
13 boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or
14 proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
15 employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
16 such, claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
17 State. and/or local statutes. The, City shall promptly notify the applicants of any
18 such claim action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense.
19 Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a
20 defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's
21 fees and costs, and the City defendsthe action in good faith.
22
23
24
25 Adjournment:' 7:30
26
27
28 S:\ Sparc \Minutes \Minutes02 \092602 Am
0
RESOLUTION OF THE; CITY COUNCIL. OF PETALUMA
DENYING THE APPEAL BY SUMMERTREE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE'S
CONDITION OF APPROVAL #7'
REQUIRING WOOD WINDOWS IN THE BAKER RANCH PROJECT
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CORONA AND ELY ROADS APN 137 - 070 -09
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2002, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee ( SPARC)
held a public hearing, heard testimony and conditionally approved the site, architectural and
landscape plan for Baker Ranch, a 10 -lot subdivision at Corona and Ely Roads, APN 137- 070 -09;
and
WHEREAS, Condition of Approval #7 required the use of wood windows for the project; and
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2002, the Community Development Department received a letter from
the applicant appealing SPARC's Condition of Approval #7; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council to consider the appeal
on, February 3, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the City Council, based on the evidence and
testimony presented for the record at the public hearing, hereby denies the appeal and upholds the
decision of SPARC based on the following finding:
® The requirement for wood windows in condition #7 is consistent with the role of SPARC as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 26 -406 which, charges the Committee with ensuring
that new development utilize quality building materials.
ATTACHM'aN 6
FEB 0 3 2003
Vinyl windows - Wlat's the issue?
Crump, Katie
From: deanne - peter @sbcgloba1.net
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 10.13 AM
To: Mayor; petalumamike @aol.com;' Keith _Canevaro, @c,,petaluma.ca.us; canevaro @attbi.com;
redhawks @sonic.net; ptorliatt @aol.com; Bryant @bryantmoynihan.com
Subject: Vinyl windows- What's the issue?
Dear Council Member,
I am writing this to all council members as I will not be able to get to the meeting this week.
Let me begin by noting that I do not work in Petaluma and have no direct financial interest in this
decision, It may affect whether I can afford to buy a house here (I am renting now).
I am a designer and familiar with activities of design review boards. In the city of Sonoma and
elsewhere the vinyl window issue has arisen. I do not believe vinyl windows are a problem for the
quality of a building (not like vinyl siding).
What is the evolution of this issue?
1) Architectural review by a committee (ARC) is deemed necessary for residential projects that require
variance from standard city ordinance (PUD's), in order to ascertain that the project indeed creates a
higher value through being planned as a whole.
2) ARC's should look at how the general 4public presence of the' PUD; how it fits into the site and relates
" to it's neighbors. (Has this been expanded to maintaining the neighbors property values by requiring
expensive homes ?). Where does the ARC cross the line into matters, that should be the choice of builders
and their clients?
3) ARC's should concern themselves with massing, building organization (eg.. the placing of windows),
colors and, indeed, the appearance of materials. However things like the composition of MATERIALS
must be handled LIGHTLY and seen, in the OVERALL CONTEXT of the project. Are some projects
deemed affordable by the ARC and therefore may use cheaper windows, others not? (Sacramento has .
gone so far as to outlaw certain colors, materials and building types for individual builders on any lot).
As a designer who loves to see attractive buildings, I think this is going too far. "Wood windows good,
vinyl windows bad." Is this the result of civic snobbery? -I_f you look (please look), at a modern single
hung of each type with screen, you will see there is little difference in the appearance to a passerby.
Wood windows do typically show a more pronounced profile. Is it the applied muntins the ARC is
looking for? What is the issue? Is there a fear that 600K homes will soon create neighborhood BLIGHT
due to vinyl windows?
The city can best serve the citizens by:
1) Not applying blanket judgements on building materials that drive -up the cost of housing
Aluminum is out. It is either wood or vinyl for energy conservation. Some vinyl windows look better
and perform better than others. Again, what's the real issue ?. Modern wood windows are now CLAD
suc that the exterior parts are completely extruded vinyl or aluminum.
2/3/2003
a
Vinyl windows- What's the, Aue? Page 2 of 2
2) Fully INSPECT HOW T14E WINDOWS ARE INSTALLED, so that four years later the resale of the
home is not hampered by water leakage problems due to poor construction (the case in some eastside
homes now).
3) Define what the role of the ARC is. Don't allow them to waste everyone's time delving into minutia
based on personal opinions. Give the ARC some guidelines and delineate the type of project that they
have jurisdiction over.
Thanks, for considering this Email. Many important items are before the council and I hope to attend
for some of the upcoming agendas
Peter Bacot
494 Hawk Drive
(Turtle-Creelc with Vinyl Windows)
Petaluma
2/3/2003