Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 15.A-Attch14 02/03/2003ATTACHMENT 14 CITY O� Yh1AL,UMA, L;ALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street,,.Pelaluina, CA 94952 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707)' 7784498 E -mail: planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us DATE: July26, 2001 AGENDA ITEM No. II TO: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee ` FROM: Betsi Lewitter, Contract Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary SPARC Review Magnolia Place Magnolia and. Gossage Avenues APN 048-14141'2,%'048-132-027 Applicant: Steve Arago, CSW /Stuber- Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 1301 Redwood Way, Suite 200 Petaluma, CA 93954 Project Manager: Dan Aguilar Mission Valley Properties 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Req u est: At this time, staff and the applicant are seeking-preliminary review and input from the Committee on the site design, architecture and landscaping aspects of the project. General Plan Designation: The project applicant proposes to construct 48 single- family detached, residential units on two separate, contiguous parcels totaling 24.49 acres adjacent to the western City limits. Both parcels are within the City'a Sphere of-Influence and Urban Growth Boundary. The 17.12 =acre Magnolia Avenue site is designated as° a public park, and the 7.35 -acre chicken ranch site is designated as Suburban Residential on the City's General Plan map. The project ;requires 'a General Plan amendment to redesignate the 6.53 -acre development area and the 2.21 acres of private. open space on the Magnolia Avenue site, and the entire 7.3.5 -acre chicken ranch site to Urba n Sfan dard, which allows a density of 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed densities are. 3.43 units per acre for the Magnolia Avenue site. and 2.4 units per acre for the chicken ranch site, with a combined density of 2.98 units per acre. Zoning: The properties, are. currently within County of Sonoma jurisdiction and are,zoned Rural Residential. `Both'parcels' are within the City's Sphere of Influence and Urban Growth Boundary. The applicants.-are requesting prezoning of the property to Planned Unit District (PUD). Project Description: The applicants propose to construct a 48 unit residential subdivision, to be called Magnolia Place, on two separate, contiguous parcels totaling 24.49 acres adjacent to the western-City limits. The project will require the City's approval of a General Plan Amendment, prezoning to Planned, Unit District, a Unit Development Plan and a vesting tentative subdivision map as well as SPARC approval. An application will be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAF.CO) for approval of annexation. Thirty of the lots, ranging in size from 5,800 'to 10,645' square feet, would be clustered on 6.53 acres of .a 17.12 -acre parcel ( "Magnolia Avenue site ") located north of'Magnolia Avenue and west of the Cypress'Hili Cemetery. The upper 838 acres is to be dedicated to the City of Petaluma for a public park/open space and the remaining, 2.21 a cres along ' Ma g nolia - Avenue is to e'rdtamed*`in the'develo ment as private open space: An . additional 1 8-custom home lots, ranging in size from 8,686 to 19,430 square feet; are to be located on ,a 7.35 -acre parcel ( "chicken ranch site ");located eastof "Gossage Avenue at the end of Samuel Drive. The site contains a drainage swale and a roadside drainage channel along; Magnolia Avenue, that are subject to Army Corps of Engineering regulation. 'Total jurisdictional area on the to equals 0.53 acres, consisting of 0.43 acres of wetlands and 0.10 acres of other. waters of the United States. Construction of the residential units is to occur in phases with the Magnolia Avenue site production homes to be developed initially and the custom. homes- to be constructed "as the. individual lots are sold and developed under market demand conditions. A rock -clad bridge, with pedestrian walkways on both sides of the structure will span the roadside drainage Swale to provide access to the houses and public park/open space from Magnolia Avenue. The main access to the chicken ranch site would be from Samuel Drive; lots 40 and 41 are to 'be accessed: directly from Gossage Avenue and lots 38, 42 and 43 would be accessed from a private driveway off a cul -de -.sac. The project would also include the construction of three ,detention basins to detain storm water flows: The Magnolia Avenue site is currently developed with a single- family residence, outbuilding, and concrete water tank. The chicken ranch site presently contains four chicken houses, two mobile homes, and an accessory structure: Preliminary Issues: • Circulation • Park/open space dedication o Site grading ® Design Guidelines -lack of specificity of language ® Project landscaping — especially in vicinity of detention ponds ® Architecture Attachments: 1. Location reap 2. Full-size plans 3. Project description 4. Design Guidelines MagpkpreiimSPARC SPARC Minutes � ALU a City of Petaluma, CA Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Ig5$ 7/26/01 1 Minutes 3 EXCERPT 4 5 Regular Meeting July 26, 2001 6 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m. 7 City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 8 Telephone: 707- 778 -4301. E -Mail: lanning.(a,ci:petaluma.ca.us 9 FAX: 707 - 778 -4498 Web Page: hftp:/ /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us 10 11 12 PRELIMINARY REVIEW. 13 14. II. MAGNOLIA PLACE —1200 Magnolia Avenue & 1111 Gossage Avenue. 15 Preliminary Review of site plan, architecture and landscaping aspects of 16 proposed 48 unit single - family residential subdivision of 24.49 acres. 17 Proposal includes, dedication of 8.38 acres to City for a public park. 1s APN: 048-141-0124; 048 = 132 -027 19 Planner: Betsi Lewitter 20 21 Steve Arago, CSW Stuber- Stroeh Engineering: Gave project background. Stone bridge 22 will be built at entrance from Magnolia with a traffic circle. 23 24 Dan Aguilar, Mission Valley Properties, Project Manager: Proposed $100,000 25 maintenance annuity and $5,000 to Tree Advisory Committee. 26 27 Marcie Matthews, CSW Stuber - Stroeh, Engineering: Noted.project constraints, drainage, 28 and developable portion of 29 30 John Packowski, Packowski- He inntz Associates: Reviewed project architecture 31 32 Committee Member Barrett: Where is parking for public park? On street parking except 33 on cul -de -sacs. 34 35 Public comments: 36 37 Patricia Tuttle Brown: Bike Committee does not, agree with private open space. 38 Important to have entrance from cemetery into development. Hoping project could do 39 some improvements. for pedestrian and bike traffic on Magnolia Street. Noted that 1 SPARC Minutes 7/26/01 1 Committee does not support development on the `site- prefers park designation. 2 3 Some discussion re: public vs. private 2 acres on Magnolia edge of development. 4 5 Patricia Tuttle Brown: Want this project to have a connection to Jesse Lane., 6 7 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive: Has concerns regarding flooding problems - drainage 8 from this property goes into river at Rocca Drive. .9 to Bill Phillips: Noted that adjacent neighborhood has 1 -story homes - told there 11 would be a mix of '1 and 2 story homes - only 2 story shown on plans. 12 13 Marcie; New homes are at a lower elevation. 14 15 Beth Meredith: Asked prices of homes? What is quality of park land being designated? 16 Two car garages in front of homes eliminate the other nice features - prefer reduction of 17 garage dominance. If you- can bring houses forward it gives more a community feel and 18 can 'leave area for garage in back. Narrow the streets when possible. Cotati has 30' 19 streets Encourage sustainability and energy efficiency. 20 21 Dan Aguilar, Mission Valley Properties Average price will probably start in low 22 $400,000 range. 23 24 Steve -Arago:. Regarding bike and pedestrian paths in park and quality. Tried to leave a 25 dynamic area. for City Park. Heard lots of comments for park from community groups 26 and today, however, Stuber -Stroeh is not designing park - would be done by the City. 27 28 Dan Aguilar-: The ends of cul -de -sacs left open to allow access to park - streets to be 29 pedestrian friendly. 30 1 Committee Comments: 32 33 Linda Mathies: Good start to project. Likes the. tree canopy. Amount of fill -any 34 concerns? Like Plan 3 - glad porches are deep - can accommodate porch swing. Plan 1. 35 - not much detail, very bland. Plan 1 -rear elevation, French doors not paned like 36 windows. Plan 2 - windows on sun porch are small- didn't see consistency. Would like 37 to see some of the old time plants like'hydrangea and rhododendron. 38 39 Custom homes - need good guidelines. Good example: Brush Creek in Novato. The 40 level of concern for Pefaluma'.s heritage and architecture is admirable. Likes the 41 roundabout. 42 43 Marcie Matthews: Anticipates fill will balance. Have gone to native plants and low 44 maintenance plants due to water situation. 45 46 Jack Rittenhouse: Seems like two' separate projects production subdivision and custonm 2 SPARC Minutes, 7/26/01 1 homes. Expressed. concern regarding 'the .guidelines for the custom houses - too many 2 styles. Not enough on street parking for custom homes. Private drive that links Gossage 3 to bulb. Have a problem with 4 dead ends. Lots '6 & '7' of production homes have 6' 4 retaining walls with a 2 to 'l slope behind it. Consider moving lots 48 & 31 up to 5 northern end of development. Explore bringing street up and through. Does City want 6 this land as a park? Has concerns regarding only on- street parking for park. Would like 7 to see different kind of park - just. remainder space. in no man's land. Circulation -wise 8- it's very. isolating. .Don't think:it,. was... thought .,out:...Detention..pond.. - not,sure how it's - - 9 going to work - see as a hazard. No amenities for smaller homes and families. Traffic to study regarding roundabout. Bridge - would rather see it single loaded 8' on one side 11 rather than 2 sides. Almost every site has 2' wall - not attractive side yard. Want more 12 diversity re: massing - some single story - all are two -story. 13 14 6,000 yards of fill needs to be resolved. Building envelopes overlap private drive; tree 15 buffers. Objects to the way the road stops with a bollard - can only come in from back. 16 Like street trees - want planting buffer. Attempting to put houses for flat sites on a hill. 17 Difficult to make decision on architecture without material board', etc. Like garages set 18 back, however, problem getting in and out. Would like to see sidewalks. Doesn't think 19 $100,000 annuity will provide -for maintenance of park. 20 21 Additional comments from.Jack'Rittenhouse to be included in the record: 22 23 • Improve the Magnolia - Street frontage to City standards with street trees, curb & 24 gutter etc.. 25 C Reditribute the lots to create an accessable park from magnolia without entering 26 the subdivision, and ziodte a buffer zone between the cemetery and the homes.. 27 ® Rework plan around the heritage trees. 28 ® Redesign the access from Custom Home section to the future park, grading 29 required. 30 © Provide home design to complement a hillside development, not flatpads. 31 32 Teresa Barrett: Concern regarding lack of connection with what is already there. 33 Connect street through, park to, proposed Street D - want to give a community feel. 34 Thinks roundabout is a 1good, idea. Concerned about a lot of dead, ends. Custom homes 35 should come back SPARC for review: Agree with .Jack regarding enlarging open 36 space on east side by moving,lotsz 48 & 31 to the north end. 37 38 Ross Parkerson: Needs to be. rethinking., of how the development relates to� whole 39 neighborhood. Ch anges the, relationship of existing neighborhood - impact of existing 40 grades. Thinks. it :is a, good idea to separate from 'Magnolia because of traffic. ' Detention 41 ponds need to be done :carefully.:Scale is a major part of what neighborhoods are Tike in 42 Petaluma - to ,change the scale. Use variety of seibacks.to create diversity. 'Grading 43 creates walls that probably can be avoided. Need to do more to create a pedestrian 44 friendly neighborhood - pedestrian walkways connecting one neighborhood to another. 45 Lessen the imprint of garage doors on the street. Homes 6 & 7 right up against the back 46 wall of other property. Leave open space natural. Redistribute more homes up to the top. SPARC Minutes 7/26/01 s 1 2 Comrnittee Member Lynch: Was absent, however, his written comments are provided 3 herewith as an attachment. 4 5 6 Dan Aguilar :. Idea was to ,keep kids out of detention ponds_ by planting blackberry 7 bushes. Opening roads — problems with neighbors. 9 Patricia Tuttle Brown: Neighborhoods can connect with pedestrian paths instead of 10 roads. 11 12 The ,following comments were provided by Marianne Hurley, Historic and Cultural 13 Preservation Committee member: 14 15 I professionally question the negative conclusions regarding the historic architectural 16 resources in the Cultural Resource Study of 1'120 Magnolia Avenue and 111 Gossage. 17 Avenue dated June 19, 2000. 18 19 1) Professional Expertise: Architectural Evaluations require a strong background and 20 experience within the professional field of architectural history. Christian Gerike is a 21 prehistoric archaeologist, Adrian Praetzellis, included as "evaluator" on the DPR 22 form, is a well -known and respected historical archaeologist; and Noelle Story is a 23 student in the Cultural Resource Management program at Sonoma State. This 24 program's offers - coursework in archaeology and anthropology (Sonoma State does y Noelle Story 25 not have an architectural historian on its faculty). ) is not a "Historic 26 Architecture Specialist' and including that as part of the report is misleading to say 27 the least (page 3., last paragraph). Even students who are working under the direction 28 and guidance of architectural historians are not considered Historic Architecture 29 Specialists; I do not know what. students working under the direction of 3o archaeologists would be called, but certainly something, else. 31 32 2) Architectural Evaluation: Although the buildings on the site were supposedly looked 33 at in relationship to its architectural importance (refer to page 2 on the DPR form; 34 B10, Significance) the narrative addresses few architectural issues. Most of the 35 narrative discusses :the history of landownership and;development in the : Petaluma 36 area. The minimal and inadequate discussion of Folk Victorians is limited to about'3 37 sentences. No substantiating evidence 'is presented, no evidence ofresearch on the 38 architecture is presented, no presentation of comparative examples in the area, etc. 39 40 3) In the conclusion on page 9 of the -DPR, the evaluator states the building is not 41 significant because of two major °reasons. First it does.not retain enough integrity of 42 design,, materials, or feeling. Granted, the 1875 building is in a poor state of . 43 maintenance, but the 'information presented really does not address its integrity in 44 enough detail.. Unfortunately' inexperienced evaluators often confuse- condition with 45 historic integrity. More information is needed here, better photographs, a site visit, 46 etc.. Second; she states' there are other examples of this style in Petaluma and 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 SPARC Minutes 7/26/01 throughout Sonoma County.... # 3 of the California Register states a property should embody the distinctive characteristics of 'a type, period, region, or method of construction.... Noelle has not mad.. a good case that this building is NOT significant under this third, criterion, especially since she, has. not discussed the history of this type of construction locally, not has she presented concrete examples to compare, etc. Recommendation: Until the issue of the historic significance of the property is resolved, there should be no discussion of demolition of this property, In addition, this issue should be brought to the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee for review. Judging from the early date of construction and its sensitive location next to the cemetery, there is potential that, this property could be historically significant. Since I did not do the research, and have not visited the site, I am not in a position to state more, but this property needs a.more thorough and professional evaluation. Adjournment: 5:30 p.m. S: \Sparc\Minutes \072601.doc 5 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA `MEMORANDUM Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778 -4301 Fax.(707J 778 -4498 E -mail. planning@ci petaluma.ca.us DATE: October 25, 2001 AGENDA ITEM No. TO: Site plan and Architectural Review Committee FROM: Betsi Lewitter, Contract Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary SPARC Review of the proposed Magnolia Place subdivision Magnolia and Gossage Avenues APN 048- 141 -012; 048 -132 -027 Applicant: Dan Aguilar Mission Valley Properties 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Background: On July 26, 2 00 1, SPARC reviewed preliminary plans for a formerly 48 unit single- family detached residential project to be constructed on two separate continuous parcels totaling approximately 24.5 acres,adjacent;to the western City limits. n excerpt from the minutes of that discussion are attached as well as written comments from Comitteemember Lynch who was unable to be present at that meeting.. Submittal: The applicant has submitted a'fourth house plan that features a recessed front second story. The project layout has been revised by moving three lots formerly on the southeast corner of the Magnolia parcel to the northern edge of Street A. This results in a wider °access corridor and the saving of approximately 3'0 trees along the southeastern portion of the site. The number and size of proposed retaining walls and the amount of grading have been reduced. One formerly custom lot on the Gossage parcel has been eliminated in order to create a view corridor and provide better pedestrian and bicycle access into the public park area. The draft design guidelines have been modified per the committee's and staff s recommendations and now require SPARC approval of each individual custom home. An alternative site plan that shows Street D as a public street continuing through to Gossage has also been submitted for comments. The revised plans have been submitted for SPARC review and comment prior to the City's consideration of a General Plan amendment, prezoning to Planned Unit District, a Unit Development Plan and a vesting tentative - subdivision. map. The project will` also require annexation approval by the, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Attachments: 1 Revised elevations showing an additional house plan 2. Alternative A. and Alternative B site plans 3. September 20, 2001, Correspondence from Applicant 4. Revised Design Guidelines for the custom lots 5. Minutes from July 26, 2001 SPARC meeting 6. Written comments dated July 26, 2001, from. Committeemember Lynch SPARC Minutes 10/25/01 City of Petaluma, CA Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee I85$ i 1 . 2 _ _ . Minutes_ -3 EXCERPT 4 5 Regular Meeting October 25, 2001 6 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m. 7 City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 8 Telephone: 707- 778 -4301 E -Mail: p—laanriin o ci.petaluma ca us 9 FAX: 707 - 778 -4498 Web Page: http : / /wWw.ci- petaluma.ca:us 10 11 12 COMMITTEE BUSIN ESS 13 PRELIMINARY REVIEW, 14 15 III. MAGNOLIA PLACE —1200 Magnolia Avenue & 1111 Gossage Avenue. 16 Preliminary Review of site plan, architecture and landscaping aspects of 17 proposed 48 unit single. - family residential subdivision. of 24.49 acres. 18 Proposal includes dedication of 8.38, acres to City for a public park. 19 APN: 048 - 141 -012 & 048 - 132 -027 20 Planner: Betsi Lewitter 21 22 Comments from Committee' Member Lynch: Appreciate changes. Prefer Alternate B 23 connecting with Gossage. Lower housing portion gone a long way to reduce grading — 24 a little more can be done. Prefer lot 28 to go. Would like Street B have access to park. 25 More thought needed to be ,put into houses —flat pads on a hillside --want houses to adapt 26 to hillside. Houses themselves on lower unit, still boxy — more thought needed. 27 28 Marcie Mathews, C.S. W. Stueber - Stroeh: Presented new site plan in response to 29 previous SPARC comments, 3 lots were shifted to top of development and 20 oak trees 30 saved. Grading reduced — smaller units next to hillside allowed elimination of some 31 retaining walls. Shortened B & C' Streets. Park space will remain the :same. Rewrote 32 design guidelines for customlots so they needto go through SPARC. Varied.setbacks to 33 make streetscape more interesting. Presented Alternative'B with „direct access to Gossage 34 to eliminate some traffic on. Samuel. Drive. 35 36 Committee Member Rittenhouse: How tall are retaining walls on Diagram A? 37 38 Applicant: Six feet — would go dower as it contours. 39 40 Committee Member Rittenhouse: Accomplishing drainage? SPARC Minutes 10/25/01 1 - 2 Applicant: Yes 3 4 Bill Phillips, &24 Blossom Court:. Were told would have ,1 and 2 story houses: Do not 5 see 1 story houses. City asked for model. Requirement has been vacated. Think need a 6 scale model. 7 - - -- 8 Patricia: Tuttle Brown: .Original design had bike access to Gossage and' ;not car access." 9 More of a neighborhood if you didn't allow cars – could be a communal area where to people could gather. Asking it not to connect to Gossage to retain rural feeling. 11 . 12 Committee Member Rittenhouse: Have sarne concerns from July ;26 2001 meeting. 13 Hillside housing development with flat pads —fundamentally flawed by type of home. 14 developer wants to build. Likes roundabout. Does not like 2 lots on Street A adjacent to 15 existing residences. Likes Gossage connection. Likes view corridor – connect to lower 16 area bypath., Lot 31 could become tot lot. Bridge still has doub`l'e loaded sidewalk.. 17 Can't read a lot of heights _ come a long way to reduce grading, still has a long way to 18 go. 19 20 Issues from Committee Member Rittenhouse from July 26, 2001 Meeting: 21 22 ® Improve the Magnolia Street frontage to City standards with street trees, curb & 23 gutter etc. 24, ® Redistribute the lots to create an accessible,park from magnolia without entering 25 the subdivision, and create a buffer zone between the. cemetery and the homes. 26 0 Rework.plan around the heritage trees. 27 0 Redesign the access from Custom Home section to: the future park grading 28 required. 1 29 0 Provide home design to complement a hillside development, not flat pads: 30 31 Committee Member Barrett: Agree -with what Jack said about Magnolia. Glad retaining 32 walls -are- reduced. Almost no attention to integrate with existing neighborhood.. Don't 33 see how people can visit park with no 'parking.. Magnolia has not, been improved at all. 34 Attention to detention pond – safety issues, not sure if meets drainage issues. Appreciate 35 drop in fill still a lot of soil being moved. Likes B' better than A – not sure it's in 36 compliance with keeping it rural. 37 38 Committee. Member Parkerson: See some imprOvertient, still. concern about `treat lTlent of 39 hillside. Lower portion along Magnolia develop as flat lots:– beyond that change the way 40 you treat slope; and build houses. more compatible -with hillside. Upper subdivision 41 have a quiet environment, however, burden on people on Samuel. Rather than 42 connecting to Gossage, cul 4de sac extended one house further? Access: to park; providing 43 some parking has pluses and minuses; public will,find another way to get there if there is 44 no parking. Benefit to people who live there not to have additional cars. Way in which 45 you could create, interesting neighborhood if you create hillside lots. Like the plan with 46 deep recessed garage. 47 2' SPARC Minutes 10/25/01 1 Committee Member Math es: Good evolution from first meeting. Impression that 2 developer wants flat lots.: Benefit to stick with natural terrain. Shift lots 6 & 7 north to 3 open up bulb. Likes fanning "out of Gossage site. Happy medium between A & B — do 4 not isolate upper site. Shift cul de behind 34'& 35? Likes roundabout. Don't think it 5 a plus to provide parking for park — do not think it demands that. 6 7 Committee Member Rittenhouse: Still not clear what park is going to be. Don't think 8 there is anything inviting you Confused as to land use. Don't like design or the 9 remainder part. Difficult project on'that level. 10 11 Dan Aguilar: Mission Valley Properties: Neighborhood park — people won't drive to 12 come here. Instructed to. cluster houses to keep open space. Intent to keep as much open 13 space as possible. Have,not designed open space — not our jo;b. Intent to put benches and 14 landscape in view corridor at end of Gossage site. 15 16 On grading if you go with a split or down hill design there will be no yard. Issue with 17 neighborhood if open up- road. Hillside ordinance states to cluster homes. Trying to 18 reduce impervious surface — dr4inage issue. 19 20 Gossage is private road with public easements. Six houses on Gossage who cannot go 21 out Samuel. Leaving park alone. 22 23 Steve Arago: Varying degrees of what people want for the park. As part of proposal 24 offering to the City is open space. Will leave it to neighborhood and City to design park. 25 26 Committee Member Parkerson: Asked preference of Plans by Committee. Committee 27 sees pluses and minuses to both Plans. See more positive to Plan A. 28 29 Committee Member Rittenhouse: If Fire Dept. allows, could make Street B narrower. 30 31 Dan Aguilar: Scheme with detached garage — eats up more. land = doesn't lend itself to 32 split level homes. Garage is on side not behind like Turtle Creek. Detention bond is 33 probably size of 2 lots combined. Only retains water during rainy season. Will not be 34 hazardous on a dailybasis. Mitigation will be a better habitat than what is there now. 35 36 37 Committee Member Rittenhouse: If todays intent was to look at site plan, where is the 38 architectural presentation? 39 40 . Committee Member Parkerson: Advocate of models -helps to have a sense of grade 41 changes and orient to surrounding area. 42 43 44 Adjournment: 5 :40 45 46 SASparcNinu[es \202501.doc 47 3