Community Development Department – Planning Division
1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660
Napa, CA 94559-0660
(707) 257-9530
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 5, 2023
AGENDA ITEM 7.A File No. PL21-0063 VINTAGE FARM SUBDIVISION
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT
SUMMARY:
Application for a Tentative Subdivision Map and Design Review Permit to subdivide an approximately 10.45 -acre property into 53 single-family residential lots with five (5) open space parcels, a Design Review Permit for the house plans and “back-on” fence treatment, and a Use Permit to authorize the creation of five (5) flag lots.
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY:
1185 Sierra Avenue
APNs: 038-250-035 and -037
GENERAL PLAN:
Low Density Residential
ZONING:
Single-Family Infill (RI 4), Floodplain Management Overlay (FP) APPLICANT: Davidon Homes
1600 South Main Street, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 945-8000
AUTHORIZED
AGENT:
KG Planning Partners
PO Box 6033
Napa, CA 94581
Phone: (707) 227-2362
OWNER:
Napa Valley Unified School District
2425 Jefferson Street
Napa, CA 94558
Email:
[email protected]
STAFF
PLANNER:
Ryder Dilley, Associate Planner Phone: (707) 257-9530
ATTACHMENTS: ATCH 1 – Draft Resolution
ATCH 2 – Project Description
ATCH 3 – Tentative Map
ATCH 4 – Architecture Plans
ATCH 5 – Landscape Plan
ATCH 6 – Arborist Report
ATCH 7 – Garfield Park Master Plan
ATCH 8 – CEQA Memorandum
ATCH 9 – NVUSD Letter
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 2
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a resolution approving a Tentative Subdivision Map and Design Review Permit to subdivide an approximately 10.45-acre property into 53 single-family residential lots with five (5) open space parcels, a Design Review Permit for the house plans and “back-on” fence treatment, and a Use Permit to authorize the creation of five (5) flag lots at 1185 Sierra Avenue, and determining that the actions authorized by the resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) action.
III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Applicant, Davidon Homes , requests a Tentative Subdivision Map and Design Review Permit to subdivide an approximately 10.45 -acre property into 53 single -family residential lots with five (5) open space parcels, a Design Review Permit for the house plans and “back-on” fence treatment, and a Use Permit to authorize the creation of five (5) flag lots.
A more complete project description is summarized below under “Project Description,” and provided in Attachment 2, Project Description . The proposed subdivision is located at 1185 Sierra Avenue, as shown in Figure 1, Location Map, which is the site containing the existing Vintage Farm.
FIGURE 1
Location Map
Pursuant to Napa Municipal Code (“NMC”) Section s 16.12.010(A) and 17.62.050, a n application for a design review permit is required for subdivisions of five or more lots. In conjunction with the application for design review of the subdivision , the Applicant is required to provide h ome designs and details for “back -on” fence treatment for consideration. These physical improvements are subject to the review by the City Council.
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 3
An application for a use permit is also required to authorize the creation of flag lots within the RI 4 Zone District pursuant to NMC Section 17.08.020. Details related to the five (5) flag lots are further described in Section V below.
IV. SITE CONTEXT AND HISTORY
The Project site is currently the location of the Vintage Farm, which is owned and operated by the Napa Valley Unified School District (“NVUSD”). NVUSD entered into an agreement to sell the property to Davidon Homes. The sale of the land would contribute to the larger plan for the District to build a new modern farm at a new location that will provide better access for the students and new faciliti es. The Project site is approximately 10.45-acres and features existing shed and barn buildings, ornamental trees, and other agricultural- related uses.
The overall site is located between the eastern terminus of Sierra Avenue and along the western edge of Villa Lane and sits just south of an undeveloped portion of Garfield Park.
The site is adjacent to single-family residences to the east, south, and west. The existing residential neighborhood provides for a mix of single-story and two-story construction on lots ranging from approximately 4,200 to 6,800 square feet, with a few lots exceeding that range. The site is also located less than 650 feet from the grounds of Vintage High School.
V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing property into 53 single -family residential lots with five (5) flag lots and five (5) open space parcels, and to permit the house plans and “back -on” fence treatment at the site of the Vintage Farm. The subdivision would feature new public streets and an ex tension of Sierra Avenue east to the northern terminus of Villa Lane. There will be a total of three (3) ingress/egress points for access connecting to both Sierra Avenue and Villa Lane. The proposed subdivision features lots ranging from 4,823 to 8,246 sq uare feet with four (4) separate house plans ranging from 1,870 to 2,862 square feet including an option to add an accessory dwelling unit (ADUs) as part of house “ Plan 4”for up to a total of 13 ADUs. The improvements located along Sierra Avenue including, but not limited to, relocating the Austin Miller Memorial Bike Path, would be designed consistent with the Garfield Park Master Plan as shown in Attachment 3, Tentative Map.
A. Tentative Map
As shown in Attachment 3, Tentative Map, the Applicant is proposing to subdivide an approximately 10.45-acre property into 53 single -family residential lots with five (5) flag lots and five (5) open space parcels. The standard residential lots would range from 4,823 to 8 ,246 square feet and provide a minimum of 45-feet in width and a depth of approximately 85-feet.
B. Proposed House Plans
The Project proposes four (4) house plan options: a single-story and three (3) two-story plan options, each with three style options (A, B, C). Plan 4 also includes an alternate floor plan option that would include an attached ADU. The house plans range from approximately 1,870 to 2,862 square feet in size, as further described below.
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 4
Plan 1 – Single Story (A)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 2 , this model is a single -story home at a maximum height of approximately 21 feet and is approximately 1,870 square feet in size.
This floor plan would consist of 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, and a 2 -car attached garage.
FIGURE 2
Plan 1 (A)
Plan 1 – Single Story (B)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 3 , this model is a single -story home at a maximum height of approximately 2 0-feet 6-inches and is approximately 1,870 square feet in size. This floor plan would consist of 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, and a 2 -car attached garage.
FIGURE 3
Plan 1 (B)
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 5
Plan 1 – Single Story (C)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 4 , this model is a single -story home at a maximum height of approximately 18-feet 9-inches and is approximately 1,870 square feet in size. This floor plan would consist of 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, and a 2 -car attached garage.
FIGURE 4
Plan 1 (C)
Plan 2 – Two Story (A)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 5, this model is a two-story home at a maximum height of approximately 26-feet 5-inches and is approximately 2,500 square feet in size.
This floor plan would consist of 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, and a 2 -car attached garage.
FIGURE 5
Plan 2 (A)
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 6
Plan 2 – Two Story (B)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 6, this model is a two-story home at a maximum height of approximately 28-feet 9-inches and is approximately 2,500 square feet in size.
This floor plan would consist of 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, and a 2 -car attached garage.
FIGURE 6
Plan 2 (B)
Plan 2 – Two Story (C)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 7, this model is a two-story home at a maximum height of approximately 25-feet 6-inches and is approximately 2,500 square feet in size.
This floor plan would consist of 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, and a 2 -car attached garage.
FIGURE 7
Plan 2 (C)
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 7
Plan 3 – Two Story (A)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 8, this model is a two-story home at a maximum height of approximately 27-feet 6-inches and is approximately 2,565 square feet in size.
This floor plan would consist of 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, a loft, and a 2-car attached garage. This plan option would also feature an optional fourth (4) bedroom in-lieu of a loft and an optional 220 square foot covered patio to the rear.
FIGURE 8
Plan 3 (A)
Plan 3 – Two Story (B)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 9, this model is a two-story home at a maximum height of approximately 28-feet 3-inches and is approximately 2,547 square feet in size.
This floor plan would consist of 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, a loft, and a 2-car attached garage. This plan option would also feature an optional fourth (4) bedroom in-lieu of a loft and an optional 220 square foot covered patio to the rear.
FIGURE 9
Plan 3 (B)
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 8
Plan 3 – Two Story (C)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 10 , this model is a two-story home at a maximum height of approximately 25 -feet 6-inches and is approximately 2, 565 square feet in size. This floor plan would consist of 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, a loft, and a 2- car attached garage. This plan option would also feature an optional fourth (4) bedroom in-lieu of a loft and an optional 220 square foot covered patio to the rear.
FIGURE 10
Plan 3 (C)
Plan 4 – Two Story (A)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 11 , this model is a two-story home at a maximum height of approximately 2 7-feet 10-inches and is approximately 2, 862 square feet in size. This floor plan would consist of 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms, a loft, and a 2- car attached garage. This plan option would also feature an optional fifth (5) bedroom in- lieu of a loft.
FIGURE 11
Plan 4 (A)
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 9
Plan 4 – Two Story (B)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 12 , this model is a two-story home at a maximum height of approximately 2 8-feet 6-inches and is approximately 2, 854 square feet in size. This floor plan would consist of 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms, a loft, and a 2- car attached garage. This plan option would also feature an optional fifth (5) bedroom in- lieu of a loft.
FIGURE 12
Plan 4 (B)
Plan 4 – Two Story (C)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 13 , this model is a two-story home at a maximum height of approximately 25 -feet 10-inches and is approximately 2, 854 square feet in size. This floor plan would consist of 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms, a loft, and a 2- car attached garage. This plan option would also feature an optional fifth (5) bedroom in- lieu of a loft.
FIGURE 13
Plan 4 (C)
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 10
Plan 4 – Two Story (ADU Alt)
As shown in Attachment 4, and in Figure 14, Plan 4 features an optional ADU in-lieu of one of the first-floor bedrooms. The attached ADU is approximately 406 square feet in size and features a kitchen, bathroom, separate living space, and a separate entrance along the side yard. The optional ADU may be included as part of each of the style options (A, B, C). In Attachment 3, Tentative Map , the Applicant has provided a proposed plotting exhibit, which shows that the subdivision may include up to 13 ADUs, as part of Plan 4.
FIGURE 14
Plan 4 (ADU Alt)
C. Parking & Circulation
The subdivision would feature new public streets and an extension of Sierra Avenue east to the northern terminus of Villa Lane. There will be a total of three (3) ingress/egress points for access connecting to both Sierra Avenue and Villa Lane. The improvements located along Sierra Avenue including, but not limited to, relocating the Austin Miller Memorial Bike Path (Class I) , providing bioretention facilit ies, creating a pedestrian crosswalk across Sierra Avenue, and installing street adjacent landscaping described in Section V.D. below, would be designed consistent with the Garfield Park Master Plan as shown in Attachment 3, Tentative Map . The extension of Sierra Avenue is designed wide enough to permit dual direction vehicle and bicycle (Class II) traffic, and parking along the northwest side adjacent to the park.
The Project proposes to include a two-car garage and sufficient space for two (2) vehicles in each driveway, providing 4 off -street spaces per home . In addition, there is sufficient street frontage for a minimum of one additional vehicle on -street to satisfy the guest parking requirements of one (1) space per unit pursuant to NMC Section 17.54.040.
House Plan 4 features an optional fifth bedroom in lieu of the loft space. If the prospective home buyer chooses to include the optional fifth bedroom with House Plan 4 , the Applicant would be required to provide a fifth off-street parking space beyond the minimum required front setback of 20-feet.
STANDARD ADU ALT
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 11
In the event the home buyer elects to construct the ADU and chooses the optional bedroom in lieu of the loft space, a fifth off -street parking space is not required pursuant to NMC Section 17.52.015 because the ADU would be located within one-half (1/2) mile walking distan ce of a public transit stop , which waives the one (1) parking space requirement. The closest bus stop is located at the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and Sierra Avenue, which is less than the one-half mile (approximately 2,640 feet) walking distance to any lot within the subdivision.
D. Proposed Landscaping
The Applicant is prop osing landscape improvements and fencing as shown in Attachment 5, Landscape Plans. The typical streetscape within the subdivision would include a curb, planting strips with street trees and groundcover, and detached sidewalk space. The Sierra Avenue frontage landscaping would slightly differ in that there are three (3) separate bioretention facilities located adjacent to the right-of-way frontage. Villa Lane also provides for a similar existing streetscape design, where a majority of the existing Sycamore trees would be maintained except for fifteen (15) trees along the southeast side of the Project site. Removal of the fifteen (15) trees would allow an additional street connection from Villa Lane to the internal streets and an additional bioretention facility.
The Applicant is also requesting “back-on” (or side -on) fence treatment through a combination of landscaping and fencing adjacent to through lots. The landscaping is generally five (5) feet in width within a street-facing side setback or rear yard. The fencing type would be a six (6) foot tall horizontal slat perimeter wood fence with 1” x 6” redwood horizontal slat boards. The interior side of the lots would feature a standard six (6) foot tall “good neighbor ” fence. In areas of the subdivision with the bioretention facilities or vision triangle constraints, the Applicant is proposing to install a 42” high wood and wire mesh fence. All fencing types are shown in Attachment 5.
Each residential lot will feature a minimum of two trees (one street tree and one private tree), except for where there are vision triangle or utility conflicts. The lots will also provide for a mix of groundcover and shrub plants . Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Applicant would be required to submit a final landscape plan pursuant to NMC Section
17.52.520 requiring the design, plant selection, and irrigation to be water efficient.
The construction of the subdivision as shown in Attachment 3 would require the Applicant to remove two (2) Coast Live Oak trees and four (4) Valley Oak trees that are each classified as a Protected Native Tree pursuant to NMC Chapter 12.45. The removal of the protected native trees may be authorized by the City Council pursuant to NMC Section 12.45.090; however, the Applicant would be required to replaced as described in NMC Section 12.45.100.
E. Flag Lots
Pursuant to NMC Section 17.08.020, the Applicant is requesting the a pproval of a use permit for the creation of five (5) flag lots. Flag lots have less than the minimum required frontage on a public or private street, have access to a public or private street by a narrow strip of land, and the largest portion of the lot is situated behind adjoining lots which front on a public or private street. There are three (3) flag lots located to the southwest of the project site (Lots 13-15) and two (2) located to the southeast (Lots 22 & 23).
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 12
These lots would be accessible by an approximately 27.3-foot-wide access easement in the form of a private paved driveway across Lots 13-16, and Lots 22-23.
The front setbacks for the flag lots would be measured starting at the edge of the access easement with the side and rear yards measured from the interior property lines in typical manner. In addition to meeting parking requirements in NMC Chapter 17.54, one additional on-site guest parking space shall be required for each flag lot.
VI. ANALYSIS
A. General Plan
The property is located within the Low Density Residential General Plan Designation of the Napa 2040 General Plan. The Low-Density Residential designation consists of single- family residential development with densities ranging from 3.0 to 8.0 units per gross acre.
This designation is mainly intended for detached single -family dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permitted, provided each unit has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. Mobile homes, and compatible uses such as residential care facilities are permitted. The proposed single-family residential subdivision provides for a residential density of approximately 5.07 dwelling units per gross acre, and could be found to be compatible with adjacent residential uses in the surrounding area and consistent with the following goals outlined in the Napa 2040 General Plan:
• Policy LUCD 6-2 Promote a diversity of compatible land uses throughout the City to enable people to live close to job locations, have adequate and convenient commercial services, and enjoy public amenities and services such as transit, parks, trails, and schools.
• Goal LUCD 10 Enhance the City’s character and image as a desirable residential, active, and sustainable community, and celebrate the diversity of residents.
• Policy LUCD 10-1 Preserve the character of existing residential neighborhoods while promoting “complete neighborhoods” with safe and convenient access to the goods and services needed for daily life.
B. Zoning
The property is located within the RI 4, Single-Family Infill Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. R I areas include subdivisions typically with regular lot patterns, varied designs, and a limited mix of unit types. Single-family detached developments are permitted wi thin the R I 4 Zoning District. Pursuant to NMC Section
17.62.050, subdivisions of five or more lots require home designs to be submitted with the application for design review of the subdivision. The design review permit is subject to the review and approval of City Council. Further analysis is discussed in Subsection VI.D. of this report.
Table 1 below shows the RI 4 development standards. As proposed, all lots would meet or exceed RS 4 development standards.
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 13
TABLE 1
RI 4 Development Standards
C. Use Permit
Pursuant to Napa Municipal Code (“NMC”) Section 17. 08.020, the RI 4 Zone District allows a subdivision with 1 or more flag lots subject to the approval of a Use Permit. Use Permits are required for land uses that may be suitable only in specific locations or require special consideration in their design, operation, or layout to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Flag lots are subject to additional site and use regulations pursuant to NMC Section 17.52.190. To approve a Use Permit, the City Council is required to make the findings prescribed in NMC Section 17.60.070. Those findings are shown below under the “Findings” section, along with Staff’s analysis of each finding.
D. Design Review
Pursuant to NMC Sections 16.12.010(A) and 17.62.050, an application for a Design Review Permit is required for subdivisions of five or more lots. In conjunction with the application for design review of the subdivision, the Applicant is required to provide home designs and details for “back-on” fence treatment for consideration. These physical improvements are subject to the review by the City Council. To approve a Design Review Permit, the City Council is required to make the findings prescribed in NMC Section 17.62.080. Those findings are shown below under the “Findings” section, along with Staff’s analysis of each finding.
In addition to the Design Review Permit findings, the project is subject to the City’s adopted Residential Design Guidelines . However, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, the City may only apply “objective” development standards and design standards to the project. Therefore, the City may only apply those provisions in the existing Residential Design Guidelines that are objective, which is defined as “a standard involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” The project conforms with the objective design standards in the Residential Design Guidelines.
Criteria Standard Proposed
Lot Area (sq. ft.) min. 4,000 min. 4,823
Height (feet) max. 30 max. 28”-9’
Front Setback (feet) min. 20 min. 20
Side Yard min. 5/10 min. 5/10
Side Setback
*(corner lot -feet) min. 15 min. 15
Rear Yard (feet) min. 15 min. 15
Lot Coverage (percentage) max. 50% max. ≈ 46.8%
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 14
For example, the architecture uses a variety of forms and materials including wood trim, stone veneer, and stucco. The house plans provide for a variety of architectural styles and schemes. The proposed homes vary, but have a coherent architectural composition, while the roofs, walls, and materials gracefully transition from front, side and rear elevations. The proposed massing for each style is also broken up with bays and stepping wall plains.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council determine that the Project falls within the scope of the Napa 2040 General Plan (General Plan) Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan FEIR) certified by the City Council on September 20, 2022 (SCH #2021010255) and no further environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168(c) as documented in the CEQA checklist prepared for the project included as Attachment 8.
VIII. REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. Design Review
The City Council ’s approval of this project is subject to the required findings in NMC Section 17.62.080 relating to Design Review Permits. These findings are provided below and relate to consistency of the project with the General Plan, Zoni ng Ordinance, and applicable Guidelines.
Staff has determined that the proposed Project would comply with these findings, subject to the conditions of approval provided in Attachment 1.
1. The project design is in accord with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan design policies.
The proposed subdivision, improvements, and single-family residential use are consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan designation which allows for single family development with a density range of 3 to 8 units per acre, resulting in 32 units minimum to 83 units maximum for the Site. The Project proposes 53 units which is at the mid-range of the permitted density range.
The Project is located within the boundaries of the Big Ranch S pecific Plan (“BRSP”) area. While the BRSP anticipated no significant changes in land use projected for the Project site and it was designated PQ (Public, Quasi-Public), the plan did state that if any of the sites were to become surplus, the City believes the best alternative use would be for residential use. The Project could also be found consistent with BRSP Policy LU-15, which describes the following:
In the event Sierra Avenue is extended beyond its present dead-end, the City shall provide a safety crossing on Sierra Avenue. At a minimum, a pedestrian crosswalk shall be painted on the pavement and caution signs shall be installed to require motorists to stop for pedestrians . The City shall design and build the pedestrian crossing at the time Sierra Avenue is extended as part of the infrastruc ture improvements covered by the BRSP and Financing Plan.
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 15
The Project plans feature a crosswalk extending from the subdivision across Sierra Avenue to Garfield Park , which could be found consistent with BRSP and the Garfield Park Master Plan.
2. The project design is consistent with applicable design review guidelines adopted by the City Council.
The proposed subdivision design, site layout and architecture are consistent with the objective design standards in the Residential Design Guidelines. A mix of coherent forms, details and materials are proposed to create residential units which complement the existing neighborhood.
3. The design review permit is in accord with provisions of this title and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or impr ovements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The Design Review permit is consistent with NMC Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) as conditioned. The proposed Project has been found to be consistent with all applicable development standards of the RI 4 (Single-Family Infill) zoning of the Site. All lots comply with the minimum lot size, coverage and setbacks of the zoning district. As such, with implementation of the conditions of approval set forth herein, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts. The design of the proposed subdivision and single - family homes does not result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties or to the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.
B. Tentative Subdivision Map
The City Council ’s approval of this project is subject to the required findings in NMC Section 1 6.20.070 relating to Tentative Maps. These findings are provided below and relate to consistency of the project with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and applicable Guidelines.
Staff has determined that the proposed project would comply with these findings, subject to the conditions of approval provided in Attachment 1.
1. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
The proposed subdivision, improvements and single -family use of the Site is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan designation, which allows for single family development with a density range of 3 to 8 units per acre, resulting in 32 units minimum to 83 units maximum for the Site. The Project proposes 53 units which is at the mid-range of the permitted density range. The Project could be found consistent with Napa 2040 General Plan Policy LUCD 6 -2, which p romotes a diversity of compatible land uses throughout the City to enable people to live close to job locations, have adequate and convenient commercial services, and enjoy public amenities and services such as transit, parks, trails, and schools.
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 16
The Project could also be found consistent with Goal LUCD 10 , to enhance the City’s character and image as a desirable residential, active, and sustainable community, and celebrate the diversity of residents , and Policy LUCD 10-1, to preserve the character of existing residential neighborhoods while promoting “complete neighborhoods” with safe and convenient access to the goods and services needed for daily life.
The single-family lots range in size from 4,823 to 8,246 square feet and are compatible in size with those in the adjacent neighborhood. The proposed single-family houses would be one and two -story, similar to the properties in the surrounding neighborhoods. They would reflect a contemporary interpretation of traditional building styles that have similarities to the architecture of the existing neighborhood and are compatible with existing residences in the area consistent with this policy. The proposed single-family use, lot sizes, and density are consistent with the pattern of single -family development in the area.
The Project is located within the boundaries of the Big Ranch Specific Plan (“BRSP”) area. While the BRSP anticipated no significant changes in land use projected for the Project site and it was designated PQ (Public, Quasi-Public), the plan did state that if any of the sites were to become surplus, the City believes the best alternative use would be for residential use. The Project could also be found consistent with BRSP Policy LU-15, which describes the following:
In the event Sierra Avenue is extended beyond its present dead-end, the City shall provide a safety crossing on Sierra Avenue. At a minimum, a pedestrian crosswalk shall be painted on the pavement and caution signs shall be installed to require motorists to stop for pedestrians. Th e City shall design and build the pedestrian crossing at the time Sierra Avenue is extended as part of the infrastructure improvements covered by the BRSP and Financing Plan.
The Project plans feature a crosswalk extending from the subdivision across Sier ra Avenue to Garfield Park, which could be found consistent with BRSP and the Garfield Park Master Plan.
2. The design of the proposed subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as described in the State Subdivision Map Act and any guidelines promulgated by the Council.
Passive heating and cooling opportunities have been provided to the maximum extent practical as the buildings incorporate operable doors and windows on the east and west elevations and the buildings, the lot sizes and configuration allow for passive heating and cooling opportunities by providing very generous setbacks to allow tree planting and are designed in an east-west alignment to allow for southern exposure.
C. Use Permit
The City Council ’s approval of this project is subject to the required findings in NMC Section 17.60.070 relating to Use Permits. These findings are provided below and relate to consistency of the project with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and applicable Guidelines.
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 17
Staff has determined that the proposed project would comply with these findings, subject to the conditions of approval provided in Attachment 1.
1. The proposed use in accord with the General Plan, applicable specific plans, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district and overlay district in which the site is located.
The proposed flag lots in conjunction with the subdivision, improvements, and single - family residential us e, are consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan designation, which allows for single family development with a density range of 3 to 8 units per acre, resulting in 32 units minimum to 83 units maximum for the Site. The Project proposes 53 units which is at the mid-range of the permitted density range.
The Project is located within the boundaries of the Big Ranch Specific Plan (“BRSP”) area. There are no BRSP policies applicable to flag lots . While the BRSP anticipated no significant changes in land use projected for the Project site and it was designated PQ (Public, Quasi-Public), the plan did state that if any of the sites were to become surplus, the City believes the best alternative use would be for residential use.
2. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city.
The proposed flag lots will not cause any health, safety, and/or general welfare hardship to the community. The Project has been appropriately designed and conditioned to ensure compliance with General Plan policies and property development standards and will not result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties or to the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.
3. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance.
Flag lots may be established with Use Permit approval. With City Council approval of the Use Permit as conditioned, the proposed use will be in compliance with the provisions of NMC Sections 17.08.030 and 17.52.190.
4. The proposed use complies with any other applicable findings required under other chapters of this title for the specific use.
There are no other applicable findings required under other chapters of this title for the proposed use.
D. Tree Removal
The City Council’s approval of this project is subject to the required finding in NMC Section
12.45.090(B)(2)(d) relating to the removal of protected native trees. The Applicant requests the removal of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees and four (4) Valley Oak trees that are each classified as a Protected Native Tree pursuant to NMC Chapter 12.45.
ATTACHMENT 10
PL21-0063 – Vintage Farm Subdivision 18
Staff has determined that the proposed project would comply with this finding, subject to the conditions of approval provided in Attachment 1.
1. The project has minimized tree loss to the extent possible when balanced with General Plan land uses and policies and applicable design guidelines.
The project has been conditioned to either provide replacement trees or pay the in-lieu fee per NMC Chapter 12.45.
IX. PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice that this application was received was provided by the City on May 12, 2023, and notice of th e scheduled public heari ng was provided on September 22, 2023, by US Postal Service to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.
Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Napa Valley Register on September 23, 2023, and provided to people previously requesting notice on the matter at the same time notice was provided to the newspaper for publication. The Applicant was also provided a copy of this Report and the associated attachments in advance of the public hearing on the project.
X. PUBLIC COMMENT
As of this writing, City Staff received written correspondence from the property owner, NVUSD, in the form of one (1) letter. The comments voice strong support of the Applicant and of the project and are included as an attachment to this report (see Attachment 9, NVUSD Letter). No further public comments have been received as of this writing.
ATTACHMENT 10
M E M O
TO: CHAIR MASSARO, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: RYDER DILLEY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2023
SUBJECT: VINTAGE FARM SUBDIVISION (PL21-0063)
Following publication of the October 5, 2023, Planning Commission agenda and reports, additional correspondence was received by City Staff for consideration for the Vintage Farm Subdivision project (PL21-0063) identified as Public Hearing Item 7.A.
The correspondence includes letters from the following individuals, which are attached to this memorandum:
• Ande Scott
• Jane Lommasson
The comments received generally cover the following topics:
• Construction-generated traffic
• Construction noise
• Water and energy demands
• Solar requirements for new construction
• Water-efficient landscaping
• Construction impacts for persons with disabilities
Staff have reached out to the individual commenters by email attempting to coordinate a phone call or in-person meeting prior to the Planning Commission h earing to discuss their concerns or questions relative to the topics summarized above . However, as of the transmittal of this memorandum, Staff is awaiting responses from the individuals.
ATTACHMENT 10
1 Ryder Dilley
From: Ande Scott
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 2:16 PM
To: PlanningCommission
Subject: New construction/vintage farm subdivision
[You don't o en get email Learn why this is important at h ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on ]
[EXTERNAL]
Hi. I live on Willis. What plans does the city have for lessening impact on traffic and construc on noise and conges on during the building of the above-men oned subdivision?
Also, how can the city support new construc on given the already difficult demands on water and energy infrastructure? Why is the city not requiring new construc on to include solar panels? Will new construc on require builders and buyers to install low-water landscaping? I am disabled and take care of a disabled spouse. Part of our physical therapy is to take frequent walks. We have already been nega vely impacted by necessary(no ques on that it has been necessary) resurfacing of neighborhood streets.
How will the new construc on impact is as disabled people? A person residing in the home has PTSD. How will the city offset the impact of loud construc on related ac vity for this person and others living with PTSD?
I recognize the need to respond to the lack of housing in the community. I am not wri ng because I would like to see the homes be le unbuilt. I would simply like to hear how these issues will be addressed in a manner that is sensi ve to both the effects of climate change, aging infrastructure and those of us living with disability.
Also, I do strongly object if the city and county plan to offer any tax or other benefits to developers that would then place an addi onal burden on those of us already living in the area.
Thank you
Ande Sco
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 10
1 Ryder Dilley
From: FREDA JANE LOMMASSON
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:24 PM
To: PlanningCommission
Subject: Re: Vintage Farm Subdivision - 1185 Sierra Ave [EXTERNAL]
I'm unable to attend the Public Hearing being held on October 5, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. I'd like to voice my concerns regarding initiating the large subdivision planned to begin in early 2024 without first putting Sierra Ave through. Villa Lane presently is impacted by traffic from the existing residential homes, two apartment complexes, drop off of students to and from Vintage High School, numerous doctors and dentist offices, the outpatient access for Queen of the Valley (Providence), a gym, and a Senior Living complex. Adding construction trucks and construction worker travel to and from the site is short sited and ill planned. Accidents are surely going to occur if you don't plan accordingly and offer not only Villa Lane as an op tion, but also Sierra Ave for access to
the construction site. During initial public hearings we attended it was stated that Sierra Ave would be addressed prior to any construction on the Vintage Farm site.
In the hearing please address this concern and state how it's going to be ameliorated.
Please respond to my email and concern.
Thank you.
Jane Lommasson
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important ATTACHMENT 10
M E M O
TO: CHAIR MASSARO, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: RYDER DILLEY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2023
SUBJECT: VINTAGE FARM SUBDIVISION (PL21-0063)
Following publication of the October 5, 2023, Planning Commission agenda and reports, and the first memorandum (dated October 4, 2023) , additional correspondence was received by City Staff for consideration for the Vintage Farm Subdivision project (PL21- 0063) identified as Public Hearing Item 7.A.
The correspondence includes a letter from the following individual, which is attached to this memorandum:
• James McNair
The comments received generally supported the construction of the project and covered the following topics:
• Minor plan changing swapping plan type between Lot 15 and Lot 24 • Preserving existing neighbor fence type for view of bioretention basin
Staff has received revised plan sheets from the Applicant memorializing the minor plan revisions outlined above. See Attachment 10, Tentative Map Revision and Attachment 11, Landscape Plan Revision.
In addition to these changes, City Staff requests the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the project with Conditions #1, 18 and 34 modified to incorporate the minor changes as shown in Attachment 10 and 11. These changes we re a direct result of applicant outreach addressing concerns from the surrounding neighborhood and do not materially change the project.
1. This Design Review Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map, authorizes an approximately 10.45-acre property to be subdivided into 53 single-family residential lots with five (5) open space parcels, and a Design Review Permit for the house plans and “back-on” fence treatment, and a Use Permit to authorize the creation of five (5) flag lots. The Application also authorizes th e extension of Sierra Avenue, relocation of the Austin Miller Memorial Bike Path, development of public streets, front yard and street landscaping on the Site, and the removal of two (2) Coast Live ATTACHMENT 10
Oak trees and four (4) Valley Oak trees that are each cla ssified as a Protected Native Tree under NMC Chapter 12.45 as defined on the application plans prepared by dk Engineering for the Tentative Subdivision Map, KTGY for the house plans, and Nuvis Landscape Architecture for the landscape plans, dated October 5 August 14, 2023, July 13, 2023, and October 5 April 11 , 2023, respectively, and representations submitted with the application and as reviewed and approved by the City Council, and as amended by these conditions of approval.
18. A Final Fencing Plan for the Project shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager prior to recordati on of the Final Map or issuance of a building permit, whichever comes first. This plan shall include fencing between the Site and adjacent neighbor properties as well as “back-on” and “side-on” fence treatment adjacent to the street frontages as depicted i n the landscape plans designed by Nuvis Landscape Architecture dated October 5 April 11, 2023, and consistent with NMC Section 17.52.170.
a. The Applicant shall construct a new fence between the Site and the neighboring property in accordance with the approv ed Fencing Plan. Should the Applicant be unable to obtain permission from the adjacent property owner to reconstruct the fence at their property line, the Applicant may constr uct a new fence on the Project Site.
34. The Applicant shall design and construct al l on and offsite improvements in accordance with the Improvement Plans and supporting calculations that are prepared by a registered civil engineer and reviewed and approved b y the City of Napa (CON), Public Works Department (PWD) - Development Engineering Division (DED). The Improvement Plans shall be prepared in substantial conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map plans prepared by DK Engineering revision dated October 5, 2023, November 07, 2022, as modified herein by these Conditions of Approval. The Improvement Plans and supporting calculations shall include detailed designs for all utilities, grading, drainage, erosion control, stormwater, and paving. The plans and calculations must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the Building Permit.
ATTACHMENT 10
1 Ryder Dilley
From: James McNair
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 8:24 AM
To: Ryder Dilley
Cc: Steve Abbs
Subject: Vintage Farm Development Project
Categories: Unverified Contact
[You don't o en get email from Learn why this is important at h ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden fica on ]
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Mr. Ridley,
My home on Blackberry Drive backs up to Vintage Farm, so my partner and I were concerned when we received a le er from Davidon Homes informing us of the planned development. We requested a mee ng with Steve Abbs to address ques ons about the proposed project. During a mee ng in our backyard, he kindly offered to move a single-story house to the site behind our single-story home, which is the only one-level house on Blackberry that would be impacted by the new construc on. Steve also revised the plan to preserve and protect a sec on of our wire fence that would overlook the open drainage sec on of the new development.
Although we hate to lose the farm behind us, given these changes made to the project plan by Steve, we now support the development of Vintage Farm.
James McNair
ATTACHMENT 10