The Sutter Creek Planning Commission and the public received a closer look at the proposed details for the 954 acre Gold Rush Ranch and Gold Resort at a meeting held June 26. This project plans to bring over 1,300 homes, 300 time share units, a 60 unit hotel and an 18 hole golf course to Sutter Creek. The purpose of the meeting was to review and comment on “Community Design Standards” and proposed zoning changes for this massive development. Representatives of the project presented numerous details on many of these design standards that they claimed would guide this project, focusing primarily on architecture.
At times the meeting became somewhat contentious when two of the Commissioners held opposing opinions as to the appropriateness of reviewing so much detail so early in the process. “We’re picking out the colors of the houses and we haven’t even seen an EIR yet”, stated Commissioner Barbara Sinnet. She felt that many of the design standards would be dependent on the outcome of the EIR, particularly in regards to landscaping.
Commissioner Chairman Frank Cunha disagreed and instead thought that the design standards and the EIR were two separate components that will both need to be reviewed independently.
Although Cunha had opened the meeting with remarks stating that he felt the developer’s document was “well written”, Sinnet expressed concerns over the lack of emphasis on energy-saving and drought-tolerant landscaping. She also stated that up to this point, the architectural design standards were too arbitrary and that it should not be up to the city to interpret these loosely-termed standards. Representatives of the project stated that they would address these issues in future discussions.
Among the details presented by Jim Harnish, project manager for the development, was an attempt to “integrate” this development with Sutter Creek by using architectural styles in place within the city. It was explained that their research showed 7 primary architectural styles in the city and that the homes within this development would include 5 of these styles. The developer’s representatives also stated that their goal is to build many of the homes without the garage as the prominent feature and to utilize designs with a front porch. A representative of the “Visions Committee”, comprised of local residents, spoke to state their strong preference to this type of design standard.
During the public comment segment one resident inquired why a number of the homes portrayed in the developer’s presentation were not actually from Sutter Creek. It was acknowledged by the representative that some photos actually were not taken in the city but that they were included for representation purposes. This sparked some controversy among some in attendance as to the validity of their research. Further, it was questioned why the Victorian style was not included in the final choices. No action was taken on this inquiry.
Other public comments included questioning why the designation of “heritage oaks” only considered trees 24” in diameter and larger. It was pointed out that some communities have regulations which include trees of 8” or larger. This point was to be reviewed in greater detail during the process and specifically the EIR.
The second main issue in regards to this development was the need for zoning changes to accommodate it. Since the proposal is to annex this project into Sutter Creek, changes to existing zoning would be required. Commissioner Cunha stated that the 4 zoning districts proposed by the developer would not fit the variety of components that this development was comprised of. He cited the hotel and the time share units as examples of this project that would not be covered under any of the four proposed zoning districts. The developer acknowledged this as an oversight and would discuss it further at a later date.
Cunha also expressed concerns over the lack of information on the specific number of lots per “neighborhood” within the development. He believed that housing density in a given area of the project would be unclear. He questioned the developer’s representative on how the city could minimize and mitigate the impact without knowing the density. The representative stated that this would be discussed and detailed more fully in the future.
It was noted by Harnish that one of the components of this development would be designated open space for use by the public. It was proposed that this land would be maintained by Sutter Creek through a “land trust” agreement.
