HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B-Attch03 05/17/2004SPARC Minutes
'l .November 14, 2002
a �ALU City of'Petaluma, CA
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
• � ,
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
Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Telephone: 707 -778, 43;01
FAX: 707 - 778 -4498
Minutes
Excerpt
November 14, 2002
3:00 p.m.
Petaluma, CA
E -Mail: Planning Oa ci.petaluma ca us
Web Page: http / /Www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
The Site Plan and Architectur- a1,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.
II. PAULA L "SUBDIVISI ®N, 431 Paula Lane.
AP No. 019 -.080 -009 and 010
File: SPC01048
Planner: Irene;Borba
Applicant is requesting 'a preliminary site plan and, architectural review of an
11 .22- acre.site.located.at :the corner of Paula Lane and;Sunset Drive. The
proposed project consists, of 21 single - family homes.on lots ranging from 10,000
to 30,780 square feet.
Marti Buxton, Mission Valley Properties: Presented the project and gave background of
the project.
John Pikowski, Architect: Presented the architecture.
Rod Scaccalosi, CSW Stulier- Stroeh: Addressed the detention/retention basin.
Public comment:
Paul Selinger, 1411 Sunset Drive: President, Paula Lane Action Network — have an
ATTACHMENT 3
SPARC Minutes November 14, 2002
1
alternative plan to leave the property as open space.
2
3
Susan;Kirks, 245 Paula Lane: Addressed three concerns:
4
® History of the site where she lives — want the structures to be preserved.
5
• Wildlife — construction would: be detrimental as would lighting to "many birds,
6
badgers and deer.
7
• Open space — devised a.plan;to use the•open space as public open, 'space.
8
9
Judy Reynolds,,210 Paula Lane: Development does not adhere to the feathering concept
16
in. the General Plan. As a meniber of Paula Lane Action Network we oppose this
111
subdivision. Need t g -Y• nourish rural leg
12
13
Gloria Gildrdi, Oppose the subdivision, specific concerns regarding water and traffic.
14
1.5
Rollin.Bruce: Am in the process of building anew home at the lower end of Sunset
16
Lane. All the water will flow to my property. Do not want this development to'
17
negatively impact my property. Am not opposed to; the development — would like Tess
18
density.
19
20
Stan Gold,, King Road: Have experience with inappropriate annexation— quality of life
21
deteriorates. Council has to decide if the "project will enhance the developer or the
22
neighbors.
23
24
Patricia Tuttle Brown: Basic concern is open space. If the project is developed — we
25
would like pedestrian access around the perimeter of the property. If'there is a.
26
detention/retention pond, do not cut off public access.
27
28
Public comment closed:
29
30
Committee! comments:
31
32
Committee Member Barrett: Site plan is too dense —need a 300' urban separator. Do not
33
agree with.renioving trees that are in good condition. Lot 1 21 17 and 18. should go. I
34
am in favor of increasing density in the core of our City, however, not on the urban
35
growth boundary. Cannot badger proof only certain areas. Need to make sure
16
detention/retention pond will work properly.
37
38
Committee Member Mathies: Would like. to see smaller houses and less of them so that
39
they can be placed better on the site. The placement is.a strict grid; = do something
40
different. Think that there needs to be a minimum staridard for landscaping plans. Entry
41
way is not dominant enough on-most plans. House -that is a bungalow needs a porch. Old
42
world model does not look like a typical old word model. Think the split -level works the
43
best. Open space path should go around perimeter of site.
44
45
Committee Member Lynch:. Agree with Teresa regarding density. Development is not
46
.feathered. Need more moderate sized housing. Houses are imposing on the site,
•
•
•
•
SPARC Minutes November 14, 2002
1 particularly 17 and. 18. Keep houses off the knoll — get rid of 17, 18 19 and 21 would
2 be able to keep existing structures and some of the trees. Will need sections of the site,
3 outline slopes, will need pad .elevations and story poles.
4 Architecture —cut back,on the.size of the homes to be able to use better materials. Have
5 a range. from 1600 square feet. Want to see a rural vernacular on this site: Do not think a
6 forced diversity is appropriate. Push garages way back pull entries and porches forward,
7 use better qualitymaterials Reevaluate the pad on grade system. Need design guidelines
8 for landscaping.
9
10 Chair Rittenhouse: Have some of the same, concerns that I had for the Magnolia Place
11 site. Is not necessary to use pad grading system. Needs . to be very well thought out —
12 architecture presented is contrived'. Need to incorporate axural setting — style of homes,
13 size of homes, density.
14
15
16 Adjournment: 8:15'
17
18
19 SASparc\Minutes\Minutes02\J 1 P402.doc
3