Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 10.A-Lttr 02/03/2003TO; Honorable IDavid , Glass, Mayor Members of the City Council City of'Petaluffia 11 English Street "Petaluma, CA 94952 FEB 3 2003 1 0 ' 4�8/03 Re: Appeal of Conditions of Approval, Baker Ranch, Washington Cr Subdivisions . 1 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council' Members, As you know, the City Council appoints 4 SPARC members, and., we have a liaison member from the Planning Commission. We represent a cross section of the Petaluma public that includes design professionals as well as `lay' ,people. We are charged with the task of preserving the visual quality of our City and its built environment. Petaluma itself is a model of unique and lasting design quality. It is obvious to anyone who lives here or visits, that well designed and constructed buildings will last for a century or more! The standards SPARC members' use for project review is delineated in the Zoning Ordinance. As outlined in the SPARC mission statement we represent the community to ensure. that applicants propose the best possible projects which meet both their needs AND the needs of Petaluma residents. We do this by providing input on many des gn,issues including; The siting f the struct g ure on the property, and its relationship to other structures and or geographical features in the immediate neighborhood. The height, bulk, mass, color and materials of the proposed structure as compared to that of other structures in the neighborhood. The appropriate use of quality materials and the harmony and proportion of the overall design. As you can see, the above standards are primarily concerned with protecting Petalumans by ensuring that the location, size and quality of a proposed project does riot impinge upon, overburden or degrade the quality and character of our visual environment. Instead, these projects should enhance the quality of the built environment we all will view and experience for decades to come. Washington Creek, Baker .Ranch' and' similar subdivisions proposals typically include beautiful architectural renderings of their 'proposed' homes. These renderings `are intended to provide a realistic graphic depiction ~of the design, so; °as to ;gain approval from reviewing bodies, (See attached). These g drawings, o to_ eaf 'len �. . hs to depict q ty uali de'si �, including such things as wood trim, detailed porches i and columns and wood windows with exteror munt' � P . ..ins. We feel it, is imperative to insist the built project retains the quality portrayed at the time of approval. Too often, the finished product does not match the quality of design that was approved. Sometimes, this results from a lack of attention to detail, or by omitting detail altogether. More often it is due to a inferior quality of materials or components. After being disappointed with past results, we now make a point•,of asking exactly what building materials the applicant is proposing to use. `This alleviates surprises, and the project may be conditioned so staff is clear about the requirements. The developers of Washington .Creek and Baker Ranch are both appealing a single condition of approval made by the SPARC committee regarding the use of vinyl windows. It, is the consensus of SPARC that vinyl (plastic) windows fail the visual quality test as they relate to the quality standards for these major subdivisions. Although ubiquitous, vinyl windows are being used in new homes primarily because they are less expensive, not because of their visual `quality'. f We would like to respond briefly to a few points brought up in the Appellants' letters. 1. Vinyl' windows are identical in appearance to wood. We wholeheartedly disagree. Especially when used in conjunction with phony between -glass grids (that look like white tape) there is no comparison. This is not a subtlety lost on the average person. We're sure everyone who has seen the "Burdell Building" being renovated along Lakeville from the fro the Railroad Depot has appreciated the new wood windows with true divided lites being installed. The owner obviously appreciates quality- construction and voluntarily provided wood windows. Can you imagine what this ',building would look like with vinyl windows and phony ,grid lines? However, we will let you decide that for yourselves. We will have.2 window samples at the meeting for your review. 2. Vinyl windows are superior in quality to wood They require less maintenance and don't need painting. Stating that vinyl windows are "superior to wood windows is highly subjective, and unsubstantiated. Although wood clad windows have the same ease of maintenance /use, as do plastic windows, SPARC does nonuse `lack of maintenance.' as criteria for quality design. For instance, we would not have approved vinyl siding on these homes just':because it is maintenance free. 3. The Building Codes and Building.Inspectors allow vinyl •windows therefore so should we Building codes /inspectors are intended to help protect the health and life - safety of users. They place noa value judgment on the °appearance of a product. 4. The discussion of window materials is` beyond 'the purview of- f SPARC. We think 'it is clear to anyone reading section 26 -406 that this obviously falls within our Standards of Review. 5. Ira Bennett stated that SPARC was presented a large,scale photo montage of new homes, and SPARC was unable to differentiate between wood.and vinyl windows. The 'SPARC committee disregarded the applicant's exhibit as :irrelevant to. the discussion of the .project:, We in fact, chose not to acknowledge the "game show aspect of the applicants query, and instead. redirected the discussion back to the, specifics, of the project. We think the real issue ;before you is not wood vs. plastic windows, but whether you Will support your appo inte-d boards and commissions and allow them to represent the City of Petaluma, while continuing to insist on: askingformhat is best for the community at large. We strongly agree with the consultant for the Appellant Ira:Bennett, when he states: `It would be unfortunate and most inappropriate if appeals such as these need to be filed in the future... ' We believe future inappropriate appeals would be the result of upholding these appeals. Then, virtually all aesthetic and quality related decisions made by 'SPARC would be in question Your 'support of these appeals will publicly demonstrate that you disagree with SPARC's documented mission. It will encourage developers to question or appeal any decision rendered by SPARC, thereby making SPARC meaningless, and this Council the ad 'hoc Design Review Board: We 'believe the Council has more important and pressing issues to consider. Sincerely, SPARC Committee Members, .Tack Rittenhouse III - Chair, Janet Gracyk, Chris Lynch, Linda Mathies Teresa Barrett, Planning Commission Liaison y .i�'3. : f N -,3. - 'S 3i�y, Y( � � ti ; t � � a _ - • f r`i .M F SM Y T ..•'t .i': � - _ - � _ - _ — _ _ : � e. - :. _ 1 'a r :." .�J - 1 -fit >,a •.., -- __ _ _ _ - _ I _ • i •III _ : : : , Rich QVMDN e �° 6 '$, I tIDm ®ID II I i Ij ® ® b [Qc ' `5S i I I LW I L' :I I _ V4s d 1 SUED r, .. i. - :: - ... - . _. - --- 9 :!) "•..0. I. f : �� I IIII : I� •I I I D = m Eli� II 1 rII mill 1 1 - — - i r _ nTVA N f - ° REAR ELEVATION, = - • • _ : _ _ - - _ � _ - , DBBLE(STONE DEVELOPMENT %M mo=w OMOH ROAD 61421 W0 CA Km vr,/agz� rna sa�jao "