MINUTES for the Regular Meeting of the DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

DATE OF MEETING: January 18, 2001

TIME OF MEETING: 4:30 p.m.

PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, Conference Room

201 W. Sierra Avenue

Chairman Petty called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

Committee Members Present: Davis, Leys, Key, Stagg, LeDoux, Petty

Committee Members Absent: Draper

Staff Present: Dorch, Woltering, Brisbine

A. For the Regular Meeting December 21, 2000

It was moved by Committee Member Key to approve the minutes of December 21, 2000, as submitted. Second by Vice Chairwoman Stagg.

Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Draper) Abstain: 2 (Petty, Leys)

There were no changes to the agenda.

PA# 24/00 Applicant: Michael Karakozoff

AP# 144-291-009

David Woltering, Consultant Planner, presented the staff report. He responded to questions from the Committee concerning density; visibility of the site from East Cotati Avenue related to public safety; parking ratios and the requirement for covered spaces; and, the necessity for useable porch space.

Mike Karakozoff, applicant, addressed the question about density stating that higher density infill projects help to limit urban sprawl. The project site is located between two higher density projects (15 units/acre and 23 units/acre). In addition, he pointed out that the site is located within close proximity to the future rail station. He indicated that the density bonus being requested would enable three units to be set aside for affordable units. If units are eliminated from the proposal, they could be the low-income units.

Regarding the recommendation for useable porch space, Mr. Karakozoff said that experience has shown him that porches aren't typically used in this type of development other than for plants, etc. Useable private open space has been provided in the form of individual rear yards.

Jim McCalligan, the project architect, discussed the design of the project. He discussed the architectural style and site planning. Addressing a Committee question concerning carports vs. garages, he spoke in favor of garages.

Mr. McCalligan presented an overlay that was prepared in response to comments in the staff report suggesting a centrally located common open space that is highly visible and accessible. The overlay proposed the reduction of the rear (north) setback to ten feet, replacement of one of the two-story units with a one-story unit, and a centrally located common open space.

Committee Member Davis outlined his ideas for revising the site plan that would create a centrally located common open space (visible as you drive into the project) with parking located on either side. Mr. McCalligan took his comments under advisement, but was concerned that parking spaces could be lost.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg asked about private storage space. Although Mr. McCalligan described various storage spaces provided for each unit; Consultant Planner Woltering clarified that the Zoning Ordinance requires 308 cubic feet of covered private storage space per unit, but that the Design Review Committee under certain conditions could waive this requirement.

Mr. McCalligan agreed to work with the requirements for storage space in the Zoning Ordinance if required to do so.

Comments:

Committee Member Davis complimented the architect on the design. He suggested the following:

• the addition of vines at the exterior of the split-face block trash enclosures;

• the addition of a clipped hedge along the common Willow Glen/Tower Apartment driveway access and along the west side of the Willow Glen project where it abuts a parking lot;

• the possibility of splitting the seven-unit building into two separate buildings; and,

• He supported the use of stamped concrete to define walkways..

Alternate Committee Member Leys complimented the architecture and stated his opinion that this is a good project. He commented as follows:

• He supported the architect's idea for adding a metal roof over the porches;

• He stated his support for high density projects as long as they are livable; and,

• The plan will need to provide the required shading in the parking areas.

Committee Member LeDoux complimented the applicant on good past projects. He stated his opinion that they are on the right track with this project, but had some suggested changes. His comments were as follows:

• He stated support for high density projects, but these are large units and, therefore, not comparable to the adjacent projects with respect to density; and,

• The density may need to be reduced by 1 or 2 units in order to provide a larger common open space area.

• He agreed with Consultant Planner Woltering's suggestion that the one-story/one bedroom unit in the alternate plan be eliminated;

• He stated his support for carports vs. garages, with one covered space per unit being provided;

• He complimented how the plan addresses privacy issues, and he liked the porches as proposed;

• He noted that the proposed common access, shared with the Towers Apartments, will require the approval of the Police and Fire Departments; and,

• The required private storage space needs to be contiguous space and not divided among several smaller spaces of an individual unit.

Committee Member Key agreed with most of the comments so far, but added the following comments:

• He stated a preference for the original site plan with the 20-foot rear (north) setback to limit impacts to the adjacent residences;

• Open area for children to play ball is important, and doesn't all have to be grass area;

• He stated support for carports vs. garages; and,

• Suggested the addition of trim detail between the first floor and second floor of the exterior building elevation.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg commented as follows:

• She said that she supports high density, but not if the loss of open area is the cost. She said that there needs to be more open space as compared to what had been proposed;

• The small common area adjacent to the 3-bedroom units on the north end of the project would probably only be used by those units and would not serve the others; and,

• She would like to see one or two alternatives for providing a common open area in a portion of the area now being proposed for a 7-unit building complex.

Chairman Petty commented that the architect did a good job designing the project with limited space. He also made the following recommendations:

• Carports should include a parapet wall with gables;

• Windows should be divided into smaller panes; and,

• He agreed with eliminating one unit to create more open space.

The project architect requested a summary of points that were agreed to by consensus. Those were as follows:

• There was an initial consensus for carports rather than garages to discourage tenants from using the garages for storage. Also, the parking spaces adjacent to the carports would need to be provided with ample space for maneuverability. Some additional covered spaces could be added on either side of the seven-unit building. However, in later discussion with the applicant, Committee Members Key and Leys expressed flexibility with carports vs. garages because garages are actually better if monitored by the property owner. Too many carports would crowd the site. All parking spaces should be marked.

• The R-3 density is fine, but additional open space is needed in a central location. Several ideas on how to accomplish this were discussed.

• There was a consensus (with the exception of Committee Members Stagg and Key) in favor of reducing the rear (north) setback to ten feet.

It was moved by Committee Member Key to continue Preliminary Design Review approval for a 19-unit townhome-style residential development on a 1 +/- acre parcel located at 789 East Cotati Avenue (Willowglen Apartments) pending resubmittal of a revised plan. Second by Committee Member Davis.

Yes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Draper) Abstain: 0

Director of Planning Dorch discussed some inconsistencies with the color of the canopy at the new Redwood Oil gas station, and the approved plan. A meeting is scheduled with the owner to work this out.

Committee Member Key said he would like to look at the approved plan because it was his recollection that there were more than two colors approved for the canopy.

Committee Member Davis said he would like to see the approved signage plan for comparison to what is there.

Committee Member Key requested that a Zoning Map be posted at the Design Review Committee meetings.

There were no reports from the Committee.

Chairman Petty adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m.

Submitted by:

Kathleen Brisbine, Administrative Secretary