MINUTES for the Regular Meeting of the DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

DATE OF MEETING: December 21, 2000

TIME OF MEETING: 4:30 p.m.

PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, Conference Room

201 W. Sierra Avenue

Vice Chairwoman Stagg called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m.

Committee Members Present: LeDoux, Davis, Key, Draper, Stagg

Committee Members Absent: Petty, Leys

Staff Present: Dorch, Lustig, Brisbine

A. For the Regular Meeting on November 16, 2000

p.2, paragraph 9: Committee Member Key requested the following amendment:

It was moved by Committee Member Key to approve the minutes of November 16, 2000, as amended. Second by Committee Member Draper.

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

There were no changes to the agenda.

Senior Planner Lustig presented the staff report. In addition to the discussion items included in the report, Senior Planner Lustig also noted the following:

• The Trusses on the south elevation do not appear to work well and the window treatment could use some more consideration.

• Typically, the required industrial parking ratio is calculated at 1:600 to accommodate a manufacturing use. This project's parking is provided at a 1:800 square foot ratio for warehouse use. Given that there is a vacant "for lease" space included in the project, and the use of the entire building could change in the future, the parking ratio should accommodate the possibility for a manufacturing use. Also, the compact spaces on this plan comprise 33%. Maximum allowable is 30%.

• No outdoor storage will be allowed. This is particularly important on this site because of the inability to screen.

• The plan proposes a future second story. The additional space, even if only used for storage, would require additional parking that cannot be accommodated on the site.

Design Review Committee comments were requested on whether or not to have a park strip along Portal Street. Staff recommended the park strip for shade on the street.

In response to an inquiry from Committee Member Key, Senior Planner Lustig said that there are no comments from the City Engineer yet on the driveway widths.

Committee Member Key commented that the site plan should have been designed to accommodate interior circulation rather than two separate parking areas. Director of Planning Dorch responded that during preliminary discussions with the applicant, staff suggested combining the two lots because the lot to the west would be undevelopable with setback requirements. Staff did not suggest through circulation.

Committee Member Key asked about the percentage of landscaping provided. Dave Haselwood, the landscape architect, was present at the meeting and said that the percentage of landscaping has not been calculated but he estimates it to be over what is required. He will provide the exact calculation at final design review.

Al Diiorio, the project architect, represented the application and discussed his efforts towards meeting both the requirements of the City and of his client.

Responding to some of the comments from staff, Mr. Diiorio pointed out the location of a 16^th parking space at the north side of the building; said that a shorter roll-up door or office front could be added to the front elevation; and explained the proposed mechanical equipment screening. He discussed alternate window treatments but requested more direction from staff. Concerning the driveway approaches, he said that they can be modified according to the requirements of the City Engineer.

Dave Haselwood, the landscape architect, said in response to the staff report that drought tolerant plants have been utilized throughout the plan. A small amount of lawn area has been included to blend in with other sites in the immediate vicinity, and dense shrubs have been proposed for screening.

Concerning the question about whether or not to include a park strip along Portal Street, Mr. Haselwood expressed his opposition to the use of park strips in industrial projects. He reasoned that the area is not heavily used by pedestrians and the roadway buffer is not really needed. Also, tall trucks frequently damage trees in planter strips.

On the subject of landscaping, Mr. Diiorio added that he felt the recommended landscape strip along the north property line would only benefit the adjacent parcel and would be an unfair burden on this property owner.

Greg VanCleave, property owner, expressed his frustration trying to meet the criteria of the design review process while attempting to keep costs down.

In response to a question from Committee Member Key, Mr. VanCleave explained that the height of the building is to accommodate trucks with booms. He said that he also had planned to add a mezzanine for added storage space but was unaware that the storage area would require additional parking.

Comments:

Committee Member Draper stressed that the Committee is adamant about the plan including sufficient parking.

Committee Member Key suggested using a parapet instead of a sloped roof. He also discussed the use of metal buildings. These options could reduce costs and could blend into the area with appropriate architectural treatments. He said that the Committee is typically open to a variety of building materials with the exception of T1-11.

Committee Member LeDoux pointed out that the handicap ramp cannot be located in the aisle; and, the City Engineer may require a commercial driveway approach and driveway width.

Regarding staff's concern about roll-up doors at the entry off of Primero Court, Committee Member LeDoux was not opposed to their placement there. He reasoned that the Court is so small and roll-ups are expected in an industrial area. The view could be screened with landscaping.

The building height must be in conformance with the height requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance.

It is important that the applicant understands the importance of the parking issue. The use of the building could change in the future and the parking needs to accommodate that possibility.

Committee Member LeDoux understood the fact that the parcel size and setback requirements make it difficult to develop. He was not opposed to proposed site plan that includes two separate parking areas.

Committee Member LeDoux also said that he could accept either a pitched metal roof or a parapet. He suggested reconsidering the gable over the roll-up doors. A stucco finish would be acceptable.

Concerning staff's suggestion for increasing the width of the landscape strip along the north property line to ten feet to clearly separate the driveways, he did not agree that it was necessary.

Committee Member Davis recommended consideration be given to pedestrian access to the trash area from the "for lease" side of the building.

He stated that the tall trees proposed in the landscape plan will screen the view of the roll-up doors from Primero Ct. He suggested maybe adding some shorter plant materials for additional screening because the trees will have a tall canopy.

Committee Member Davis also suggested removal of the shorter roof pitch on the south elevation.

He agreed with Committee Member LeDoux about not requiring the ten-foot landscape strip along the north property line because it could hinder parking.

He suggested a grey-tone stucco finish.

Committee Member Key commented further. He agreed with not requiring the ten-foot landscape strip along the north property line.

He expressed some concern about the sawtooth angles of the building bordering the parking area and the impact to truck maneuverability. He stated a preference for through circulation; and,

suggested reconsideration of the building height.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg agreed with reconsidering the use of gables over the roll-up doors; not requiring the 10-foot landscape strip along the north property line; and, the provision for pedestrian access between the two parking areas.

Committee Member Draper agreed with the comments on the project and stated opposition to adding a second story to the building.

It was moved by Committee Member Key to continue the request for Preliminary Design Review approval for an 8,850 square foot light industrial building for storage use with offices on a 0.73 acre parcel located at 421 and 445 Portal Street, in the M-1, Light Industrial, zoning district (VanCleave). Second by Committee Member LeDoux.

Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Petty, Leys) Abstain: 0

Committee Member Draper left the meeting at 5:30 p.m.

Senior Planner Lustig presented a brief staff report and reviewed the changes to the design of the marquee since the previous meeting. An overlay to the illustration was available to show the size of the new sign in relation to the existing sign. A rear elevation of the sign was also available. Different alternatives for the size of the new sign were reviewed.

Staff recommended approval of Alternative A, a 55 square foot sign.

The Committee considered the alternatives and complimented the design.

It was moved by Committee Member Key to approve a new downtown marquee to replace the existing one near the bus shelter on Old Redwood Highway @ West Sierra Avenue, specifically Alternative A (55 square feet). Second by Committee Member LeDoux.

Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Petty, Leys, Draper) Abstain: 0

There were no reports by staff.

Committee Member Key submitted a letter of resignation from the Design Review Committee, but stated a willingness to serve until the position can be filled.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.

Submitted by:

Kathleen Brisbine

Administrative Secretary