MINUTES for the Regular Meeting of the DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

DATE OF MEETING: February 1, 2001

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 4:30 p.m.

Committee Members Present: Davis, Leys, Draper, Stagg

Committee Members Absent: Petty, LeDoux, Key

Staff Present: *Lustig, Woltering, Brisbine

* Present for part of the meeting

A. For the Regular Meeting on January 18, 2001.

It was moved by Committee Member Davis to approve the minutes of January 18, 2001, as submitted. Second by Alternate Committee Member Leys.

Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Petty, LeDoux, Key) Abstain: 1 (Draper)

There were no changes to the agenda.

A. Reorganization of the Design Review Committee for 2001.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg requested nominations.

Committee Member Draper nominated Barbara Stagg for Chairperson. Second by Committee Member Davis.

There were no other nominations.

Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Petty, LeDoux, Key) Abstain: 0

Committee Member Draper nominated Chris Davis for Vice Chairperson. Committee Member Davis declined the nomination.

Committee Member Davis nominated Alternate Committee Member Leys for Vice Chairperson. Second by Committee Member Draper.

There were no other nominations.

Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Petty, LeDoux, Key) Abstain: 0

PA# 24/00 Applicant: Michael Karakozoff

AP# 144-291-009

David Woltering, Consultant Planner, reviewed the staff report. He discussed in detail the Committee's recommendations from January 18, 2001, and how each issue was addressed by the applicant in the revised plans. A list of outstanding issues was distributed to help guide discussion.

Both Mr. Woltering and Mr. Karakozoff addressed questions from the Committee.

Mike Karakozoff, the applicant, discussed points in favor of a higher density at this location, the constraints in designing a project on this lot, and affordability of the units.

Jim McCalligan, the project architect, reviewed the changes to the plan. They have eliminated one unit and reduced the setback along the north property line from 20 ft. to 12 ft. to create a more centrally located and larger common open space feature.

Concerning the reconfiguration of the common open space feature suggested by Committee Member Davis at the previous meeting, he explored the idea but it would result in the loss of four parking spaces.

Mr. McCalligan disagreed with a staff recommendation to revise the side elevations abutting the public area. He said that the higher windows would add to the security of the area, but that lower windows would inhibit use of the area. They would also limit privacy for the residents of those units. He suggested keeping the plan as proposed and adding some tall columnar trees mixed in with some shrubs to create a visual boundary and improve the appearance of the building.

He agreed with staff's recommendation to adjust the entry locations for unit 8 so that each unit has a separate entry location.

In response to an inquiry from the Committee, Mr. McCalligan said that the proposed service building would be used by the property manager for supplies (tools, light bulbs, etc.).

Committee Comments:

Committee Member Davis suggested that the storage building be divided so that there are storage units at both ends of the project. Also, he suggested that the architect might consider carrying through the metal roof feature used above the porches to these smaller storage buildings.

Alternate Committee Member Leys agreed with Committee Member Davis about the use of a metal roof material, but at the architect's discretion. He inquired about the possibility of utilizing some of the front setback area for public space by adding a bench or two. Also, he encouraged the use of benches in the area at the north end of the site that was originally proposed for a common area.

Committee Member Davis commented that the revised plan is a significant improvement over the previous plan. He agreed with staff that there needs to be some revision to the side elevations abutting the common open space area. He suggested adding a narrow trellis or arbor with vines to help soften the appearance of the building.

Committee Member Davis was uncertain about the location of the gaming table in the common open space area and suggested that the goal might be to create a tranquil garden area. He suggested maybe adding a canopy at the rear of the space to provide shading in the summer.

Committee Member Davis agreed that shading of the parking lot will need to be addressed; agreed with adding benches to the small open area at the north end of the site; suggested dividing the storage units so that there some on both sides of the site; and commented that the window treatment as proposed is fine with him.

Alternate Committee Member Leys agreed with the location of the open space but said that the space might feel cramped with buildings on either side of it. He suggested either eliminating an additional unit to increase the size of the space or bringing the units together and splitting the open space at either end of the units. He suggested eliminating the carports, particularly if the open space is adjacent to the parking area. He was in favor of keeping the garages. Alternate Committee Member Leys also agreed with the window treatment as proposed; stressed the importance of meeting the parking lot shade requirement; and reiterated his suggestion for including benches at the north end of the site.

Committee Member Draper complimented the project and was in favor of the common open space location as proposed. She agreed with Committee Member Davis's suggestion that a trellis could be added to the elevations abutting the open space. Aside from helping to reduce the scale of the wall and approve its appearance, it would also help to discourage use of the wall for bouncing balls, etc. She also agreed with adding one or two benches to the front setback area; dividing the storage units between two small buildings at either end of the project parking area; and adding metal roofs to the storage buildings. She suggested the addition of some cabinet space to the rear of the carports.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg said that this is a nice project with good design features, but that there is not sufficient open space. She was troubled with what she perceived as compromising standards to accommodate density. Overall, she was not comfortable with the density and questioned the benefit to the community from approving a density bonus.

Jim McCalligan responded to some of the comments. He agreed to provide detail for the common open areas at final design review but disagreed with dividing the area into two separate spaces. He suggested some possibilities for variations to the wall elevations to limit any "walled in" feeling.

Committee Member Draper added for the record that she does not agree with eliminating the carports.

Consultant Planner Woltering suggested a third option for consideration that would locate all of the common area at one end of the unit complex.

Committee Member Davis said that he supports retaining the carports. His problem with reversing the position of the two-unit building with the common area is that the common area would then be adjacent to the carports. He said that he could support eliminating one of the units in order to create a larger open space but would not go so far as to require it.

Committee Member Draper did not support eliminating a unit and wanted to retain the carports. She liked the location of the common area as proposed.

Alternate Committee Member Leys stated his opinion that the project can work with 18 units with some adjustment to the common open space.

Mr. McCalligan said that he could adjust the designs of the units adjacent to the common open space so that the roof slope would start at the first floor. Because of the location of interior stairs, only inches would be lost from the units and the wall effect would be mitigated.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg asked Mr. Karakozoff how he would like the matter handled since the Design Review Committee could not reach a consensus.

Mr. Karakozoff responded that he prefers to go to Planning Commission with a positive recommendation from the Design Review Committee. He requested that the item be continued to the next meeting when hopefully more members are present.

David Woltering, Consultant Planner, reviewed the staff report and staff's recommended conditions. A list of discussion items was distributed to help guide the discussion.

Peter Van Alyea, Redwood Oil, said that three signs were approved as a part of the original design review approval. At this time, only Sign A (the wall-mounted sign) has been changed. Although Sign C, the monument sign, is an existing sign, he agreed to provide a stucco or stone base to match the building. He also agreed to exterior illumination of Sign A if required to do so.

A representative from Paramount Signs (?) was available to represent the application. He distributed a revised color drawing that showed the background color of Sign A as more of a beige color than yellow. The Committee stated a preference for the revised color.

Regarding Sign B, the Committee agreed that they typically do not approve backlit signs.

Regarding Sign B, Committee Member Davis asked if there was any way to recess the can so that it would be flush with the canopy. Regarding Sign A, he expressed a preference for a wooden (aged and sandblasted) sign with goose-neck lighting and would prefer no cartoon car. Regarding Sign C, he suggested adding some wood or trellis, enhancing the base with a stucco finish, and providing exterior lighting.

Mr. Van Alyea, in response to Committee comments, proposed the following:

Sign A - 1/2 inch thick raised letters (dark green with white trim), externally lit with goose-neck lighting and no cartoon character.

Sign B - keep as proposed unless previous approval required individual letters. No pricing will be added to the canopy.

Sign C - Add trellis/wood detail to existing monument sign and add a larger base with a stucco finish to match the building.

There were no reports by staff.

There were no reports from the Committee.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.

Submitted by:

Kathleen Brisbine, Administrative Secretary