Draft MINUTES for the Regular Meeting of the DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

DATE OF MEETING: February 15, 2001

TIME OF MEETING: 4:30 p.m.

PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, Conference Room

201 W. Sierra Avenue

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

Chairwoman Stagg arrived after the Call to Order.

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

Committee Members Absent: LeDoux, Petty

Staff Present: Dorch, Woltering, Brisbine

A. For the Regular Meeting on February 1, 2001

Continued.

Director of Planning Dorch suggested reorganizing the agenda to move Item B ahead of Item A. The Design Review Committee discussed the question and consulted the applicant for Item A. The Committee declined to reorganize the agenda.

PA# 24/00 Applicant: Michael Karakozoff

AP# 144-291-009

Planning Consultant Woltering presented the staff report including a summary of previous comments on the project from the Design Review Committee on January 18, 2001 and on February 1, 2001. Mr. Woltering answered questions from the Committee and discussed his recommendations. The staff report concluded with a recommendation for Preliminary Design Review approval subject to the suggested conditions of approval.

Michael Karakozoff, the project applicant, disagreed with staff's recommendation that the project be reduced to seventeen units to accommodate an enlarged common open space area. He discussed several similar developments in the City that either do not have common open space, or have common open space that is not maintained. He read selected quotes from a Green Belt Alliance publication in support of creating affordable housing that is convenient to shopping, public transportation, etc.

Mr. Karakozoff stated his preference for eliminating the carports. He predicted that benches within the front setback area would create a litter problem.

Director of Planning Dorch clarified that City policy has been to encourage infill housing projects and with appropriate design, higher densities can be accommodated. He pointed out that staff has made suggestions to this applicant on how the project could be redesigned to accommodate the density that he is seeking.

Jim McCalligan, the project architect, reviewed the plans and discussed changes that were made based on Design Review Committee comments related to the first submittal. Mr. McCalligan also stated disagreement with eliminating another unit to accommodate open space. He also stated a preference for eliminating the carports. Concerning the elevations abutting the common open space area, he stated a preference that there be no windows on the lower levels.

Dave Haselwood, the landscape architect, discussed his plans for meeting the 50% shade requirement in the parking area. He stated his opinion that the proposed common open space area is of adequate size and can be designed in such a way that it will be a useable space.

Comments:

Committee Member Davis agreed with the addition of two landscape fingers as proposed by the landscape architect to assist with meeting the parking lot shade requirement. He stated his opinion that the carports should remain.

Alternate Committee Member Leys stated his support for removal of the carports. He said that he still believes the common open space area as proposed is too small and stood by his original recommendation that the two buildings be combined and the open space provided on either end of the building. Concerning the staff recommendation for eliminating a unit and adding side yards adjacent to the common open space area, he did not agree that would help the situation and he did not support the recommendation.

Committee Member Key was supportive of the changes made for the second submittal. He agreed with the recommendation to divide the storage space so that there are some on each end of the development, but not necessarily adding benches to the front setback area. He stated his opinion that the common open space area is more than generous and he did not support eliminating another unit in order to enlarge it. He was in favor of eliminating the carports.

Committee Member Draper stated support for the project as proposed with eighteen units. She pointed out that the site is directly adjacent to a high density residential development and the applicant has built good projects in Cotati in the past. Committee Member Draper liked the central location of the common open space area. She said that she would like to see the carports retained, but would not vote against the project if they were eliminated.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg stood by her original opinion that is in opposition to a centrally located common open space area. She stated support for retaining the carports.

In an effort to reach a consensus concerning the carports, Director of Planning Dorch requested a vote.

Conditions of approval:

1. Exhibits titled Site Plan, Development Plan and Exterior Elevations, and dated 01-23-01 shall include eight carports. These plans shall satisfy the City’s onsite parking requirement as well as the requirement for a minimum of 50% shading of the parking lot area. Individual parking spaces shall be designated with pavement graphics or other appropriate signage for residents as well as visitors.
2. Front door entries of the project shall be designed so as not to be adjacent to one another to provide for privacy of the occupants.
3. The storage and service buildings on the referenced exhibits shall be of similar design and size, in keeping with the overall style presented on the referenced exhibits. These buildings shall accommodate both the private storage needs of the occupants without garages as well as the service storage requirements of the owner. A minimum of 308 cubic feet of storage shall be provided for each unit within the storage buildings as well as within the garages. The provision of storage in the garages shall in no manner preclude the parking of a vehicle within the garage. The applicant may use metal roofs on the storage/service buildings, as proposed above the entry porches.
4. Benches (2 each location) shall be provided at the pedestrian entry to the project within the frontyard setback area, as well as at the terminus of the walkway at the northern end of the property.
5. A complete and detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared. These plans shall include, but not be limited to, addressing the following:

1. 50% shading of the parking lot area;
2. Installation of vines to soften the appearance of the trash enclosures.
3. Installation of ornamental shrubs at the rear and side elevations of the garages to soften the appearance of those structures.
4. Installation of ornamental shrubs along the westerly property line to screen the parking lot on the adjoining property.
5. An inviting entry to the common open space area as well as appropriate shade trees in that area.

7. Preparation of color and material samples for all structures.

Applicant: SoCoHo, Cohousing Co.

AP# 144-360-029 & 144-360-031

Committee Member Draper stepped down due to a conflict of interest.

David Woltering, Planning Consultant, explained that the applicant is seeking preliminary comments from the Design Review Committee on their conceptual plan. The comments from the Committee will then be taken into consideration by the applicant during the preparation of their formal submittal.

Following were comments from some of the project representatives, a slide show presented by the project architect to help define the concept of a cohousing development, and questions from the Design Review Committee.

Comments from the Committee included the following:

The horizontal façade of the commercial building is a large mass for Old Redwood Highway. The existing downtown buildings have separate and original facades. It was suggested that perhaps the building could be divided in half with some outdoor dining area incorporated to make the building more inviting. (Key)

The residential buildings are nicely designed. The commercial building, however, is massive. Perhaps it could be broken up or storefronts could be offset. (Leys)

There was concern expressed about the proposed metal tower. The use of metal on the roof would be acceptable, but is too much on the tower element. There was a shared concern for the appearance of the commercial building. Something to add interest to the building would be beneficial. Overall, the project is very interesting and perfect for this area. (Davis)

There was support for the concept of the project generally, but a shared concern for the appearance of the commercial building. The commercial building is like nothing else existing in the community. There was particular concern stated for the impact of a blue metal 3-story tower element when there aren't even any 3-story buildings in the area. (Stagg)

Chairwoman Stagg invited public comment.

John Rock, 35 Page Street, spoke in opposition to the tower element and pointed out that there is nothing else like it in the community. Personally, he said that he would not care for the view of it from his home. Concerning the commercial building, he offered a suggestion that different facades could break up the building.

Chairwoman Stagg turned the meeting back over to Committee comments.

Committee Member Key said that he was OK with the tower element and believed that the scale of the building will hide the effect of a metal roof. Because of the position and location of the building, there really wouldn't be anywhere that the large expanse of metal roof would be visible.

The project architect pointed out that the tower element was required of them as a gateway feature. They have designed it to contain living space so that it actually has a function.

Consultant Planner Woltering initiated discussion regarding vehicular access and parking. The Park Meadows project approved south of this site includes a provision for the extension of Jorgenson Street that would serve the Dluzak property that lies between Park Meadows site and the Cohousing site. The original intention was that this road extension would also serve the cohousing site. It is for this reason that staff is recommending that the cohousing site plan be redesigned to accommodate the future extension (i.e.: relocation of the trash enclosure, etc.). He suggested that parking spaces lost due to this reconfiguration could possibly be relocated to the northeast corner of the site along with some additional spaces. Parking in this area would provide accessible parking to the building identified as building 5. Concerning the diagonal parking located along the Old Redwood Highway frontage, there will be a traffic study done to determine its appropriateness.

Committee Member Davis found the site plan acceptable as proposed, including the parking. He was opposed to Jorgenson Street going through to this site. Regarding the tower element, he still had a problem with the metal siding. Regarding the commercial building, he agreed that it needs some architectural enhancement. He suggested that landscaping could help to soften the impact of the commercial building and the tower. He also suggested some reconsideration to the number of parking spaces backing out onto Old Redwood Highway.

Vice Chairman Leys said that the project is a good one. He said that he would be looking for direction from staff regarding the tower element when the project comes back for Preliminary Design Review approval. He restated his recommendation that they break up the commercial building.

Committee Member Key stated his opinion that the residential aspect of the project is fine and the architecture is good. His only concern about the project is the design of the commercial building and he suggests that something be done architecturally to break up the monotony. He liked the tower element as proposed. He said that he would support gravel roadway surfaces as discussed in the architect's presentation, but anticipated that they would have problems obtaining City approvals. He was also opposed to the Jorgensen Street extension to this project and believes that the commercial parking needs to be reconsidered.

Vice Chairwoman Stagg agreed with the comments so far and supported the concept of cohousing. The commercial building was her only concern and she said that she believes it is too standardized for the area.

Committee Member Davis commented that the tower element is a part of the gateways plan, but is only one of many elements. Vice Chairman Leys, on the same subject, said that gateways are needed but he is not sure that the gateway element needs to be a tower.

It was the consensus of the Committee that they will be looking to staff for direction on the tower element when the project returns for Preliminary Design Review. They also agreed that someone living in the tower improves it for this development.

There were no reports by staff.

There were no reports from the Committee.

Chairwoman Stagg adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m.