DATE OF MEETING: March 29, 2001

TIME OF MEETING: 4:30 p.m.

PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, Council Chambers

201 W. Sierra Avenue

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

Committee Members Present: Key, Draper, Leys, LeDoux

Committee Members Absent: Petty, Stagg, Davis

Staff Present: Dorch, Brisbine

A. For the Regular Meeting on March 15, 2001

It was moved by Committee Member LeDoux to approve the minutes of March 15, 2001. Second by Committee Member Draper.

Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Absent: 3 (Petty, Stagg, Davis) Abstain: 1 (Key)

There were no changes to the agenda.

4:30 p.m. Bus trip to South Sonoma Business Park site to view story poles.

PA# 34/99 Applicant: Monahan Pacific Development Corp./

AP# 046-286-003, 006 and 007 South Sonoma Business Park

144-050-001, 002 and 003

At the request of Vice Chairman Leys, Director of Planning Dorch presented a brief staff report. He discussed the origin of the Zoning Ordinance provision for additional height. He then suggested that the applicant discuss some of the comments from the last meeting and how each has been addressed.

Committee Member Key pointed out that the required findings for a conditional use permit include a finding that a project will not impact the views for surrounding properties. He was unsure that finding could be made for this project.

Tom Monahan, Monahan Pacific, discussed criteria for additional height including the requirement for increased setback to minimize shading or privacy issues for adjacent properties. He said that their intent in proposing taller buildings is to include more square footage per building that will leave more of the site open.

Mr. Monahan presented slides of other buildings of comparable height to what is being proposed.

Bill Smith, Landscape Architect, discussed changes to the landscape change in response to comments at the last meeting. A revised landscape plan along Redwood Drive was submitted and a plant legend showing the anticipated height and span of the trees over time.

Victor Gonzalez, Project Manager, addressed a comment from the last meeting regarding possible inadequacy of the swale areas. He said that the areas are not meant to carry run-off, only some of the surface water. The main drainage system is underground.

The diagonal parking on W. Cotati Avenue, he said, is meant to slow traffic. There are two lanes; one for backing up and one for driving through.

Mitch Conner represented the project architect, Mark Adams.

Questions from the Committee were addressed by Mr. Monahan.

Vice Chairman Leys invited public comment.

Linell Hardy

8170 Arthur Street, stated her opinion that the scale of this project is too large and too big for Cotati. She suggested a maximum building height of 35 feet. She said that she still has questions about whether or not a future property owner would be bound by these plans.

Director of Planning Dorch responded that subsequent property owners would be required to adhere to the plans under consideration or go through a new process.

Jenny Blaker

8166 Arthur Street, asked if housing is still included in the plan.

Victor Gonzalez responded that the current commercial zoning does not allow housing and a rezoning will be necessary prior to the construction of any housing.

John Rock

35 Page Street, stated his concern that the height of the buildings so close to one another would be massive.

Tom Monahan responded that clustering allows for open area around the buildings and minimizes visual impacts.

The meeting was closed to public comment.

Committee Member LeDoux said that he has the same opinion as before. The buildings are too large and massive. He said that he does not agree with 3-story buildings or heights of 50 feet. He suggested 2-story buildings with a maximum height of 35 feet.

He suggested more detail for buildings A and F.

Committee Member Draper thanked whomever arranged for the bus trip to the site. After visiting the site and experiencing how noisy it is, she said she was more convinced than ever that it is a commercial site. She said that she still supports the project and believes that it proposes a proper use of the site with a proper design.

Committee Member Key said that he likes the architecture and the pedestrian scale. The visual scale for the neighborhood, however, was a problem. He stated his concern for how the buildings will block views of the surrounding hills, particularly the corporate buildings. Concerning the site visit, he said that he had trouble with how the story poles were placed on the site and indicated that they were not very helpful in determining impacts. He also suggested that the poles should have been on the site for a longer period of time to allow for more consideration.

Committee Member Key suggested that additional height should be evaluated for each individual building.

Vice Chairman Leys shared the concerns about the scale of the project although he recognized that the applicants made a good effort to mitigate the impacts. He also would have liked to see more story poles and up for a longer period of time.

Committee Member LeDoux commented that the project proposes all wetland areas to be mitigated off site, a lot of parking, and big buildings, all in a rural area. He said that he has a problem with this project in this location. The project is not in character with Cotati in his opinion. He also stated difficulty with mostly one story buildings downtown and then three stories here.

Committee Member Draper said that she has difficulty seeing this area as rural given its proximity to other commercial and industrial development. Her opinion was that this project is the best proposal that has been submitted for this site and the most desirable. She pointed out that the buildings are oriented towards Gravenstein Highway and so from Helman Lane, the building corners will be what you see.

Vice Chairman Leys stated his opinion that the three story buildings could work if they were not so close to one another, and a good landscape treatment can help to mitigate visual impacts.

Committee Member LeDoux said that he does not care for the way the buildings turn in on themselves with all of the parking on the perimeter, and he is bothered by the symmetry. He said that he would have liked to see some of the other site plans in order to understand the design process. He also said that he would have preferred to see some setback along Gravenstein Highway, or at least some variation in setbacks.

Committee Member Key commented that there have been no changes made to the architecture or any responses to the comments from the last meeting. He suggested that the Design Review Committee should vote on the project now one way or another.

Vice Chairman Leys said that he had no problem with the setbacks as proposed along Gravenstein Highway, but that his problem is with the corporate campus. To him, the corporate campus appears as a block.

Tom Monahan said that many dollars have been spent so far in developing this plan, and that this is the third architectural firm. He said that many of the suggestions heard have been explored. He said that the Gravenstein Highway frontage was designed per staff's recommendations.

It was moved by Committee Member Draper to grant Preliminary Design Review approval to construct a total of 582,900 square feet of office and retail space on approximately 35 acres located north of Highway 116, west of Redwood Drive, south of Helman Lane and east of Alder Avenue (South Sonoma Business Park), subject to the following conditions:

1. New street names shall be established is accordance with the City’s street naming policy.
1. All buildings shall be designed within the applicable maximum height limits of the Cotati Zoning Ordinance. The applicant shall apply for and successfully obtain use permits for buildings over 35 feet in height (and up to a maximum height of 50 feet).
2. Prior to Final Design Review, the site plan for the Corporate Village portion of the development shall be further refined to provide a more exciting statement as viewed from Highway 101. Buildings in this area shall be oriented such that access to the Corporate Village provides a definite sense of destination. The interior open space area created by the location of the buildings should be redesigned to provide active recreational use by project occupants.
3. Prior to Final Design Review, architectural details shall be further refined to provide a less industrial finish to buildings in both the Main Street Village and the Corporate Village.
4. A detailed building materials and color sample board shall be submitted for Final Design Review.
5. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including number, size and species of all proposed plant materials shall be submitted for Final Design Review.
6. Fencing shall be provided adjacent to residential properties, consistent with the provisions of the Cotati Zoning Ordinance. Details of such fencing shall be submitted for Final Design Review.
7. All trash compactors or trash enclosure areas shall be screened with a wall not to exceed eight feet in height. Details of such screening shall be submitted for Final Design Review.
8. Plans submitted for Final Design Review shall include location and elevation detail of all proposed fencing and screening.
9. Plans submitted for Final Design Review shall include detail of all rooftop equipment and proposed screening.
10. Plans submitted for Final Design Review shall include specific detail of all paving sections, including treatments to delineate pedestrian areas.
11. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall furnish the City with evidence that all parcels have recorded reciprocal parking agreements.
12. Plans submitted for Final Design Review shall include specific details of all project lighting.
13. Plans submitted for Final Design Review shall include documentation prepared by a lighting engineer demonstrating that proposed lighting will not cast light off-site onto adjacent residential properties.
14. A master sign program shall be prepared and submitted as part of Final Design Review for the project. Specific details for all signs, including traffic directional signs, shall be specified, including, but not limited to: number and location of signs, size, copy, colors and materials.

16. Applicant shall give further consideration to the architectural detail of buildings A and F.

17. Applicant shall give further consideration to the detail of the corporate campus buildings, including landscaping, to reduce mass.

Second by Vice Chairman Leys.

Yes: 2 (Draper, Leys) Noes: 2 (LeDoux, Key) Absent: 3 (Stagg, Petty, Davis) Abstain: 0

There were no reports by staff.

There were no reports from the Committee.

Vice Chairman Leys adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Submitted by:

Kathleen Brisbine, Administrative Secretary