MINUTES for the Regular Meeting of the DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE
DATE OF MEETING:
TIME OF MEETING:
PLACE OF MEETING:
201
The meeting was called to order at
Commissioners Present: Kagan,
Leys,
Commissioners Absent: Merriss,
LeDoux, Fortier
Staff Present: Lustig,
Hirsch, Gonzalez
III. CHANGES TO AGENDA
There were no changes to the
agenda.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. For
the Regular Meeting on
Continued. No Quorum.
A. Request for Final Design Review approval to construct a 6,780
square foot residence on a 2.22-acre parcel located at
PA# 18/02 Applicant: Castillo/Saunders
AP# 144-230-024
Contract Planner Gonzalez presented the staff report. Mr.
Gonzalez identified two additional conditions of approval including a
requirement that the final landscape plans be certified by a licensed landscape
architect and that the building height be certified by the project architect. Staff recommended approval of this project,
with the added conditions.
Committee Member Fortier joined the meeting at
Committee Member Leys asked if the craftsman architectural
style is generally a recommendation or a requirement in the City?
Planner Gonzalez responded that the recommendation for
craftsman-style is in the General Plan, but this project’s design is a more
meditteranean style.
Senior Planner Lustig stated that the architectural design
for one single-family home can vary from the craftsman-style, however, a larger
project such as a subdivision or something more “dramatic” than one
single-family home would normally be required to be designed in the craftsman
style.
Committee Member Fortier asked if the foam moulding is
commonly used.
Committee Member Leys responded yes.
Chair Kagan stated that the foam would be covered with
stucco and is used for shaping.
Committee Member Fortier inquired about the iron window
treatment.
Planner Gonzalez noted that such treatment is not shown on
all of the windows.
Committee Member Fortier asked if the window treatments
would be symmetrical.
Planner Gonzalez responded yes.
Chair Kagan asked if there is another lot attached here.
Planner Gonzalez noted that this project is not a
subdivision and that the applicant had submitted a Lot Line Adjustment to
provide more property to this parcel, which had been approved.
Chair Kagan asked if there is access for the lot at the
rear of the subject lot.
Planner Gonzalez stated that yes, there is a recorded
easement that is noted in the Conditions of Approval.
The Landscape Architect for the project, David Hazelwood,
presented the landscaping aspects of the project, stating that the home will be
screened from the view of the freeway and
Chair Kagan asked if the drainage pattern will work as
proposed.
Mr. Hazelwood responded that a drip irrigation system is
to be installed.
The project architect, Vincent Saunders, presented the site
layout, design and architectural features of the project and explained that the
drainage will be adequate. He stated that a belly band is used around only the
front of the home because on the other elevations, it would be broken up too
much and interrupted by longer windows.
Chair Kagan asked about the proposed fencing.
Mr. Saunders replied that the fencing has actually been
re-designed per the Committee’s previous direction at Preliminary Design
Review.
Chair Kagan asked about the lighting.
Mr. Saunders responded that the lighting is mostly at
grade, facing down and inward and is shielded from off-site spillage.
Discussion/Comments:
Committee Member Leys thought that the project looked very
good.
Committee Member Stanley re-iterated that the project
looks great.
Committee Member Fortier asked how long it might take for
the vines to grow on the fence to a point where the wire fencing is obscured.
Mr. Hazelwood responded that it would be very quick.
Senior Planner Lustig stated that it might be five years.
Committee Member Leys said that the wire fence with the
vines would be much nicer than a simple board on board fence.
Chair Kagan asked if the applicant had met all the
requirements as identified in the Conditions of Approval.
Planner Gonzalez stated yes.
Chair Kagan asked the audience if there were any public
comments, which there were none.
It was moved by Committee Member Leys to grant Final
Design Review approval to allow construction of the 6,780 square foot home
at
Yes: 4 (Kagan, Leys,
Fortier, Stanley) Noes: 0 Absent:
2 (Merriss, LeDoux) Abstain: 0
Conditions of Approval – PA# 18/02, 470 West School Street:
1. ADDED. The
Project Landscape Architect shall certify in writing to the Planning Director that the Landscape
Plan for the project conforms to that approved
by the Design Review Committee. The certification shall be provided prior to final inspection
and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy
for the proposed residence.
2. ADDED. The
project architect shall certify in writing to the Planning Director that the maximum height of
the proposed residence is not in excess
of 28-feet above the finished grade pursuant to the project plan. The
certification shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to the final inspection.
3. All
plans submitted for review at Final Design Review shall be signed and stamped by an engineer or architect
licensed in the State of
4. The
applicant shall provide a color rendering at Final Design Review.
5. The
applicant shall provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan for Final
Design Review. Said plan shall provide
for an enhanced landscape treatment of the overall site with the primary
purpose of reducing the potential for significant long-term visual impact of
the project as viewed from public vantage points, including Highway 101. The plan shall incorporate the use of native
vegetation and native trees such as oaks and redwood trees and placed in random
patterns on the site so as to create a sense of more natural placement. The
plan shall also incorporate a planting schedule along with a visual simulation
illustrating growth rates of all species in relation to the proposed home. The growth schedule shall illustrate trees
and vegetation at 5 and 10 years and at full maturity. This component shall be reviewed and approved
at Final Design Review.
6. The
detailed landscape plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
shall be designed to reduce any long-term visual impact of the project to a
less than significant level. It shall be the objective of the landscape
architect to achieve sufficient growth within 10 years to reduce any long-term
visual impact to a less than significant level.
In addition to the landscaping shown on the preliminary landscape plan,
landscaping shall be added to screen the south elevation. The landscape architect shall prepare a plan
to achieve approximately 50% screening of the residence within the time
frame. The landscape architect shall
inspect the installation of the plantings and irrigation system and certify in
writing to the City’s Planning Director that the plantings and irrigation
system were installed in accordance with the approved plan at the time of final
inspection/occupancy of the home. The
applicant shall provide surety (i.e., bond, cash, letter of credit, etc.)
acceptable to the Planning Director and the City Attorney in the amount of 10%
of the cost of the installation of the landscape and irrigation plan to
guarantee for one year (i.e., the establishment period) the survival of the
plant materials and the proper functioning of the irrigation system as a condition
of final inspection/occupancy of the home. At the end of one year from the date
of final inspection/occupancy, the project landscape architect and Planning
Department staff shall inspect the installation to determine the need for the
replacement and/or repair work. The City
shall release the surety upon receiving a letter from the project landscape
architect that any plant material replacement or irrigation system repair work
had been satisfactorily completed. In
the event that the applicant does not complete the needed replacement and/or
repair work within a reasonable timeframe (i.e., approximately 90 days), the
City shall be entitled to use the surety to perform the work.
7. The
applicant shall submit lighting plans, including cut sheets, demonstrating that
exterior lighting shall not
glare onto surrounding properties for Final Design Review.
8. All
siding or exterior cover materials shall fully wrap the building.
9. All
retaining walls shall be of an earth tone color and blend with the exterior
colors of the home. No retaining walls
shall be painted white or other colors that accentuate
the walls, but rather allow for the walls to be a neutral element within the landscaping.
10. The
applicant shall submit the following details for Final Design Review:
a. Stucco
trim detail through the sill, jam and head of the window needs to be
shown. Window detail needs to wrap
around.
b. Along
the east elevation, the wrought iron detail and shape shall be fully illustrated.
c. Details
through the soffitt, eaves, and belly-band shall need to be shown.
11. A
grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and shall be
submitted for Final Design
Review for review and approval as part of the building permit application.
12. Any
retaining walls on site shall be divided into elements and terraces with landscaping to screen them from
view. No individual retaining wall shall
be higher than 4-1/2
feet.
13. The two
existing Valley oaks onsite shall be preserved and maintained pursuant to the Arborist
Report prepared by Becky Duckles, Landscape Consultant & City Arborist.
14. The
maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 29-1/2 feet to the ridge (highest point). The maximum height of an accessory structure
shall not exceed 15 feet to the ridge (highest point). The height for both the primary and accessory
structures shall be measured from the
lowest point of finished grade at the exterior
wall.
15. The
applicant shall secure a Building Permit from the City for all phases of construction.
16. Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for review and approval by
the City Engineer. The erosion control plan shall be established in conformance with the following:
a. The Contractor shall comply with
“Best Management Practices” as defined in California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbooks “Construction Activity” and all requirements of
the State of
b. Appropriate erosion control
devices shall be utilized to retain sediment within the project areas during
the construction season.
c. Prior to any grading constructed
after October 1 and before May 1, storm drains, outlet structures, check dams
and ditches shall be constructed.
d. Storm water shall not be allowed
to flow directly down unprotected slopes.
Energy dissipating structures and erosion control devices shall be
placed at all drainage outlets, which discharge into natural channels.
e. Sediment basins or filtration
systems shall be used to ensure that water entering the storm drain system
below the construction site is the same quality and character as the water
above the site.
f. Storm water runoff from the
construction site shall be directed toward an inlet with a sediment or
filtration interceptor prior to entering the storm drain system.
g. After construction is complete all
storm drain systems associated with this project shall be inspected and cleared
of accumulated sediments and debris.
h. Between October 15 and April 15,
all paved areas will be kept clear of earth material and debris. The site is to be maintained by the
developer, contractor or owner so that a minimum of sediment-laden runoff
leaves the site.
i. During the rainy season (October
15 to April 15) all sediment barriers are to be inspected and repaired at the
end of each working day and, in addition, after each storm. Sediment shall be removed as needed and
filters cleaned or replaced when accumulations reach one-third the height of
the barrier.
j. Entrance to the project shall be
maintained in a condition that will prevent tracking or flowing of sediment
into a public right-of-way.
k. Any graded areas 10% or steeper
within the roadway, road right-of-way, or public utility easement shall be
seeded for erosion control. Erosion
control materials and application shall be in accordance with Section 20 of the
CalTrans Standard Specifications and shall consist of applying seed and
fertilizer at the rates specified below.
Seed and fertilizer shall be either applied mechanically or by hydro-
seeding. Hydro-seeding requires the
application of fiber and stabilizing emulsion.
Mechanical application shall require rolling, tamping, or otherwise
working the seed and fertilizer into the soil.
Additionally, after seeding fill slopes, straw shall be applied at the
rate specified below and incorporated into the soil, in lieu of straw, the
Contractor may hydro-seed fill slopes incorporating stabilizing emulsion.
17. Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils report for review and approval by the City Engineer.
18. The
construction of the proposed home and associated improvements shall be located in areas on the property outside
of sloped areas that exceed 15%.
19. Construction
drawings shall indicate that any fireplaces or stoves installed in the residence shall be non-wood
burning. Natural gas or pellet stoves are acceptable alternatives.
20. Before excavation and construction on the project site, the
prime construction contractor(s) shall be cautioned on the legal and/or
regulatory implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing
any artifacts, human remains, bottles, and other cultural materials from the
project site.
21. If cultural resources are encountered on the site during
project development, work on that part of the site shall be halted immediately
and the project sponsor shall retain a qualified archeologist to investigate
the find. Prehistoric resources include
chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles and dark
friable soil containing sher and bones dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or
human burials. Historic resources
include stone or adobe foundations or walls, structures and remains with square
nails, and refuse deposits, often in old wells or privies.
22. Utility
services and connections shall meet City and all applicable governmental agency standards.
23. An
Encroachment Permit shall be required for improvements and utility connections within the public right-of-way.
24. Fire sprinklers
system connections shall meet City and all applicable governmental agency standards.
25. If
proposed development involves one acre or more of disturbed area, the applicant shall submit a copy of the NOI to the City Engineer.
26. The
applicant shall submit easement documents if a shared driveway is to be proposed for the future
development of the adjacent lot to the south.
27. The
applicant shall install a fire hydrant to the specifications of the Rancho
Adobe Fire Protection
District. The location of the hydrant shall be reviewed and approved by the Rancho Adobe Fire
District. The fire hydrant shall be
installed prior to issuance of any
building permits for the site.
B. Request for Preliminary Design Review approval to construct a
one-story 1,140 square foot accessory medical building on an existing 0.65-acre
developed lot located at 85 La Plaza at
PA# 18/03 Applicant: Robin Lowitz/Paul Schabracq
AP# 144-272-04
Chair Kagan recused himself as Chair of the Committee and
stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Committee Member Leys assumed the
role of Chair.
Senior Planner Lustig presented the staff report. Staff
recommended approval of this project, with Conditions.
Chair Leys inquired as to why Staff needed floor plans.
Committee Member Stanley asked if the original handicapped
parking was for three spaces.
Senior Planner Lustig identified where the new parking
will be installed on the east side of the building.
Committee Member Leys asked about the turn-around area for
parking on the east side of the building.
Committee Member Stanley asked if all of the parking on
the east side of the building would be taken out.
Senior Planner Lustig said that yes, that the parking surface
is in poor condition and most of it would be replaced with landscaping, except
for one handicapped space.
Committee Member Fortier asked if the landscaping proposed
is in accordance with the
The project architect, Debra Sweitzer, represented the
project and identified architectural features of the project. She noted that
the architecture complements the existing building. She also expressed a desire
to resurface the existing parking area on the east of the proposed building,
and maintain it as parking.
The project representative, Paul Shabracq, stated a desire
to promote the parking area at the clinic and said that the other parking area
for the synagogue is far too far away from the clinic for easy access. He also
inquired as to why the floor plans were a necessary element of the application.
Steve French, the project’s landscape architect, presented
the landscaping features of the project. He noted a mixture of native and
Mediterranean plants and has used a biblical theme for the plantings.
Committee Member Fortier asked if the trees will bear
fruit.
Mr. French responded that yes they will.
No more comments were received from the applicant’s team.
Discussion/Comments:
Committee Member
Senior Planner Lustig stated that the parking can be
looked at the time of Planning Commission review and expressed that Staff did
not want to see the site “overpaved”. She also noted an access problem with the
parking in that area as it is directly off of
Committee Member Fortier and asked if the parking on East Sierra
being in disrepair is the main problem.
Committee Member
There were no comments from the public when asked by
Committee Member Leys.
Committee Member Fortier asked if the floor plans are
needed?
Committee Member Leys supported this comment.
Committee Member Stanley stated that she is comfortable
with the recommendations, except Condition of Approval No. 1, and would like to
see parking on that side of the clinic.
Committee Member Leys expressed that this project shows a
great improvement of this site.
Committee Member
Committee Member Leys noted that the parking on the east
side of the clinic will have to be repaved if it is kept.
Committee Member Fortier asked if it would be repaved with
asphalt.
The applicant stated that yes, it would be repaved.
Committee Member Fortier noted that a condition should be
added for a finished site plan.
It was moved by Committee Member Fortier to grant Preliminary
Design Review approval to allow construction of a 1,140 square foot
accessory medical building at 85 La Plaza, subject to Conditions of Approval
Nos. 2-5, with removal of Condition 1 and adding a condition for the
resurfacing and restriping of the parking area to the east of the clinic and
adding a condition for submittal of a completed site plan and floor plans. Motion was seconded by Committee Member Stanley.
Yes: 3 (Leys,
Fortier,
1. AMENDED. The eastern parking area, except
for the handicapped parking, shall be repaved,
restriped and maintained as a parking area. abandoned and replaced with landscaping, as
part of this application.
2. Site
details such as the porch, ramp, new signage, lighting, landscaping, irrigation
and bicycle racks shall be
reviewed at Final Design Review.
3. Windows,
siding, and roof materials and colors shall match the existing Synagogue. Conformance with this condition
shall be demonstrated at Final Design Review.
4. The
applicant shall submit detailed floor plans for this project for consideration
at Final Design Review.
5. The
property owner shall be required to make a “fair share” contribution in the
event that a sidewalk is
eventually installed along
6. ADDED. The
applicant shall be required to submit floor plans and a full site plan, showing all property
boundaries and all existing and proposed project
features.
C. Request for Preliminary Design Review approval to allow
addition of two feet of latticework to an existing six-foot fence at the Cotati
Station Subdivision, Phase 1, located on
Chair Kagan resumed chair position.
Committee Member
Chair Kagan asked if this project has to go to the
Planning Commission.
Chair Kagan asked that if this applicant is requesting an
eight foot fence, then why can’t anyone install an eight-foot fence.
Chair Kagan noted that others will now apply based on this
precedent.
Senior Planner Lustig noted that it is not necessarily a
precedent because there is another jurisdiction on the other side of the fence
in this case (City of
Committee Member Leys asked if there will be plantings on
the latticework and expressed a desire to see such feature.
Committee Member
Committee Member Leys suggested that perhaps a group or
selection of vines could be presented, for Final approval by Staff.
It was moved by Committee Member Stanley to approve the
project to match the existing fencing and latticework on-site, with Staff
recommendations, and adding a condition to require submittal of a selection or
group of vine species for Final approval by Staff over the counter. Motion was seconded by Committee Member Fortier.
Yes: 4 (Kagan, Leys,
Fortier, Stanley) Noes: 0
Absent: 2 (Merriss, LeDoux) Abstain: 0
1. The
applicant will be required to submit a final fence plan with detailed
specifications (e.g. color,
materials, dimensions) for review and consideration by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
2. ADDED. The
proposed latticework shall match the existing latticework on- site.
3. ADDED. The
applicant shall submit a selection of vines for Final approval by Staff prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Item IV. was re-visited for the approval of the Minutes
for
There were no reports by Staff.
There
were no reports by the Committee.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Kagan adjourned the meeting
at
Submitted by:
Kathleen Brisbine,
Administrative Secretary
Y:\PLANNING\DRCMIN\2004
Minutes\08-05-04.doc