DATE OF MEETING: Monday, March 5, 2001

TIME OF MEETING: 7:00 p.m.

PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, City Council Chambers

201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931

Chairwoman Moore called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Commissioners Present: Dutra, McClelland, Mulligan, Pagnusat, Moore

Staff Present: Dorch, Lustig

There were no changes to the agenda.

There were no oral or written communications.

Director of Planning Dorch presented the staff report. He provided an overview of the design review process and the resulting recommendations from the Design Review Committee.

He discussed conflicting recommendations from the Design Review Committee and staff concerning the carports. The Design Review Committee voted to keep the carports although the vote was not unanimous. Staff believes that the carports should be removed for aesthetic reasons. The Municipal Code allows for the removal of carports based on certain criteria, however, a recommendation from the Design Review Committee is one of them. He asked that the Planning Commission express their opinions on the carports. However, per the Code, no action can be taken at this time to remove them.

In response to an inquiry from Vice Chairman Pagnusat, Director of Planning Dorch discussed both State and City provisions for increased density for affordable units. The State allows up to a 25% increase in density, and the City allows up to a 15% increase in density for affordable units. The project as proposed at 19 units would be workable given the current regulations.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner McClelland, Director of Planning Dorch said that three affordable units would be required of this project if it had seventeen or if it had eighteen units.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Dutra about the applicant seeking Redevelopment Agency funds, Director of Planning Dorch said that would not be something the Planning Commission would need to consider.

Commissioner Mulligan asked about the site being designated for Transient Emergency Housing. Director of Planning Dorch explained that as a part of the Housing Element process, each jurisdiction must designate a site where Transient Emergency Housing could be located. That doesn't make a lot of sense for a small community and he supported a more regional approach. However, a site must be identified in the City according to State law and one can be selected to replace this one in the upcoming Housing Element Update process.

Chairwoman Moore asked how large the common open space would be if another unit is deleted from the plan. Director of Planning Dorch could not give an immediate response, but agreed to find an answer to that question.

Commissioner Dutra asked about the square footage requirement for individual storage space per unit, only seeing eight storage spaces. Director of Planning Dorch responded that there is storage space incorporated into each of the garages as well.

Chairwoman Moore invited the applicant to make a presentation.

525 East Cotati Avenue (business address), the applicant, discussed his development of the project concept and the City Council's indication that they would be receptive to a high density project. He discussed the high densities on surrounding properties and the suitability of high density projects in the vicinity of the Santero Way Specific Plan area.

He said that he concurs with the staff recommendation to remove the carports. He mentioned the possibility of adding back the unit that was removed at Design Review Committee level for a total of 19 units. He was very opposed to deleting further units.

Mr. Karakozoff then responded to questions from the Planning Commission.

Jim McCalligan, the project architect, distributed some photographs of the surrounding properties. He then reviewed the plans in detail and included some discussion on how another unit could be added back in for a total of nineteen units.

Mr. McCalligan then responded to questions from the Planning Commission.

Chairwoman Moore opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

The PUBLIC HEARING was closed without comment.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat inquired about the extension of planning approvals. Director of Planning Dorch explained that the Code allows a one-year approval for design review unless it filed simultaneously with another land use entitlement with a longer approval period. After one year, the applicant can apply for a one year extension on the design review approval. After that, the project has to be resubmitted. There is no discretion to grant an automatic extension.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Dutra, Director of Planning Dorch discussed the goals of the Housing Element for providing affordable housing and the role of apartments in meeting that goal.

In response to an inquiry from Vice Chairman Pagnusat, Director of Planning Dorch discussed the Planning Commission's options regarding the carports. In this case, the final decision will be made by the City Council so the Planning Commission should make a recommendation.

Chairwoman Moore asked specifically for Planning Commission comments on the number of units and whether or not to require carports, as well as general comments on the project.

Commissioner Dutra said that he liked the project and agrees with eighteen units. He agreed with staff's recommendation to delete the carports. He expressed his opinion that the carports would detract from the appearance of the buildings and would also reduce light.

Commissioner Mulligan said that he liked the project, but was still unsure whether or not to approve eighteen or seventeen units.

Commissioner McClelland stated a preference for eighteen units. She stated agreement for staff's recommendation to delete the carports.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat stated also stated a preference for eighteen units and deleting the carports. He complimented the applicant and architect on their past projects and said that their reputation speaks for itself.

Chairwoman Moore complimented the inclusion of a common open area in the project seeing it as great feature for children. She agreed with the project as proposed at eighteen units and would definitely recommend against adding a nineteenth unit. Regarding carports, they are beneficial when unloading children and groceries, etc. However, she agreed with eliminating them because of the number of one-bedroom units in this project with children less likely. She also complimented the applicant and architect on past work in Cotati.

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend eighteen units and to eliminate the carports.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner McClelland, Director of Planning Dorch said that the carport issue will be decided by the City Council. The issue will not need to be referred back to the Design Review Committee.

It was moved by Vice Chairman Pagnusat to approve a General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential; a Rezoning from R-2 (10 units per acre) to R-3:PUD (15 units per acre:Planned Unit Development); Design Review; Growth Management; and a Negative Declaration to allow the construction of an 18-unit multifamily residential project on a site comprising approximately one acre located at 789 East Cotati Avenue (Willow Glen), subject to the suggested conditions of approval and Findings of Fact, and deleting the requirement for carports (as stated in condition #10). Second by Commissioner McClelland.

Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

1. Drainage design shall comply with the Agency’s Flood Control Design Criteria.

RANCHO ADOBE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

2. All permits required by this department (fire hydrants, underground water lines, etc.) shall be applied for and paid for before ANY work is started. Failure to do so may result in a stop work order being placed on the project.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

3. Sprinkle all construction areas with water (recycled when possible) at least twice a day, during excavation and other ground-preparing operations, to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Wetting could reduce particulate (dust) emissions by up to 50 percent.
4. Cover stockpiles of sand, soil, and similar materials, or surround them with windbreaks. This measure will substantially reduce wind erosion of stockpiled materials during construction, reducing the potential of the project to contribute suspended particulate (dust) concentrations when the wind exceeds 10 miles per hour.
5. Cover trucks hauling dirt and debris to reduce spillage onto paved surfaces.
6. Sweep up dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter through vehicle movement over those surfaces.
7. In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities would be suspended for a period to be determined by a City-approved archaeologist to allow for adequate inspection, recommendation, and retrieval, if appropriate.

Deleted: 9. The number of units shall be reduced from 18 to 17 units.

10. The carports located beside Buildings B and C shall be removed.

11. In accordance with the House-In-Lieu fee established by ordinance within the City of Cotati, a minimum of three units shall be included in the City of Cotati Affordable Housing Program.

CITY ENGINEER

8. Submit a soils report prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer.

9. The drainage plan shall be referred to the Sonoma County Water Agency.

10. The grading and improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City

Engineer. Plans shall include undergrounding of overhead lines.

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. A complete and detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared. These plans shall include, but not be limited to, addressing the following:

• 50% shading of the parking lot area;
• Installation of vines to soften the appearance of the trash enclosures.
• Installation of ornamental shrubs at the rear and side elevations of the garages to soften the appearance of those structures.
• Installation of ornamental shrubs along the westerly property line to screen the parking lot on the adjoining property.
• An inviting entry to the common open space area as well as appropriate shade trees in that area.
• Preparation of color and material samples for all structures.

Director of Planning Dorch presented the staff report and recommended approval of the application subject to the suggested conditions. He then responded to questions from the Planning Commission.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat requested and received clarification on the relationship between the General Plan designation and the Zoning. He was concerned about the sanctity of zoning. Director of Planning Dorch clarified, however, that the issue is more the sanctity of the General Plan that establishes future land use designations. He pointed out that a lengthy public hearing process took place before designating this property for half-acre lots.

Chairwoman Moore invited the applicant to make a presentation.

Greg Hurd, Carlenzoli and Associates, represented the application. He said that there would be no problem adjusting the widths of the lots in the cul-de-sac to meet minimum standards. They also agreed with staff's suggestions about the meandering sidewalk and planter strip.

Mr. Hurd said that they are proposing a 28-foot wide street with curb & gutter on one side and paving with a roadside ditch on the other side. They intend to build three-quarters of the street. The burden of constructing the remainder of the street would then be on the Coleman property to the south when it develops. The City Engineer's condition no. 14.c requires a 32-foot wide street, however, the staff recommendation is for 28-feet.

Concerning the City Engineer's condition no. 20 stating that no lot-to-lot drainage is allowed, Mr. Hurd said that the statement is generic and he intends to have lot to lot drainage through a conduit system. Their proposed system will provide an improved drainage system for the Cypress Knolls Subdivision (Lund Hill Lane) to the north.

Mr. Hurd confirmed that there will be no construction on slopes in excess of 10%. He clarified that their rezoning request is for R-R:PUD to allow some flexibility in setbacks, etc. Director of Planning Dorch clarified in later discussion that there is no PUD required for this project. The application did not include a PUD request with associated fees, and a PUD overlay is not needed.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Mulligan, Mr. Hurd said that there will be no necessity for a sewer lift station. They intend to extend the existing City sewer line in Cypress Avenue that currently ends at the Cypress Knolls Subdivision. He provided some further insight into why they are proposing the construction of only a portion of the street.

Commissioner McClelland requested and received clarification on the location and zoning of the Coleman property that was mentioned.

Regarding proposed lots 6, 7 & 8, Chairwoman Moore asked about the rear yard setbacks. Mr. Hurd responded that they are proposing a 35-foot rear setback but said that it could be increased if they are required to do so. The building site is limited by the slope which increases towards the east.

In response to Commissioner Mulligan, Director of Planning Dorch said that these lots would be eligible to apply for granny units, but that they could also not be constructed within the 10% slope area. He did not see a potential for granny units on lots 7 & 8 because of the slope.

Maggie Harryman, 8780 Cypress, the property owner, responded to a question from Commissioner Dutra. She stated that they have no definite plans at this time regarding where to place their new home. The timeframe for development is also uncertain other than installation of the public improvements that will occur within two years of final map approval.

Chairwoman Moore opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

Director of Planning Dorch directed the Planning Commission's attention to correspondence received regarding this application.

Cindy Steffy, 8425 Honor Place, distributed photographs to illustrate the impact that the rezoning would have on her property. She said that she has no objection to homes being built on the property but objects to the rezoning. Although she always knew that the property would develop at some point in the future, she always believed that it would be one acre lots. She referred to and agreed with Vice Chairman Pagnusat's comment about the sanctity of zoning. She expressed the opinion that there needs to be protection provided for the existing resident's quality of life. Her primary living space is oriented towards the subject property and she is concerned with loss of privacy and loss of view.

Joanne Raccanello, 8421 Honor Place, stated her opposition to the rezoning and said that she agrees with the comments of the previous speaker and is also concerned about loss of privacy. She expressed concern about storm drainage stating that water now enters her property in the winter.

She said that she was unclear on where the new houses would actually sit on the lots because of the slope.

Greg Brennan, 8845 Lund Hill Lane, stated his support for the subdivision. He stated his understanding that in order to maintain open space between the various the cities, development needs to occur within the City boundaries. He also stated support for the recommended narrower street. Regarding comments about sanctity of zoning, he pointed out that the Lasker Knolls project to the east of this site was required to rezone in order to develop at a single-family density. He stated an understanding of the reality of fill development. He recommended approval of the subdivision.

Patricia Waters, 8844 Cypress Avenue, said that she has lived at her current address for 23 years. She said that she was representing Connie Coleman who owns the land just south of the Harryman property. She read a letter from Connie Colemen into the record that states opposition to the rezoning. The letter also states that Ms. Coleman has no intention to ever develop her land and supports retaining the rural environment. Further, development to the east and north of her land has caused a decrease in native wildlife over the years. She did not oppose development of one-acre lots, but opposes a rezoning to allow one-half acre lots.

Jeff Morgan, 8823 Lund Hill Lane, said that he does not support the Harryman's application for rezoning and alleged that the Harryman's told him recently that they had no plans for the property. He said that he is not opposed to growth, but opposes the half-acre lots. Particularly he was opposed to the three lots proposed for the east end of the property that will significantly impact surrounding properties. He was concerned with increased traffic on Cypress Avenue and increased population. He agreed with the concerns about changes to the natural surroundings, particularly a nearby grove of eucalyptus trees to the north of the Harryman site that will be impacted by the construction of new homes. He also agreed with the concern about loss of wildlife stating that foxes, jackrabbits, and all sorts of birds are currently in the vicinity. He also stated concern about drainage and said that his property currently receives a significant amount of water from this property in the winter. The addition of landscaping and irrigation systems on the project site could cause him a year-round problem. He stated concerns about increased noise levels and pollution.

Don Steffy, 8425 Honor Place, stated his disagreement with an earlier comment that the need for in-fill development supports rezoning this property. He opposed the rezoning and the resulting increase in density. He reiterated his wife's concern about loss of view. He stated a concern about drainage and soil erosion.

Marie Rice, 8873 Cypress Avenue, said that she has lived in Cotati for 62 years. She opposed the rezoning and referred to her letter that states her concerns.

Ide Matteo, 8841 Lund Hill Lane, expressed support for the rezoning stating her opinion that half-acre lots are reasonable.

Paul Foti, 7883 Old Redwood Highway, stated his understanding of the consensus on public sentiment opposing the rezoning. He agreed with the need to protect the existing residents and urged the Planning Commission to give careful consideration to the rezoning request.

Kristen Hince, 8704 Cypress Avenue, stated her wholehearted support for the Harryman's application. She said that her home is on a half-acre lot surrounded by other houses and they have no problems with privacy.

Chairwoman Moore closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Commissioner McClelland requested and received clarification from the project engineer on the issue of drainage because so many people had expressed concern about water flowing to their properties. Overall, the drainage situation will be improved by eliminating sheet flow and diverting water to a controlled conduit system.

Mr. Hurd, in response to visual concerns expressed by the neighbors, said that the rear building setback line can be increased from its current 35 feet and height restrictions could be imposed.

Chairwoman Moore stated that there is a precedent for restricting building heights to one story where neighbors would be negatively impacted by two story buildngs.

Commissioner Mulligan said that he likes the project and would like to see it developed. He was, however, concerned by visual impacts to the Hunter's Ridge residents. He suggested approval subject to the conditions that the heights of buildings on lots 6, 7 and 8 be limited to one-story with 100-foot setbacks, and no second dwelling units.

Commissioner McClelland agreed with the suggestion for a one-story height restriction on lots 6, 7 and 8. Because of the slope, she did not see the potential for granny units on lots 7 & 8. She said that zoning is very important, but things change. She agreed with the concept of keeping green space between the cities by doing infill projects within the City. She stated her opinion that half-acre lots are still substantial lots. She was in support of the proposal for eight lots with the height restriction to one-story on lots 6, 7 & 8.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat said that he agreed with increased setback and the height restrictions on lots 6, 7 & 8. Although the rezoning was the part of this application that he was the most concerned about, he recalled that there were many public hearings on the General Plan and the land use designation was decided not only by City Council, but by all of the public input. He agreed with standing by the decision that was made with the adoption of the General Plan to increase the density for this property.

In response to an inquiry from Vice Chairman Pagnusat, Director of Planning Dorch said that a suggested condition of approval can be added to this project that restricts the setbacks and building heights for lots 6, 7 & 8 with a requirement for notations on the subdivision map. The requirement could also be included as a deed restriction on the affected lots and could be included in CC&Rs.

Commissioner Dutra stated that he is also in favor of the rezoning. He pointed out that if this property is rezoned, the property could be divided into ten lots. He saw it as a show of good faith that the applicant is only requesting eight lots. He commended the applicants on their efforts towards improving the drainage in the area. Concerning the possibility of restricting building heights, he was not necessarily in favor believing that the units could be monitored through the building process.

Chairwoman Moore stated support of the rezoning with sensitivity to the surrounding properties. She was supportive of the height restriction to one-story on lots 6, 7 & 8, especially since there is a precedent for doing so. She pointed out that the decision was made during the General Plan Update to feather the density in this area.

It was moved by Commissioner Mulligan to approve a Rezoning from A-R (1 unit per acre) to R-R (2 units per acre); a Tentative Map subdividing a 5.0 acre parcel into eight (8) residential lots; and a Negative Declaration at 8780 Cypress Avenue (Cypress Meadows Subdivision) subject to the recommended conditions of approval including a requirement for an increased setback to 100 feet and a height restriction to one story on lots 6, 7 & 8. Second by Vice Chairman Pagnusat.

Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

1. Drainage design shall comply with the Agency’s Flood Control Design Criteria.

2. All permits required by this department (fire hydrants, underground water lines, etc.) shall be applied for and paid for before ANY work is started. Failure to do so may result in a stop work order being placed on the project.

3. There shall be no building on slopes of ten percent (10%) or greater.

4. The street frontage for lots six and seven be either realigned to increase the frontage to forty feet or install a dual access driveway for the two lots.

5. Sprinkle all construction areas with water (recycled when possible) at least twice a day, during excavation and other ground-preparing operations, to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Wetting could reduce particulate (dust) emissions by up to 50 percent.

6. Cover stockpiles of sand, soil, and similar materials, or surround them with windbreaks. This measure will substantially reduce wind erosion of stockpiled materials during construction, reducing the potential of the project to contribute suspended particulate (dust) concentrations when the wind exceeds 10 miles per hour.

7. Cover trucks hauling dirt and debris to reduce spillage onto paved surfaces.

8. Sweep up dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter through vehicle movement over those surfaces.

9. In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities would be suspended for a period to be determined by a City-approved archaeologist to allow for adequate inspection, recommendation, and retrieval, if appropriate.

10. A five foot planting strip shall be located between the sidewalk and the street.

11. Street names shall be determined by the City Council according to the City policy of naming streets after former Cotati residents of note.

12. Houses shall be plumbed for solar water heating.

13. Fireplaces shall meet the requirements of either the EPA or the State of Oregon for emissions.

14. Submit grading and improvement plans for review and approval of City Engineer. The plans shall include, but not be limited to:

a). Curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights in accordance with City standards.

b). Minimum sewer main pipe diameter shall be 8 inches.

d). Submit details of individual, private sewage lift stations. Lift stations shall be located completely within private property and not on public right-of-way or PUE.

e). Cypress Avenue shall be designed for T.I.=7.0. Cypress Avenue shall be reconstructed for half width of property frontage. The other half shall be overlaid with 2-inches of AC after the appropriate preparatory work (such as digout and repairs).

f). Drainage plans shall be referred to the Sonoma County Water Agency for review.

g). Storm drain system for Cypress Meadows Way.

15. Submit final map, easement documents, recent preliminary title report, and closure calculations for review and approval of City Engineer.

16. Enter into subdivision improvement agreement and submittal of bonds for the improvements.

17. Submittal of soils report prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer is required.

18. Submit private storm drain maintenance agreement for the affected lots for review and approval of City Engineer and City Attorney. Private storm drain agreement shall be recorded immediately after recording of Final Map.

19. Review and approval grading and drainage plans by City Engineer, Planning Director and Sonoma County Water Agency.

20. No lot-to-lot drainage is allowed.

21. Review and approval of erosion control plans is required.

22. Submittal of separate grading bond for the grading and erosion control costs may be substituted in lieu of the improvement bonds for grading purposes only and as approved by the City Engineer.

23. The issuance of the encroachment permit shall constitute authorization to proceed with construction of public improvements.

24. Review and approval of improvement plans, final map approval, subdivision improvement agreement execution.

Senior Planner Lustig presented the staff report. In addition to regulating telecommunication facilities, the ordinance also addresses other facilities such as transformers in front of subdivisions. This ordinance requires undergrounding.

Senior Planner Lustig then responded to questions from the Planning Commission. Although cable box facilities is not specifically mentioned, the ordinance applies to any facility that’s purpose is to transmit information. The Planning Commission will still review all applications that they have reviewed in the past. This ordinance originated with the City of Rohnert Park that obtained it from the City of Richmond. Senior Planner Lustig stated her belief that the City of Richmond researched what types of facilities have to be permitted per FCC regulations (i.e.: ham radio operators, etc.). The ordinance is being reviewed by our City Attorney to find out whether or not the language is needed.

Chairwoman Moore, concerning the requirement that poles blend into their surroundings, suggested an indian motif to match what is downtown. Senior Planner Lustig responded that there is discretion on the part of the Planning Commission on the designs. She suggested that possibly some recommendations could be included in the ordinance. Some in other areas look like fake trees.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Dutra, Senior Planner Lustig discussed the locations of existing facilities and said that the ordinance would require that applicants for telecommunications facilities pursue siting on public facilities. If the City is unable to meet their needs, then they can pursue siting on private industrial properties.

Director of Planning Dorch compared monopoles to billboards in that they affect the public viewscape. If there is going to be a visual blight, then there should be some compensation back to the public.

Commissioner McClelland moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 01-01 recommending to City Council that Ordinance No. 713 adding a new Chapter 17.41 to the Municipal Code pertaining to communication facilities be adopted to assist in the implementation of the City of Cotati General Plan. Second by Chairwoman Moore.

Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

Chairwoman Moore stepped down due to a conflict of interest.

The Planning Commission briefly discussed the area of abandonment and provided an overview of the concept for the benefit of the new commissioners.

It was moved by Commissioner Dutra adopting Resolution No. PC 01-02 adopting findings of General Plan consistency for the abandonment of Park Avenue. Second by Vice Chairman Pagnusat.

Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 1 (Moore)

Director of Planning Dorch requested that the Planning Commissioners who will be attending the upcoming Planner's Institute in Monterey give some thought to carpooling and to let him know what their plans are for transportation.

Chairwoman Moore requested that staff provide a schedule for Planning Commission meetings during April so that the commissioners can arrange their calendars.

Chairwoman Moore adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.